The Wolves and the Shepherd

Drooling. The wolves are now girding the presidential seat. Their hearts are thumping in excitement on the smell and flavor of power; their gazes are filled with conspicuous lust on the prospect of great abundance. They tried to be calm, deliberate and restrained, but nonetheless their obsession and voracity are far from being hidden. The incumbent president has seen and felt their presence. They are not too far; even so… some are too close for comfort. He looked around and all he saw are his flock. He is a shepherd looking for a sheep dog to guard the flock he nurtured for years. There seems to be none,  not even evident is an alter-ego that genuinely shares his ways, his values and priorities. He thinks of staying on but there are rules to be followed. It was the rule of his forebears intentionally designed to cut the perpetuation of the bad shepherds, an assumption that contravenes regularity brought forth by the painful experience of the past. But it has a negative side, it also denies the perpetuation of the good shepherd. Now there is a dilemma. Will he leave his flock to the hungry wolves consonant with the rules pushed and institutionalized by his forebears  and let them be devoured one by one till there is none? Will he instead allow the change in the rules so that he may seek an affirmation to stay, on the strong belief that continuity is a critical catalyst for survival?

There is a view termed as “Consequentialism”, ... that the moral value of an act is judged by the value of its consequences.Traditional laws are based on moral values, so that the laws and rules should necessarily result to morally acceptable consequences, even if it is not always the case. A consequentialist however believes that if the act will result to the achievement of the intention, that is almost always for the general good and welfare, the means may deviate from the bar of morality and legitimacy. Such that, in the current predicament, if on the basis of the incumbent's judgement the rules would become a technical barrier against the continuity of the general good and welfare and the transition would do more harm, and in all likelihood would be detrimental to the general good and welfare, then, he would reach the crossroad where one has to choose between one morality over the other. He will opt to choose the less moral means towards a morally correct result which will bring about greater good and welfare.  

In all likelihood, the incumbent is a consequentialist. He sincerely believes in the righteousness of his purpose and as such he will do everything to preserve the gains and if possible prevent its lost. But there is one thing that he should not ignore, his moral obligation to consult the people. In the light of the clear and present danger that power could land in the hands of the wolves, the circumstances becomes extraordinary and judgement of mere representation is inadequate. The people must decide their destiny, not the senators, not the congressman and not even the incumbent since the real power emanates from them. They should be allowed to express their preference on what is moral and legitimate under the circumstances. If they choose to let go of the good shepherd paving the way for the wolves to take reign, then so be it. Let the people determine their fate, for it is them who will be the ultimate bearer of the consequence.

In every rule there is always an exception, and sometimes the end justifies the means.

See also; http://thefourthperspective.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-tyranny-that-is-majority.html