Should We Expect Politicians to Be Completely Truthful - Essay Example

Name: Tutor: Title: Should we expect politicians to be completely truthful? Course: Date: Introduction Politics has attracted the attention of not only the general public but also the media and citizens organizations. Speculation of politics is among the major global processes that have dramatically contributed to the large amounts of information about the different facets of political life. As a result, politicians are literally seen as public figures who their actions are subjected to careful public scrutiny. Therefore, transparency of politics is viewed as the process through which the different aspects of activities done in the political sector can be observed from the outside (Mattozzi & Marlo 2006). The most fundamental question is to determine whether if or not a high level of transparency can necessarily result in better political outcomes? This requires a critical analysis of how the transparency of politics is associated with the quality of politicians. The control of employment relationship through a system of reduced tenure and politicization is a relevant subject of discussion in view to understanding the political life of public sectors. Traditionally, bureaucracies promoted tenure so as to enable the public servants become independent of all political and electoral pressures that a number of politicians face. In later years, however, the perception on tenure was reversed because independence and continuity were doubted as virtues and considered as key factors causing belligerence and complacency. As a result, governments decided to change the employment relations as a strategy of gaining greater control, while a number of public services adopted a Senior Executive Service (SES) model. This model was different from the traditional career service model because it promoted purely political responsiveness and bureaucratic approach of frank and fearless idea. Theoretically, the employment arrangements were reformed to enhance responsiveness to government and foster the neutrality dimension of a system referred to as Westminster. From the practical point of view, the employment arrangements were considered to encourage the loyalty among the current political executives, hence offering a scope for useful politicization. In general, the appointment of senior executives by politicians gives them more control and the chances of responsiveness to governments (Smith & Corbett 1999). Politicians cannot be completely truthful Why political lie It has been observed that the words and actions of all politicians have been intensely scrutinized by many commentators and observers. The main objective of doing this is to serve the general desire of the public of understanding better the politicians that they elect. However, despite all the efforts made to inspect and comment on their actions as well as the large audience, majority of the politicians lie persistently even though the audience can tell that the politicians are lying. The most fundamental question is to determine why is this happening if people know that their politicians are lying to them? The argument is that politicians are lying so much not because they are seen as pathological liars but because their audience expect too much of them. For example, their people expect them to play an effective role in their political positions. Although political positions are intended to plea to a specific constituency, politicians are expected to take on moral positions. This provides the view that politics is not all about getting everyone on your side, but it is about winning a number of people on your side (Dorrell 2006). It is surprising that most of the people expect the politicians to take on moral positions but they don not bother whether if their leaders do so dishonestly. More often than not, supporters will help their politicians to overcome the conflict by expecting and accepting political doublespeak. This means that supporters expect their politicians to lie about the morality of their political platform but remain sensitive to know how the platform would benefit them. In addition, people expect politicians to use a language that is deceptive and confusing in nature so as to create positions that appear to be moral but in actual sense promote exploitation, transfer of wealth and power. The conflict between politics and morality shows that either left or right polarization has the exact moral polarization that is based on uncertainty of whether the vulnerable individuals really deserve their fate. However, political policies are basically formulated based on averages, and thus people may have different opinions regarding the extent to which both the poorer and richer must be classified in their current economic status. Over and above, different people have different opinions that are conveniently consistent with their individual economic interests that truly determine how they vote (Dorrell 2006). Research indicates that when people are entrusted with formal or informal roles, they tend to assume a unique type of relationship with other people. Such relationship is portrayed through distinctive characteristics that cause it to be viewed as morally different. For example, it is obvious to find that leaders have more powers and influence over others because of their positions, level of expertise or charisma. However, it is important to note that leaders influence other people with persuasion, political network, coercion or their personality. It has been discovered that power is associated with different ethical difficulties ranging from what politicians or leaders use it for to the extent of how it is exercised. This means that more powers the leaders have, the more responsibilities they are expected to accomplish but do not do (Ciulla 2004). In general, politicians lie simply because the public is not ready to hear the truth. Most people tend to listen to what sounds interesting in their ears. For example, in a situation where two candidates are contesting, one will tell the truth and the other will say what the general public would prefer to hear. The politician who says what is appealing to the public emerges the winner in the election, while the other politician loses the election. The exception to this idea is that politicians who contest with the main objective of winning the election use the strategy of lying, an opportunity that a politician who tells the truth is often denied. It has been considered that in any perfect world politicians cannot lie. However, in circumstances where the voters elect untruthful politicians against the ones who can be trusted then voters will also be seen less truthful. Therefore, politicians can tell truth only if voters will stop neglecting or avoiding choosing honesty leaders. Failure to do so, voters will be subjected to the hard decision that all politicians will have to consider in passing the fair laws that promote people’s rights (Perkel 2006). Why do not believe politicians? In his article entitled “Should Politicians be trusted?” Frank Mackay, Anim-Appiah (2011) argued that since they are not fulfilling their campaign promises, it is becoming more difficult for the public to trust politicians. Anim-Appiah supported Bob Geldof’s view that even though people are always aware of such troubling signs, wavering of politicians provides a clear justification why politicians cannot be trusted. Therefore, politicians cannot be trusted regardless of who makes the political speech because it is all lies. He observed that Ghanaians, for example, are getting fed up with the manner in which their politicians are running the country. As a result, the citizens of Ghana are likely to put into practice the advice of the former US president-Theodore Roosevelt that all people anywhere that are persuaded and have the power, also have the right to rebel and shake the current government as well as form a new government that they consider suitable to them(Anim-Appiah 2011). Voegeli (2009) examined that what differentiates the politicians of 2009 from those of 1787 is basically the persistent and modern denial that human nature is an aspect that people can understand and discover a political order. Therefore, the fundamental question is to determine whether if the current politicians can be considered as great as the ones of the founding generation? Voegeli states that the Americans drafted and sanctioned the Constitution strongly believe in some facts about human nature. Such truths about human nature included the subject of fundamental equality, the need to control natural selfishness that creates factionalism through a constitutional system that protects individual rights and protects the public good as well as the securing of people’s indisputable rights as the government’s raison. It has been argued that if politics based on human history is sensible and can result in better outcomes compared to the politics based on human nature, it means that modern politicians should be considered as wiser than scholars of the Constitution. However, this can be considered true only if two major problems are seen in the politics of the changing standards of civility (Voegeli 2009). Generally, time and reflection indicates that certain standards that were practiced with confidence have become shockingly offensive. In the past decades, a number of practitioners who made progress in politics were also active and enthusiastic campaigners of the eugenics movement that led to the formulation of policies that encouraged compulsory sterilization as well as complete denial of rights on the basis of racial categorization. The useless circulatory appealing to adopt more informal standards with the objective of settling the modern political arguments is also another problem in the politics of the evolving standards of civility. Therefore, fearless criticism of the agenda to displace politics based on human nature and rely on politics that focus on tracking and monitoring every step ahead of the human history will confirm that disdaining the truths about self-evident to America’s founder has made people less wise, less peaceful and the practical experience in self-government not secured (Voegeli 2009). Do we want politicians to lie? Gaita (1999) argued that truth and truthfulness plays an integral role in politics based on the idea that people can be logical about the meaning of different aspects of their lives simply because they rely on truth and truthfulness of other people. He added that people who love their countries will always need their politicians to honour their love. Similarly, citizens who love their country would require their politicians to account in situations where their dishonesty affects the citizens’ material interest as well as undermines their ability to analyze different aspects of their lives. This implies that politicians should not lie because they will be held accountable when their dishonesty defiles policies set to promote patriotism for their country. Furthermore, it has been observed that ethical considerations are crucial to understanding the true meaning of politics and national interest. He supported Aristotle and Marx view that ethics and politics are irreconcilable. However, it cannot be denied that politicians will sometimes lie as their honourable way to rising to respective responsibilities of their calling. Since the political language has now been debased, people tend not to focus on the difference between the true picture of politics and the pervasive acts of politicians (Gaita 1999). Therefore, it is irrelevant to reason out that people’s expectations that politicians will regularly lie so as to promote the image of their part and career as a close understanding of the nature of politics. From the moral point of view, it can be noted that leadership is unique because of it varies. Generally, when people hold leadership positions, their moral failures cause a great impact on the lives of those under their authority more than when such people are not in leadership positions. It is quite clear that every ethical or unethical activity that a leader is involved in can cause a ripple effect. However, this does not imply that leaders should extra-ordinary ethical standards than every other person. Over and over again leaders have not had troubles because they have not lived up to the expected standards of morality equal to rest of other people (Ciulla 2004). Social capital has been considered by Fukuyama (2000) as a clear set of informal values or norms that are shared among people as a way of cooperating with one another. It has been observed that most of the definitions of social capital apparently show that social capital and trust occur under the same conditions. This means that social capital involves and demands a high level of trustworthiness. From the politics point of view, trust can be seen as the mutual expectation between the politicians and supporters whereby no party or leaders involved should take advantage of the vulnerability of others (Fukuyama 2000). In regard to the deliberative model of democracy, it has been observed that both the politicians and ordinary citizens as actors will be required to justify their positions with genuine reasons. For example, the ability to respect the public interest and the position held by other actors as well as be willing to work towards the better argument. Therefore, it would surprising to discover that such purporting to be deliberative speech acts are no longer sincere but only exercised for strategic considerations. This clearly indicates that politicians and other actors justify their positions based on reasons that are not genuine but appear convincing in a strategic game. Most politicians take into consideration the public interest but hide their crude self-interest. Thus, the leaders express their respect purposely to flatter their supporters so as to have a successful bargaining position (Thompson 2008). Conclusion Based on the above discussions, it is irrelevant to expect politicians completely truthful. It is quite clear that politicians are lying so much because their audience expect too much of them. A number of the people expect the politicians to take on moral positions but they don not bother to reason out whether if their leaders do so dishonestly. It would be important for politicians to understand that when they hold leadership positions, their moral failures cause a great impact on the lives of their supporters or people under their authority more than when they are not in leadership positions. Bibliography Anim-Appiah, F, M, 2013, “Should Politicians Be Trusted,” Retrieved September 10, 2013 from, Ciulla, J.B., 2004, ‘Ethics and leadership effectiveness’, The Nature of Leadership: 302–327. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications. Dorrell, P., 2006, “Why Politicians Have to Lie,” Retrieved September 10, 2013 from, Fukuyama, F., 2000, ‘Social Capital’ from L. E. Harrison and S. Huntington (eds) Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. Basic Books, New York. Gaita, R., 1999, Understanding the truth about Politics and Patriotism, Griffith Review Edition 5, Griffith University. Mattozzi, A & Merlo, A, 2005, The Transparency of Politics and the Quality of Politicians, California, California Institute of Technology. Perkel, M, 2006, “Politics and Lies - Why Politicians Lie,” Retrieved September 9, 2013 from, Smith, R.F.I & Corbett, D, 1999, ‘Responsiveness without politicization’ from Clark, C. and D. Corbett, (eds.), reforming the public sector: Problems and solutions, Allen and Unwin, St.Leonards, NSW. Thompson, D.F, 2008, ‘Understanding Deliberative Democratic Model in Political Science’, Review of Political Science, 11 (6). Voegeli,W., 2009, “How wiser are today’s politicians than those who drafted the Constitution?” Claremont McKenna College. Read More

Politicians cannot be completely truthful Why political lie It has been observed that the words and actions of all politicians have been intensely scrutinized by many commentators and observers. The main objective of doing this is to serve the general desire of the public of understanding better the politicians that they elect. However, despite all the efforts made to inspect and comment on their actions as well as the large audience, majority of the politicians lie persistently even though the audience can tell that the politicians are lying.

The most fundamental question is to determine why is this happening if people know that their politicians are lying to them? The argument is that politicians are lying so much not because they are seen as pathological liars but because their audience expect too much of them. For example, their people expect them to play an effective role in their political positions. Although political positions are intended to plea to a specific constituency, politicians are expected to take on moral positions.

This provides the view that politics is not all about getting everyone on your side, but it is about winning a number of people on your side (Dorrell 2006). It is surprising that most of the people expect the politicians to take on moral positions but they don not bother whether if their leaders do so dishonestly. More often than not, supporters will help their politicians to overcome the conflict by expecting and accepting political doublespeak. This means that supporters expect their politicians to lie about the morality of their political platform but remain sensitive to know how the platform would benefit them.

In addition, people expect politicians to use a language that is deceptive and confusing in nature so as to create positions that appear to be moral but in actual sense promote exploitation, transfer of wealth and power. The conflict between politics and morality shows that either left or right polarization has the exact moral polarization that is based on uncertainty of whether the vulnerable individuals really deserve their fate. However, political policies are basically formulated based on averages, and thus people may have different opinions regarding the extent to which both the poorer and richer must be classified in their current economic status.

Over and above, different people have different opinions that are conveniently consistent with their individual economic interests that truly determine how they vote (Dorrell 2006). Research indicates that when people are entrusted with formal or informal roles, they tend to assume a unique type of relationship with other people. Such relationship is portrayed through distinctive characteristics that cause it to be viewed as morally different. For example, it is obvious to find that leaders have more powers and influence over others because of their positions, level of expertise or charisma.

However, it is important to note that leaders influence other people with persuasion, political network, coercion or their personality. It has been discovered that power is associated with different ethical difficulties ranging from what politicians or leaders use it for to the extent of how it is exercised. This means that more powers the leaders have, the more responsibilities they are expected to accomplish but do not do (Ciulla 2004). In general, politicians lie simply because the public is not ready to hear the truth.

Most people tend to listen to what sounds interesting in their ears. For example, in a situation where two candidates are contesting, one will tell the truth and the other will say what the general public would prefer to hear. The politician who says what is appealing to the public emerges the winner in the election, while the other politician loses the election. The exception to this idea is that politicians who contest with the main objective of winning the election use the strategy of lying, an opportunity that a politician who tells the truth is often denied.

Read More