When you admit that you have lied you are being honest. When you confess to dishonesty that is integrity. When you take a position and then contradict it, this is flexibility. When you abuse somebody in one instance and praise him or her in another instance that is maturity. Politics, they say, is the art of anything being possible, so the definition of what is true and what is false is all on the principle of “there is no last word in this field.” Under the realm of politics, definition of democracy, freedom of expression, principled stands and electoral power have all become so nebulous that nearly everything that any politician says can be accommodated, rejected, applauded and dismissed with gay abandon. Nowhere are these 40 shades of grey more visible than in the presidential contest in the world’s strongest democracy, the United States of America. While Donald Trump keeps delivering shocks with audacity, Hillary Clinton keeps on creating petty hide and seek games to make Americans feel aghast about their choices of the future leadership of the superpower. Trump’s brand of brash exhibition of the loud and ‘honest’ man who is what he is has gone too far. Initially, this was a deliberate strategy to capitalise on the resentment of the less-educated, unemployed and angry Americans, and to strike a contrast against an educated but non-transparent Clinton. And it worked for quite some time. But with the passage of time the loose tongue has now become a victim of verbal diarrhea with statements that Trump has to own up, but still dismiss as being private, meaningless banter. His audio tape years ago about abusing women is probably going to seal his chances of winning the elections as it has encouraged the media to unveil his blatant sexist behaviour. It all started with cheap populism statements like banning Muslims and building a wall on the Mexican border in an attempt to win over a sizable voter segment that was upset over lack of job opportunities. His statements start as black and white, and then are given many shades to make them look true. Take his stance on banning Muslims. Initially, it was a full and complete ban on all Muslims; later, it was described as a ban that excluded citizens, members of the US military, and Trump’s good friends. These days, it’s often described as a ban on Muslims and people coming from countries with a history of terrorism, which is more than a third of the world, including major US allies like France. On building a wall and deporting immigrants Trump’s versions have become comical. Trump’s campaign began with a promise to build a wall across the United States’ southern border and deport the country’s 11 million undocumented immigrants, and later it changed to deporting of all undocumented immigrants but bringing the “good” ones back legally. Lately, he has talked about citizenship procedures and office structures to sort out who would be allowed back. With such an ideal candidate to punch Clinton should have sailed through in the election. However, despite winning primaries and opinion polls, 60 percent of Americans think she cannot be trusted. Many say that Hillary Clinton is proving herself to be more delusionary than visionary. She is the “contradiction candidate.” Looking at Clinton’s continuous evasive behaviour it is no wonder that in a Gallup poll, many voters associate these words with her: “dishonest, liar, don’t trust her, poor character.” Her use of private email server was first avoided and evaded by her and then admitted but never clarified. Clinton’s stance on curbing big money and Wall Street have been used by Trump and critics to point out that if her campaign is funded by the very same companies how she can ever claim of curbing them. Her collapse during a recent convention due to an attack of pneumonia added to her image of being a non-transparent, non-open person who is not what she says she is. And yet in a few weeks, she will probably become the first female president in the history of America. So is politics all over the world a choice between evil and lesser evil? Is politics about who is a liar and who is honest or who is lying well and who is lying non-politically? Is politics about who can serve the public well or about who can hoodwink the public better? From what is going on around the world and in our country it seems that politics is a contest of who converts black into grey so well that people start believing that grey is white. While in the west shades of grey are being accepted, in Pakistan, the expectation is that no such pretence is required and black is white. For decades, politicians have been caught lying blatantly, and have successfully evaded it by not defending or explaining or changing statements but declaring that “if we are lying so are those who are saying we are lying.” Their rationale is if we are corrupt so are others, if we evade tax when in government the previous government also did the same. Their justification is that if we have abused positions and offices for personal and business use who has not. When the Auditor General report stated that the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government had dished out Rs 480 billion to settle circular debt without a pre-audit, and the debt was still not settled, we were reminded by the PML-N leaders that the Pakistan People’s Party also did a Rs 250 billion rental power embezzlement. When the performance of PIA and other state institutions is discussed, they immediately show how shady deals and nepotism also existed in the previous governments. Thus the conclusion is that if everybody does it, it is a norm; it is fine; it is acceptable; it is lawful; it is right. But it is not right and not legal and not acceptable because the consequences were and will be terrible for the nation. Pakistan has gone down economically, politically and socially; we are the worst performing country in South Asia, and it is this deliberate and forced whitening of black policies, laws and regulations that gives a licence to politicians to create this sentiment of that is how it has been and that is how it will be forever. Trump’s own party people have started standing up to his verbal excesses, and it is time for saner voices in our political parties to stand up and refuse to be a party to this institutionalisation of crime. As Frederic Bastiat sums it up succinctly: “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorises it and a moral code that glorifies it”. The writer is a columnist and analyst and can be reached at andleeb.abbas1@gmail.com