Need to deliberate on morality & politics

Since ancient times, philosophers, theologians and political actors have pondered the relationship between the moral realm and the political realm. Complicating the long debate over the intersection of morality and politics are diverse conceptions of fundamental concepts: right and good, justice and equality, personal liberty and public interest.

Divisions abound, also, about whether politics should be held to a higher moral standard at all, or whether, instead, pragmatic considerations or realpolitik should be the final word. Perhaps the two poles are represented most conspicuously by Aristotle and Machiavelli. For Aristotle, the proper aim of politics is moral virtue: "Politics takes the greatest care in making the citizens to be of a certain sort, namely good and capable of noble actions." The science of politics includes more than drafting good laws and institutions, since the city-state must create a system of moral education for its citizens.

In marked contrast, Machiavelli's prince exalted pragmatism over morality, the maintenance of power over the pursuit of justice. He instructed that "a prince, and especially a new prince, cannot observe all those things which are considered good in men, being often obliged, in order to maintain the state, to act against faith, against charity, against humanity, and against religion."

One may agree with Aristotle or sail with the other construct of life. The discourse seems to have changed completely of late even in the case of Machiavelli. Rulers seek blind faith among followers. This political faith is all too important. The State is judging people by this new yardstick. Everyone is measured accordingly with a political barometer. A particular branding is done and people have to live with it. It is not just the ruling parties that are doing so, but even the opposition. It is a kind of choicelessness that is prevailing in society.

All agree that democracy is in peril. There are democracies in peril around the world. Whether or not we are going to reverse these trends depends a lot on whether people believe in democracy and whether they fight to support and sustain it. How does this happen? It's all about organising. But it's not just about organising. It's about organising by people who believe in protecting democracy. All those people have to come forward pushing aside all other considerations – of religion, region, caste, ideology, social standing and status etc. Those who believe in organising people or managing people on a 'social engineering basis' to fight elections know that when people organise themselves, their power crumbles.

There is a problem with people coming together on their own despite their firm belief in democracy with an accompaniment of morality and its cousins like ethics etc. They think that people on the other side of us in these debates have nefarious motives. People keenly observe where one stands on the political spectrum. This is the difference between the ruler or a politician and his subjects. He intends to align everyone in his favour for electoral gains whereas the voters (the ones who believe in democracy and its processes) don't want to refurbish their democracy as much. Whom shall we blame in this context? The politician or the voter? Whose responsibility is greater in democratic societies? Shall we ponder?