Thread: Honesty in Democracy

If you ask the average person on the street, you'll probably find that nearly all of them would agree that honesty is an important requirement they have of politicians. This is true even though a similar proportion of them would also probably be highly skeptical about the actual honesty of the average politician.

Similarly, it's a basic expectation of the democratic system ( which is to say, rule of the people by elected representatives, on behalf of the interests of the people and being responsible to the people), that politicians must of course be honest in their dealings with the people, lest how else can they be said to be responsible to the people, let alone how can it be assured that they are ruling on the behalf of the people's interests?

But is this notion of complete political honesty a fantasy? Is it possible that always being honest is actually a fatal flaw for a political leader, or if not fatal, than at the very least a distinct hindrance in the exercise of their duties? Can a political leader lead effectively if they are bound by a covenant of honesty with the people, or is this an unrealistic, or even impossible expectation?

Machiavelli, in his classic political treatise Il Principe, English: The Prince (it should be noted that while the translation of Principe is correctly given as Prince, the term itself does not strictly refer to just monarchs, but rather to political leaders in general) argues convincingly (Chapter XVII: How princes should honour their word) that no ruler could expect to remain a ruler for long if he was to continually forego lying, deceiving and breaking his word whenever it was necessary to maintain political advantage against challengers. Although Machiavelli's suggested methods altogether led to the rise of an eponymous epithet for political immorality, his logic is difficult to deny. And if a politician cannot even maintain a position of power against his political challengers, how is it possible for them to rule at all, let alone to rule effectively?

There have been any number of legislative and regulatory measures introduced in the various democracies which are aimed at ensuring the honesty of democratic representatives; although it must be said these are largely indirect, often aimed at the process of election and to forestall hidden influences on the political decision making processes, rather than to ensure that representations directly made to the public by politicians are truthful, or that they keep their promises. Is there a deeper reason why this is so, than just that politicians, as much as they might like to project the impression of a commitment to honesty, are naturally disinclined to bind themselves to it in any real sense? Do politicians, and perhaps even the people themselves, perceive a deep logical necessity for politicians to sometimes be dishonest, to deceive and to break their word in order to maintain the power that is required to rule effectively?

What say you guys? Is it necessary that democratic politicians be permitted to occasionally lie, to deceive sometimes, and to break their promises from time to time, in order for them to effectively perform the duties for which they are elected?