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?

Game theory explains in very simple terms why lying is the dominant strategy in politics.

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/8...tcometable.gif

Your best strategy, regardless of what your opponent does, is to lie. Simply put, there aren't enough negative consequences created from the governed to prevent politicians from lying.

Sure, that a good summarisation of why it makes good sense for a politician to lie.

But what I'm really asking for, do you think is it logically, or practically, necessary for a politician to lie, in order to do their job?

Well there are two components to that question: the practical and the ideal. I just answered the practical, but I'll expand.

1. Yes, it is necessary. Dominant strategies are always necessary. You can't control what your opponent does, so you choose the strategy that is best regardless of his actions. This is basically a prisoner's dilemma, except the cost of the lies isn't levied against the prisoners, it's levied against the warden. Either way, while it is possible to reach the same outcome without lying, a politician guarantees himself the best outcome if he lies.

2. As far as the ideal situation, as long as the constituents suffer from imperfect information (that is, the politician knows more than the constituents, so he is able to lie to them), then the outcome table holds true, and lying will be necessary. The other possibility is to change the outcome table itself by adding greater costs to lying; for example, if a politician caught lying faced penalty of death, then the outcome table for most people wouldn't see so much upside to lying, and the incentive would be to not lie. Of course, if everyone else cleans up their act and you are able to continue lying effectively, you might get worse and worse as you garner more benefit (the table really represents shades of gray; obviously if you can lie and your opponent doesn't, you're likely to come out way ahead than if you both lie or both don't.)

Personally, I don't see a way around it. However, I don't limit this to politicians; I think this applies to any situation where there is an imbalance of information or misaligned incentives. Unless you have a lot of experience in the real estate market, a real estate agent is going to convince you to sell your house short (I think I've already explained that in another thread.) If you could do all the work on your car yourself and had the time to carefully inspect it, your auto mechanic wouldn't try to push a couple extra tweeks each time you brought it in. If your professor knew that you wrote your report at the very last minute and made up all the data, he wouldn't give you an A in chem lab.