Politics and the Sense of Right and Wrong of man
The primary idea of right and wrong is best described in words of Chinese Philosopher, Confucious, ' do not do unto others what u would not do unto yourself'. Thus, Man-the beast, became Man-the social animal on the basic of 'u scratch my back while I scratch yours', and 'i don't hit you while U don't hit me'. The first Rights and the first Wrongs for formation of Man's society emerged.
The early days Rights and Wrongs were primarily 'fear'-based. Fear is the primal emotion from which emerged the Religion. Religion was the guide book for managing the uncertainties of Man's life. Infact Religion controlled the ideas of Rights and Wrongs by way of fear of future fate: in re-incarnation, in re-birth, in doomsday, in apocalypse, in Heaven and in Hell.
Though the exact, universal, Rights and Wrongs have never been found by mankind, various subset understandings emerged through ages. The compliance and discharge of one's duty in a specified situation came to understood as Dharma, the pragmatic morality because situation for duty were taken into account. The ideal way of discharge without accounting for specific demands of the situation became Naithic, the policy based duties. The early Rights and Wrongs set the stage for evolution of Moral Ethics. As the Moral Ethics became passed down from generation to generation, they became customary, and the Dharma evolved. Customary practises of business, therefore, are the modern Common Law. In religion, they are the Ritualistic Religion, sometimes commonly termed , the Dharma( same word, but different sense and meaning from before).
As the society grew more complex, the evolution happened on more Rights and Wrongs based on the previous ones. Religion remained the prime controller for deciding rights and Wrongs.
In the meantime , Politics was born in society giving the reins of society to the Monarch, the king, in return for providing security to a society from another predatory society. As the wielder of power, the kings depended on the religious leaders for deciding upon the Rights and Wrongs. The kings were crowned by a religious leader to confirm to the people that their ideas of Rights and Wrongs shall be honoured.
But slowly Sciences had began to emerge in man's own attempt to quench his curiosity. As the Newton's laws of gravity began to show the universality of its application both on earth and in heaven, the modern outer space, the divine fell into questioning. And so did the divine authority of the monarch. As Galileo demonstrated the helio-centricity of space, as against common perception of sun going round the earth, the power of Religion started to suffer limps.
Overtime, Secularism emerged as a universal principle of public governance, ensuring separation of politics and religion. The modern Rights and Wrongs had science as its chief decisive factor. The state governance became forced to admit Atheist and the protestants and the free thinkers as the members of the society, and therefore eligibile for protection and amenities of the State.
The modern war of Rights and Wrongs took a turn and reached a buffer ground between Religion and Sciences (defineable as Systematic Study of Anything based on natural principles of validity and verification, the natural being laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology and humanity).
Politics, the modern era's fight of Right and Wrongs, is chiefly a contest of Religion and Sciences, where the new Rights and Wrongs are defined by the latest feeds of Sciences. Sciences over here appear in the form of 'Study Reports', the think tanks, academia's opinion, etc, while the Religion emerges as the common man's widely held belief, which finds its backing from people through Popularism of what has been a traditional understanding (the Election process of democratic governance).
We all often talk of educational qualifications for our elected leaders, but in truth, what we want from them is a scientific understanding of the Rights and Wrongs on a issue so that the large set of people with diverse beliefs, religion may comfortably decide, based on simple logic, what side to support.
Unfortunately most of the contest are un-scientific and rather Sophist in approach.