The virtue of an adversarial political system is that the truth reveals itself, even if often with bad intent. The recent spat between the prime minister and L.K. Advani over their respective political weaknesses is a classic case of two leaders holding a mirror to each other, even as they fail to reflect on their own sins. It is not even-handedness, but plain truth to say that both are onto something.

Any sophisticated understanding of politics must not hold politicians up to empty standards of idealism or unachievable coherence. Politics is messy, full of quotidian compromises and deference to reality. The difference between a leader and an ordinary self-serving politician is the ends which their compromises serve. In the case of leaders, the compromises are with an eye to maintaining the integrity of the system as a whole; the ethic of responsibility is to negotiate the wellbeing of the system even if it entails personal compromises. Judged by this standard, the prime minister’s performance has been astonishingly enervating and self-serving. The most telling symptom of this is the fact that he underperformed on the criterion of integrity. Much has been made of his personal financial integrity. But in political terms this idea of integrity is of secondary relevance. A deeper idea of integrity, more relevant to politics, is the willingness of a politician to stand for something, to ensure that basic values are not sacrificed on the altar of expediency, to broker compromises that lead to performance, not merely power. The PM’s tenure did not show minimal integrity and performance in this sense.

... contd.