January 13, 2022
Before we can qualify and quantify a party leader’s virtues or ethical foundations, we need to determine what his or her goals are and what methods they are prepared to employ to achieve those goals.
It is not that goals and aims within the parameters of an ideology or not, are unimportant but they may or may not give us a thorough insight into the leader’s ethics and values in the same way methodology does.
Be that as it may, the methodology a politician is prepared to employ in pursuit of their aims tell us volumes about them.
However, those expecting us to give them our trust should, at least, deign to tell us what their ideology is. Sadly, this is lacking in both opposition parties. The elector should be acquainted with the ideology of each party without having to wait for an eventual revelation.
It is, however, understood that continual change of leadership coupled with continual change of heart can make that endeavour rather complex and complicated.
Ideology is the sine qua non of any political party which, together with their manifesto commitments, are the nets the parties cast to garner votes.
At present we have two opposition political parties that seem to waft from one election to another without deigning or being capable of telling us what their ideology is, perhaps because they do not know it themselves. Ideology should be foundational to any party.
It is possible that under their present respective leaderships, both opposition parties are so retarded that they have not yet got round to formulating an ideology. This, of course, is understandable especially taking into account the incredible political somersaults both leaders, have, respectively, had to undertake to get to where they are at present that can be truly mind boggling.
But to get back to the gist of the essay, clearly a person who aspires to achieve specific goals but is under no pressure to achieve such goals, is under no compulsion to sacrifice values and ethics, but this does not exonerate them from the obligation of expressing their ideology publicly if what they seek is public support.
On the other hand, a politician in a desperate race against time or in the throes of a consuming ambition or passion will surely be under certain constraints.
Publicising values, ethics and ideology should never be an encumbrance to achieving political goals. On the contrary. In the latter case the psychological pressure can become a coercive force that can control one’s life when abilities and qualities are no more than tools at the service of ambition when values and ethics intrinsically linked to each other, cease to be guides and moderating forces of one’s actions to become the obliging and malleable servants of a formidable devouring ego ready to give way to overriding ambition.
Ideological vacuousness brings with it, by necessity, misinformation, post truths, duplicity, misrepresentations and twisting of facts. All this as a superhuman and continuous effort to fill the vacuum left by the lack of ideology. They pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate with the continuous onslaught and harassment of the opponent in a vain hope to be seen as relevant. These are parties without substance and without initiatives taken on tow waiting for a cue from the opponent in order to pounce and convert anything and everything into carrion to feed on. This, in effect, is their political sustenance nothing else.