It needs to be made a criminal offence for politicians to lie to or mislead the public.
It is clear from their behaviour that many politicians and other leaders of our society have little respect for honesty and truth. Consequently the public has, to a large extent, lost trust and confidence in their leadership. Telling lies and misleading the public is particularly damaging in the context of the pandemic because it results in non-compliance with rules of behaviour and so undermines attempts to control the pandemic. More widely it damages our society as a whole by lowering standards of behaviour and undermining democratic processes.
Trust would be created if it became clear that our leaders were consistently telling the truth and not seeking to mislead. Trust would be created gradually, unfortunately not quickly enough to help with the current pandemic but with increasing benefits to our society as standards were raised.
How could the behaviour of politicians and other leaders be changed? Exhortation, no matter by whom, is very unlikely to be effective because it can easily be ignored. Similarly, exposing lies and misleading statements by the media will seldom be effective because the public recognises that media coverage, with few exceptions, does not itself respect honesty and truthfulness. Exhortation and exposure would be insufficient. A more radical approach is therefore needed.
It needs to be made a criminal offence to lie to or mislead the public. New legislation is needed enabling exemplary punishment so that it becomes an effective deterrent. Effective law does of course exist to deter dishonesty in a great many fields: for example, company law. But it appears that there is no law under which politicians can be prosecuted for lying to or misleading the public. If politicians lie to parliament this can lead to humiliation and resignation, but they can lie to and mislead the public outside parliament, apparently with impunity. This is not acceptable.
The new law needs to apply initially to politicians only. This is necessary not just because politicians are particularly prone to lying and misleading. For the new law to be taken seriously and for the public to become convinced that it is effective and beneficial it needs to be applied first to politicians even if the longer-term aim is to bring similar law to bear on other groups in society. If the new law applied only to other groups, but not to politicians, it would not be credible or just.
Originality. Legislation to address the problem of dishonesty is not, of course, original, but legislation to deter politicians from lying to or misleading the public would be original.
Practicality. This approach to the problem is entirely practical. It simply requires a new law to be enacted! This may seem unlikely but if a major political party adopted it as policy and it also had strong public support then it would have every chance of success. The Bill would, in its nature, require relatively little parliamentary time: it would be exceptionally short in length. It would make clear that misleading the public is acceptable only in the context of a national emergency concerning a threat of or the reality of war.
Fierce opposition to the Bill can be expected from politicians and others with a vested interest in dishonesty. For this reason it would be necessary to demonstrate, in advance, strong public support for the legislation – to demonstrate to parliament that it must enact the Bill or be seen to be defying strong public opinion. Public support could be created through publicity and campaigning, petitions and visible support from respected public figures and institutions. This support would be demonstrated through opinion polls.
The Bill would be opposed by some on the grounds that it would limit free speech. This is a red herring. Politicians would remain free, as now, to mislead and tell lies to the public. But the new law would mean that they would have to face the consequences of doing so. Free speech is essential to a free and democratic society but surely defence of free speech should not require freedom to tell lies to the public and to mislead with impunity. Surely nobody could reasonably object to a law that requires politicians to be honest with the public.
It might also be objected that courts would be unable to deal with issues of honesty and truthfulness, or would be overwhelmed by the number of prosecutions. These are also red herrings because politicians would, in all probability, stop lying to and misleading the public if early cases resulted in convictions and heavy punishment.
Enacting the new law would be made easier for parliament if the new law would not apply to lies and misleading statements made in the past and also if the new law would not be enforced until, say, 6 months after enactment. This delay would give politicians time enough to get the bad habit out of their systems.
Impact. The proposal for this new law would have a great impact on the public – some initial incredulity followed by great interest and rapid growth in support. The impact on politicians would be considerable: most would quickly change their behaviour for the better. A few might persist with lying and misleading even beyond the 6 month delay in enforcement. Those with very deep pockets and/or a fundamental problem in understanding honesty and truthfulness might persist, but escalating penalties for repeat offences would probably overwhelm them. They could be expected to reform or to withdraw from public life. Thus, the new law would be effective.
The impact on society as a whole would be profound and extremely good. Politicians would find themselves setting an example of debate and argument based on facts, evidence, honesty and truthfulness. When these benefits are perceived it would be easy to apply similar law to cover other groups who are currently also immune from prosecution for lying to and misleading the public. The media would deserve high priority.
1062-11