In defence of lies

Reception class

I liked Labour's way of telling us what they planned to do if we elected them. Like they did with the reception class.

Partnership for Peace

But I suppose, I admire PN more for not telling us what they intended to do. It is smarter. Never mind that it is outright deception - it is definitely smarter.

No Entry areas

No entry areas are those issues that a politician is better off ignoring and making us believe they don't exist. Everyone knows what the no entry areas are: Divorce, hunting, abortion, rent laws, gay rights, cohabitation and Partnership for Peace, to mention a few.

But some parties know better than others what the no entry areas are. Some parties are smarter than others.

And so, the not so smart MLP slipped the explosive reception class into its manifesto, while the PN slyly did not say anything about rent laws, cohabitation, and Partnership for Peace.

Logic

What do I prefer, a party which does not say the whole truth or an honest party?

Honesty = good
Lying/not saying the whole truth = bad
Therefore politicians should be honest.

But,

Honesty = lose election
Lying/not saying the whole truth = win election
Therefore politicians should lie/avoid the whole truth to voters.

So,

Politicians should be honest
Politicians should lie to voters
Therefore I am being illogical.

The Kuwaiti babies

Just before the US Senate voted yes or no to the first war in Iraq in 1900, an anonymous witness from Kuwait addressed the Senate. The girl wept over the microphone as she described how, as a volunteer in Al-Addan Hospital in Kuwait, she had watched Iraqi soldiers snatch 312 Kuwaiti babies from their incubators and leave them on the floor to die.
The First Gulf War was then approved by the USA Senate by five votes.

Later the World found out that the ‘anonymous' witness was in fact a member of the Kuwaiti royal family (Kuwait does not like Iraq), and that yes, she had lied. Her father, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US, had sat listening in the hearing room as his daughter made her impassioned speech.

And America went to war.

All over the World

So it's not just in Malta. Lying is big business, and it's international.

It seems we, the people, have an infinite capacity to be lied to. You can lie and lie to us, and we'll go on believing you.

It's a valuable lesson to learn.

Why do they keep doing it?

The end of the road is, politicians MUST lie. And the reason they must lie is that we expect them to do the impossible: we expect them to please us all.

Think of poor Lawrence Gonzi trying to reconcile the wishes of gay and homophobic voters. In a country like Malta, where winning an election is always a close call, Lawrence really has to try and please both. So he either lies, or he shuts up and avoids the question.

And then Lawrence Gonzi will do whatever he really wants to do after the election, and the poor gay people will be left to throw tantrums.

But it's their fault - if only they made a promise to Lawrence Gonzi that they would vote for him EVEN if he told them the truth, then, I am sure, Lawrence Gonzi would have been honest.

There are also times when I am really really thankful that politicians do not say the full truth, like what they did to the hunters before the EU election. You know, a white lie.

Will politicians ever stop lying?

No.

But isn't lying bad?

Reread the logic section of this article. Notice that if you change

‘Lying = bad ‘

into

‘Lying = necessary/acceptable', then, the logic becomes workable.

It all depends on how willing you are to accept that lying is necessary and acceptable.

Lara Vassallo is Operations Officer of InSite, the University student media organization. www.insite.org.mt