IDEOLOGIES AND PRINCIPLES IN POLITICS

I abhor those politicians who by nature are habitual turncoats and who do not know either the meaning of an ideology or a principle even if it bit them on the nose. To compound an already demeaning act, they have the audacity to claim that all political decisions taken by them are for the good of the country. It beggars belief to see these so called politicians stoop so low in trying to justify what is unjustifiable. One in doing a 360 degree-turn, has astonishingly decided that what was unacceptable for him in 2009 has become palatable in 2017. Has he seen the light or was the sun too bright? They should all resign now because they were elected under the banner of a different political party supported by the votes of these electors. So I will conclude on this sad state of gutter politics by urging all electors immaterial of their political allegiance to give them a salutary lesson BY NOT VOTING FOR THEM at the next general elections. Perhaps that this will give a clear warning to all potential turncoats in the future.
Next is the mushrooming of political parties. No doubt that it is good for democracy because it gives the electors a wider choice, but what is amazing is that anyone who decides to form a new political party for whatever reasons automatically becomes the leader. Why is that? Are they superior in intelligence, do they have more political nous than the others, are they natural leaders, do they have that extra quality or was it because they were the instigator of the move? It would be enlightening to hear the views of these self-appointed leaders. If you look back at the history of newly formed political parties in the recent past, you will observe the same phenomenon. I will only quote an example to prove my point. Before the last general elections, a new political party was formed after splitting up from a mainstream political party and the prime mover behind that group automatically became the leader. Shades of when I was a kid, the guy who owns the football automatically became the captain of the team.
The current leader of the opposition and his team resigned from the government because they did not agree with certain important decisions made or taken whilst they were part of it. I can only congratulate him for being so highly principled but by the same token I need to ask the following question. Did he not know or agree or understood when the alliance of Layans lepep was formed or when they unexpectedly won the general elections hands down, that if ever SAJ should step down during his prime ministership, the next prime minister legally appointed would be the leader of the party who commanded the majority of parliamentarians in the national assembly at that given time. So why disagree with it now? Unless of course the initial objective of Layans Lepep was damage limitation against what was seen as an unbeatable adversary and such matters were never discussed. Perhaps he should let the population know about his principles in this case and what happened at the material time and give his side of the story from whence Layans Lepep was initially formed?  Conversely, if his objection is the way the whole procedure of transfer of power has been conducted and managed throughout, I would understand because the government despite having highly paid advisers in its midst, the whole operation appears to have been botched up, hence the number of protests. He has done well to stop the haemorrhaging from his party by the timely appointments of the opposition whip and the president of the public accounts committee. Perhaps he could tell the population if these appointments were made for political expediencies or did he choose the very best suited candidates amongst his team?