STABLE GOVERNMENT

Stable government?  The very phrase is an 'oxymoron - that is, a phrase which is inherently contradictory in nature.  One, a government can never be 'stable' and if it is 'stable', it cannot govern!  Before, during and after every election, the constant refrain of all our political 'dealers' - oops sorry leaders is that A.....B.....C party will provide a 'stable' government.

The word stable has a table in it.  If a table has four legs, it is normally considered to be stable.  Now if one adds many more legs to the table, does it add to the stability of the table?  Let us take this analogy a bit further.  A government formed by one party used to be 'stable' in the days gone by.  However, these days, if you add many parties to the coalition, does it make the combine a stable one?  One need not possess any intelligence to answer this question.

Then, a 'stable' has other connotations too. A stable is a place where horses are kept, or bred.  This leads us in a totally different direction.  If horses live in a stable, then if our political parties have to indulge in some 'horse-trading' to provide a stable government, where is the harm?  Moreover, a stable is horses, not for donkeys.  But, as politics is the art of the impossible, horses and donkeys 'horse around' together in a bid to provide a 'stable' government.  Only by horse-trading, can you find 'horses for courses'.  Talking of a 'stable',  it usually stinks - and does a politically '(un)stable' government.  Moreover, before and after horse-trading, there is the usual instability, which in turn, leads to stability.  Readers might find it all a it confusing, but it is actually very simple.  

If for a moment, we consider that horses were to revolt against the misuse and politicisation of a 'stable' and demand that houses of other animals be also considered to provide an analogy, why not take up this issue as well?

Take a 'kennel'.  Dogs are supposed to live in a 'kennel'.  A politician's life is a dog's one - but the similarities end there.  Even if we agree to a 'kennel' government, 'dog trading' and 'bitch-trading'?  Perish the thought sir.  The gender war will begin.  

Imagine a 'pen' government.  But then, pigs live in a 'sty'.  If you term a government, 'pen' government, then all our leaders become pigs - which of course, they are anyway, you might say.  There is another issue.  Pig is normally associated with 'male chauvinism'.  So what happens to the women leaders?  So, we have to drop this idea too.

How about a 'den' government?  Dens are for lions, but the self-proclaimed 'lion' from Maharashtra may object to it.  He might find it a different 'Bal' game.  Then, most of our leaders are not even lions in their own dens.  Moreover, these days lions are a rare and endangered species.  So, this too has to be left alone.

One can go on and on -  with such 'wild' and 'pet' thoughts.  Animal instincts if you please.  But then, no one will let me form the government, or make me the Prime Minister?  So why bother for 'stable' thoughts?

***