The Role of Innocence in Politics

In life, one ought to choose a framework of action that allows one to revel in the victories therein and also genuinely feel the sting of losses. One ought not to choose a framework of action where one transcends the losses and victories, where all narrative tracks and events are rendered meaningless. This applies also to politics, where people transcend their political duties, roles and actions all too often, and moreover do not feel accountable when they win or lose, despite the wider consequences to society of that. 

Now what causes the meaningless transcendence I am thinking of here? The cause is not a particularly intense victory or a particularly stinging defeat. These only compel actors to act even better, even stronger and in even more effective ways towards bringing about future victories. What causes meaningless transcendence is the understanding or foresight of the rules of the game. When this happens, one transcends something that seemed as meaningful as even one’s motherland.

There are those who ought to choose vast frameworks of action, perhaps even unreasonable ones on some counts. They ought to have high ambitions, so high that they do not even know the rules of the games in which they are active, but nor does much of anyone else. Politically speaking also this is valid. To choose political projects that are vast, that do not allow for meaningless transcendence and the ensuing crisis, is, for some, the most meaningful way.

What does it mean to choose a vast framework of action? It is, in order not to transcend, to choose a framework where the rules of the game are not even clear.  The choice to be political itself is, for some, such a framework: there being no rules, or at least there being much unpredictability, in politics. But as soon as one begins to see the summit of politics as a presidency or prime minister’s position, some of the flavor of the game is nullified. So, one must go even vaster, to something even more non-defined. 

And when one does go this vast, then one is innocent. How so? One’s goals are so vast, the victory and defeat so ‘nondescript’ from one’s position, that one simply does not have a course of action lying in wait. There are no rules that one can see and apply. Rather, one spends time learning the rules. But this is different from a rule-less political action, because there are rules, only that they have yet to be learned or symbolized by oneself and by wider society. The rules are in potential form, waiting to be actualized and followed, in a sense.

This might mean different things for different actors. This is not a thought lending support to a 'chess-piece' type innocent actor in a wider political party. But it is through the innocent political actor that a wider political horizon is disclosed for all. This could be a way that we exit the current problems we find with the political realm, particularly the problem of lack of accountability among political leaders who have transcended losses and victories.