Apolitical appears in the dictionary. And abounds in lofty speeches. But I doubt you'll find it anywhere else. Thing is, it doesn't really exist.
Of course, you will always find someone who insists he is apolitical. Typically, he will tell you he doesn't care which government comes to power, because it won't make a damn difference, no one's going to improve anything, sigh. And you'll nod your head, aaah that's so true.
But look close. Chances are, he couldn't care less because each of the political parties with a chance of coming into power will protect his interests. He need not care.
There are always those whose turf is protected no matter who comes to power: No one will order metropolitan cities be razed to make way for a dam. No one will decree fancy bungalows be confiscated to construct a national highway. Not happening - even if that is technically the best route. Even if the people so displaced are in a better position to relocate their livings as compared to say, tribals.
There is always a better-off section of society - a minority in numbers, but a heavyweight in power because it owns more resources (In India, for instance, Just 12.2% of the households were in the high-income bracket. More than half the population lives below the poverty line.)
Being apolitical, in short, is a luxury for those who can afford it. It is a political statement of comfort with status quo - and every bit as political as a desire for revolution.
Similarly, you will find innumerable businesses that claim to be apolitical. Yet, they offer support to and abide by whoever comes to power - absolute stooges for status quo.
[You may argue - convincingly - that of course businesses will want stability else how can they make profits efficiently? True and unavoidable. But all I ask is let's not label the support to existing power structures as apolitical.]
[Another word businesses never admit to is activism. They may advertise everywhere and all the time. They may block roads for a sponsored marathon. They may lobby through party donations. They may use their coffers to fight long-drawn court cases. But none of these activities is activism unless and until it is done by their enemy/NGO which for instance advertises against fur, takes them to court for ground water, holds a protest march, whatever]
------
Which is all a really long prologue to the over-usage of the A-word by the Olympic Committee recently.
...apparently they are not a political organisation
...apparently their decision to hold the Olympics in China is not political (just monetary)
That's rich, coming from an organisation that did not let South Africa participate for about 3 decades on the grounds of its Apartheid Policy.
That's also a load of bull, as the games have a long history of political protests.
That apart, letting China host the Olympic Games is certainly not apolitical as:
-- it is a clear signal that the Olympics Committee is ready to embrace China, no matter what its human rights record, if it has the money
-- it is is a clear acquiescence to the political principle of One-China Policy (Tibet flags unfurled by athletes at the Olympic venues will lead to sanction)
--It is an agreement that China's "sovereign matters" are its to oversee, and Olympic purse strings will not be used to bully its house to order.
Am I making a case against the holding of Olympics in China? No.
If we tried finding a perfect country to hold the Olympics, we'd likely never hold them again.
What I'm saying is that The Olympic Committe should stop playing the apolitical charade of penalising political acts of athletes.
It should also shut up all its weeping about the Tibet "activists" and the Falun Gong "activists" and the various other "political" NGOs from getting their five minutes of fame against the innumerable Coke ads that we will be forced to see.
