No human endeavour quite tests the meaning of words like politics. Take for instance, stable; a word which has seen the light of day rather too often for my liking over the last few days. The OED defines stable as something firmly fixed or established; not likely to move.
Look up strong and you’ll find listed, among others, able to resist, healthy, capable of exerting great force, powerful.
Under loser, however – as in those relegated to second or third place – phrases such as beaten in competition, replaced by and deprived appear.
That all seems rather incongruous to me.
Democracy also has an interesting meaning – a government by the whole population, usually through elected representatives.
The last time I checked we lived in a democracy – a far from perfect one, certainly - but still, a democracy where the party that secures the largest number of elected representative wins, and forms the government of the day.
Anything that stands in the way of that – be it ceremonial self sacrifice or the protestations of a Barking folk singer – stands in the way of the will of the people, something the detractors would so desperately claim ownership of.
So until we have the much-lauded new politics we’re supposed to be getting, those who lost should let those who won find a way to govern. Anything less would be corrupt, as in morally depraved and open to or involving bribery or other dishonest practices.