The different shades of politics

Politics has often been tagged as a dirty game. The reason for this is evident for all to see. It tends to bring out the dark side of people who ordinarily appear or present themselves to be decent. At some point anyone involved in politics has to get his hands dirty directly or indirectly via a subordinate.

The latter case is usually to give the principal the excuse of deniability. It is usually standard practice when in order to get certain things done, unlawful acts have to be carried out which the principal cannot be associated with. Hence the subordinate becomes the sacrificial lamb or fair game in the ensuing blow back.

At a nationalistic level , one would think that irrespective of which ever side of the aisle a politician is , the underlying objective should be whatever is in the best interest of the citizenry or the country. This does not appear to be the case as it appears that the political class only have one goal which is to grab or remain in power by all means.

How else does one explain a political figure wishing that his opponents do not do well so that he can grab power? Does he not realize that such line of thought is evil and sadistic? The implication of harbouring such thoughts is that he doesn't wish the citizens well because it is they that bear the brunt of failures or non-performance by governments.

If the usual bad mouthing and amplification of failures of supposed political opponents were to be outlawed with the sole focus of campaigns being only on the plans or manifestos of those vying for political office you'd see how bereft of substance many prospective candidates are.

It is now a norm for the opposition to never find or see anything worthwhile or good the incumbent government has done. It must just oppose any and everything the government plans to do even if it will be beneficial to the citizenry, after all it must live up to its name of being the opposition.

Thus if for any reason the opposition comes out to publicly commend the incumbent, it is often seen by the citizenry that the opposition had no other choice but to tow that line of action else it would have earned itself the anger and harsh criticism from the citizenry.

Opposition ought not to be opposing for the sake of it, rather it should be offering a better way of getting things done or fighting against policies or activities that are detrimental to the collective. There should even be collaboration between those on opposing sides when there are activities which clearly will benefit the collective need to be done.

Unfortunately more often than not the opposition and incumbent parties are often engrossed in a cat and mouse game of scheming and counter scheming. The side with more tricks up its sleeves usually emergences victorious with no remorse as to the casualties which are usually the citizens of these often needless games.

We have seen instances where these games are taken to the extreme such that heinous crimes such as sponsoring terrorist activities are done to sway public sentiment against the ruling party by the opposition . There have even been even more bizarre cases where the ruling party itself orchestrates these acts to sway public sentiment in their favour so as to push through legislation that is in its interest at the detriment of the citizens or public. There's indeed no limits for the political class in achieving their self serving interests even if it means impoverishing the citizens they are meant to serve and protect.

The global political arena is not so different as it is dominated by individuals who can best be described as seeking to protect their interests even though clothed in nationalistic attires. These individuals have one goal, acquiring more resources via any means available.

This selfish interest explains why after decades of accord after accord, the wealthy and developed nations who are the principal actors in global emissions continue to foot drag in taking decisive and meaningful action to curb their emissions as well as support developing nations who largely bear the brunt of climate change. Indeed for these nations it is not humanity first else they would have acted differently.

The era of colonial outposts may be gone but it only paved way for colonialism via proxy or neo colonialism. Countless nations are today embroiled in crisis because of the interests of foreign powers in the natural resources of such countries.

They are plagued by wars sponsored by these powers so that they can have unbridled or cheap access to their resources. Where these powers choose to allow such nations have a semblance of peace, there's usually something they demand in return. Thus many nations are only independent on paper but the reality is that they are still enslaved to their colonial masters in one way or another. How else do you explain the currency of a nation that claims to be independent being printed by its 'former' colonial master with royalties being paid for the natural resources it produces?

Indeed when it comes to international politics more often than not nothing is given for free even aid during natural disasters usually comes with a price tag which isn't allowed to make its way to the public domain.

Only time and a strong desire for emancipation will tell if these enslaved nations will be able to break free from the chains with which they have been bound by the powers that be.

Thank you for reading.