Each election brings out a long story of money changing hands, of loyalties being bought and sold like commodities in the open market, of betrayal of principles for personal gains, of going back on commitments almost by sunset the same day, and of crossing over and switching from one party to another, depending upon the weightage each commands and the prospects of power and privilege each holds.
It is even true to say that, despite the progress of science and of the process of enlightenment, ours is not a critical age, nor the age of reason and rationality. Rather, it is the age of cheap politics, of partisanship, nepotism and selfishness of the highest degree. For most of the evils in the social system, the responsibility is that of the politicians. When they lower the standards of conduct, their example proves infectious, and the fallout of dishonest practices is widespread and, of course, highly distressing.
It is futile to talk of principles and ideologies in such a dismal context. Ideologies are thrown to the winds at the slightest pressure or temptation. Alterations and adjustments seem to become necessary whenever the needs of power politics dictate such adaptation. Almost every issue has become political or is tainted with politics of some sort. In our schools, colleges and universities there is politics almost everywhere.
Admissions, studies, appointments of lecturers, selection of examiners and paper-setters, manipulation of examination results are all dictated by political considerations. Merit counts for little; expediency, which is just another name for subtle politics, governs most aspects of education.
This is indeed a pity because there should be no politics at all in the sphere of education, especially in the temples of learning. Politicians often take refuge behind the easy shelter of flexibility. There should be no rigidity, they argue. Ideals, they think, are not and must not be, absolute. The need for change is emphasised, not in the public interest but in their own. Politicians readily quote the scriptures, and our religious books, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Gita and even the Koran and the Bible, in defence of their actions.
Indeed, almost as a general rule, the impulse of the politician is to innovate and change, while the Society will tend toward restraint and conservation. Many possible conflicts of this type may therefore be imagined. Yet they must all be resolved since the Society cannot allow itself to become a source of friction or division within our species. Which gives a clue to the inevitable answer and draws attention to the importance of the Principle of Progress, and particularly the Principle 3.
Applying that Principle to this problem the Society will conclude that, whenever the Society or any part of its membership finds its debate with the political structures of our societies in danger of degenerating into forceful conflict, the well of uncertainty should be drawn upon.
Then any risk to the stability of our social order will be removed by the Society conceding the battlefield to its opponents. That should be the case even where concession results in damage to the Condition of the Dogma that requires the Society to maintain continuous growth in human knowledge, and not excluding harm which is so extensive that our knowledge stagnates or is actually diminished. However bleak the immediate prospect for the growth of our knowledge may be, the Society can legitimately contain itself in patience in the hope of better times to come, a position more fully argued and documented in the Essay on Life.
These are circumstances however, in which it would be proper for the Society to exert its full power and influence, short of precipitating an internecine confrontation, in an effort to maintain that Condition of the Dogma.
The Society will take a different view however, of any political action which threatens the survival of our species. Then the Society must not withdraw its opposition even at the risk of a forceful reaction by its opponents. It is difficult to imagine circumstances that might give rise to this possibility, but it is at least conceivable that a political, or perhaps some other, movement may arise that is dedicated to the destruction of humanity, or any extinction level proportion of it, or which adopts a course of action that must necessarily have that effect.
If such a suicidal movement emerges then the Society will have no choice other than to embark on whatever course of action is necessary to frustrate it in its purpose.
Consistent that is, with the ultimate survival of our species, which must always remain the overriding objective of any action taken by the Society.
Search to find a specific politics essay or browse from the list below: Impacts of the Iraq War The impact of the Iraq war on both the "war on terror" and the prospects for peace in the Middle East Introduction The reasons for the.
The world “politics” represents the diverse world of relationships, activities, behavior, orientation, views and communication links regarding government and governance. The main subject of the politics is the social (ethnic) group with its political organizations, institutions, movements and leaders.
Essay on The Politics of Language and The Language of Politics - Power and Ideology play a large role in how we perceive situations. Allahar and Cote () discuss that ideologies are emotionally charged beliefs and ideas that mediate between individuals and groups; on . Indian Politics refers to the activities of the political parties associated with the governance and administration of India at every level, viz. national, state, district and panchayat level. A Politician is person who is professionally involved in politics.
The reader will, recognise however, that in all the effort to clarify the view of the Society on the proper relationship between politicians and the Society, this Essay contains no element of moral judgement on politics in any of its many manifestations. "Politics" is an essay written by Ralph Waldo Emerson. It is part of his Essays: Second Series, published in A premier philosopher, poet and leader of American transcendentalism, he used this essay to belie his feelings on government, specifically American government.