Time for a Truth in Politics Act

Andrew Coyne on how to stop politicians from lying, or at least reward the honest ones

by Andrew Coyne on Thursday, April 7, 2011 9:00am - 85 Comments
Time for a Truth in Politics Act

Photograph by Cole Garside

If there is one thing Gilles Duceppe would like you to know about Stephen Harper, it’s that he’s a liar. The Prime Minister, he says, is “lying” about his past dalliances with coalition government, “lying” about Employment Insurance rules, lying, well, generally.

There’s a lot of that going around. Harper has much the same to say about Michael Ignatieff: when he tells you he won’t form a coalition government after the election, he’s lying. “He did it before, and he’ll do it again.” Jack Layton pretty clearly thinks both Harper and Ignatieff are liars, even if he never quite uses the word. Ignatieff, for his part, challenges Harper with the old line that “if he’ll stop telling lies about me, I’ll stop telling the truth about him.” And so on and on.

The sad thing is, all of these liars are telling the truth. A culture of lying has overtaken our politics, and every party has been caught up in it, to a greater or lesser extent.

Politics has never been noted as a place for unsparing honesty. At best, it consists of telling people what they want to hear; it deals in shades of truth, selective facts, exaggeration, blarney and spin. But in most places at most times, it has been expected that politicians will stay within some sort of limits. If you wish to deceive, do so by the sly omission, the evasive answer, the non-denial denial. Equivocate if you can, mislead if you must, but don’t say straight up, without room for ambiguity, in a manner that is intended to be believed, something that you know is false.

Small fibs, told in haste, are one thing. But the more solemn the vow, and the more important the matter, the greater the expectation that a statement could be taken at something approaching face value: if not wholly true, it would at least not be wholly untrue. But somewhere along the way that taboo was broken in Canada, and nowhere more so than in that most fundamental unit of democratic currency, the campaign promise.

Perhaps it began with Pierre Trudeau, who campaigned furiously against wage and price controls in the 1974 election—that famous, mocking “zap, you’re frozen”—only to introduce them shortly afterward. There followed Brian Mulroney, who unctuously upbraided John Turner for his patronage sins (“you had an option, sir”) as if he were not himself about to take the practice to new depths; Jean Chrétien, who promised to abolish the GST and renegotiate NAFTA, but did neither; Stephen Harper, who, having promised he would appoint no one who was not elected to either cabinet or the Senate, on his first day as Prime Minister appointed his unelected Quebec organizer Michael Fortier to both—a pattern that was to be repeated in everything from fixed election dates to the taxation of income trusts.

This is hardly reserved to federal politics. The list of Dalton McGuinty’s broken promises would fill a scrapbook, but the most notorious was surely his pledge, signed in public as a sort of contract with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, not to raise taxes without a referendum—which was no more than a promise to obey the previous government’s Taxpayers’ Protection Act. Six months after he was elected, he had raised taxes, amending the law to eliminate the referendum requirement.

Examples abound, from coast to coast. The former Liberal premier of New Brunswick, Shawn Graham, elected on a promise not to sell New Brunswick Power, proposed to do just that once safely elected. The current premier of Nova Scotia, New Democrat Darrell Dexter, came to power promising he would neither raise taxes, nor cut spending, nor run a deficit. He proceeded to do all three. I need hardly dwell on British Columbia’s Gordon Campbell, and his disavowal, prior to the 2009 election, of any intent to harmonize the province’s sales tax with the federal GST, except to note that neither the promise nor Campbell are still operative.

Bookmark and Share
  • ColdStanding

    Civilization consists of covering up for the short comings of other people and then covering up that we are covering up. I call this hypocratism. Hypocratism is the realization that we live in a sea of lies. No, the lie and ourselves are the same thing. There isn't any difference between our life and the lie.

    Please note that this is not a cynical position. Quite the contrary. It is the recognition of the distorting effects of local sympathy. Local sympathy* is is a side effect** of the physical structure of the human nervous system. One hopes that in the face of stubborn resistance, as one faces in dealing with politics which has so resisted reform, that a desire to plumb the depths of the problem will be eventually stimulated.

    Do you not see that the reformer and the object of his desire to reform are subject and mirror? Mr. Mulroney wasn't chiding Mr. Turner for making patronage appointments. He was chiding him for making the wrong patronage appointments. Oh, and because Mr. M experienced and extreme dissociation between seeing Mr. T in the position where Mr. M saw himself as the only rightful occupant.

    * Local sympathy might also be called outlooker consciousness, which is to organize the world from one's centre or, in more pathological instances, as if one was the centre of the world.
    ** Side effect might more effectively replaced with persistent delusion (non-pejorative)

    • FVerhoeven

      The covering up you refer to only need to take place if the self is unwilling, or incapable of being honest. For if one is capable of being honest, then the covering up (either of self short comings or the shortcomings of others) are not needed. But being honest is most difficult because being honest means one has to be able to be honest with the self first and foremost. And what is most difficult is to be honest with the self.

      If one is honest with the self, one understands that the self is capable of imperfection; the self does not always act in consistent ways. And as soon as one is capable of telling the self that such imperfection exists within the self, than the self will come to the realization that imperfections exists in others as well. Thereby, the covering up of shortcomings is no longer needed, not if the self understands honesty about the self.

      • ColdStanding

        It actually has very little to do with honesty. Honesty is a species of morality. Morality, as per Confucian tradition, is the end stage of cultural decadence.*

        One can not be honest with the self. The self is the self, delusion or not. Your construction implies duality, which is compartmentalization.

        The covering up of the covering up is an extremely persistent result of human consciousness. Many of the great expressions of genius are blithely unaware of it going on. Even the most developed expressions of Jen/humanness work with it and not against it.

        * Sorry, next to last stage of cultural decadence.

        • FVerhoeven

          I think we see things differently.

          I believe that the state of honesty is the most difficult for human beings to achieve. And that morality is not something only human perse, but is and must be in relation to that which is universal; I'm thinking more Kant than Confucius.

          And also, the human consciousness is in direct relation to universal laws; not just specifically human. It's just that within humans we experience such universals in a human way.

          • FVerhoeven

            If you take up the concept of 'promise' for instance, (something Coyne mentions in his article above), we could say, of course, that the 'promise' is regarded in the Confucian way by being the 'gentlemen's' way.

            And it is true and it is said that it is the gentlemen's way to keep a promise.

            But if we go deeper into Kant's thinking, we arrive at something much more fundamental, namely the interaction with 'das ding an sich'. The 'promise' is 'das ding an sich' in that the 'promise' itself is. But the 'promise' can only be as 'is', or can only be as 'das ding an sich' if the 'promise' is in existence.

            And how can the promise be in existence? By coming back to the self. For if the promise is not kept to others, then the promise will not be kept in return. Thereby, the 'promise' is not in existence and cannot be 'das ding an sich'.

            And if the 'promise' does not exist, then the gentlemen's way of keeping a promise does not exist either.

          • FVerhoeven

            And we could even go further in that:

            if we were to conclude that indeed the 'promise' does not exist, then it begs the question if the 'gentleman' could exist, if the being of gentlemen is contingent on there being a 'promise' possible.

            Perhaps politics is no gentlemen's sport after all. And I will leave it at that!

            :)

  • Daphne

    Actually, he once endorsed a proposal for a simplified tax return, several years back, that was simply brilliant. An income tax return on a postcard. I long for it, every April.
    http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/article.js…

  • Anne

    The Canadian media is so biased in favor of the left that the whole concept of media telling us the truth is laughable. Why not just admit your political slant? The left strategy sessions which is what is our media puts out today, is an insult to people's intelligence. Maclean's at least attempted to show both sides of the political spectrum except, ironically, the last two issues. Be brave Maclean's: show your journalistic integrity.

  • Prairieanne

    Peter, that is a wonderful rebuke. Andrew is in charge. Where's some opposing views for the so-called humor of Wherry and the hissy blogging Ms. O'Malley.

  • Prairieanne

    Hey Mr. Andrew Coyne, I'm still steamed about the CBC's Vote Compass. When will you have something to say abut this attempt at election manipulation? It's not the right thing to do during an election campaign.

  • madeyoulook

    The complaints and the review process and the "fines" would be so charged with partisanship as to be useless immediately, Andrew.

    But THE PEOPLE have the right to be sufficiently outraged (or not) at a broken promise. The power rests with the people. Recall legislation is the way to go.

    If, say, twenty percent of the number of votes cast to elect the current MP (in the particular riding) sign for a recall vote, the riding must hold one. If fifty-percent-plus-one of votes cast approve of the recall, the MP is fired, the seat is vacant, and a by-election is required.

    If sufficient ridings manage to vacate sufficient MPs so that a majority falls to a minority, or a minority more easily loses confidence, so be it.

    • madeyoulook

      I now see Harvey Mushman beat me to this. So I shall get in line behind Harvey.

  • ian m

    Thank you Andrew Coyne. Your article only reinforced my feelings towards elections. As a young voter my outlook on politics is very jaded by growing up in a time where politicians have been known to say whatever is needed to come to power and go back on their promises. It seems that no matter which party you vote for there isn't a platform that won't eventually end up aligning with another party's values. With that in mind, when I hear from the media that only 37% of youth 18-24 voted last election, i ask what's the big surprise? If Macleans wants to do an interesting poll next issue ask people if they think voting for one party over the other will make a difference in the kind of government that runs this country?

  • Prairieanne

    Has anyone seen Andrew Coyne to comment on Vote Compass or is that topic to risky for him.

  • Prairieanne

    Andrew Coyne, can you direct me to your opinion on Vote Compass? Have I missed it? I don't always agree with you but I have to concede that you often put a lot of effort into your articles.

  • manny

    Mr Coyne, you gave numerous examples of lies but nothing about the rare politicians who told the truth and lost. I am thiking about Kim Campbell and Stephane Dion. The blame rests partly on us the voters and partly on the journalists who ridicule the honest politicians.

  • Aview

    How come journalists do not list political performances. But instead progosticate innuendo. 1) How about evaluating cost of promises; – eg F-35 jet purchase has been around since 1997 and two parties/govn's have proceeded to the point where we have now expended $278 million – cancellation means we lose this investment, and then we purchase later at more costs? GST – if Chretien had cancelled how large would the current deficit be? Interesting!! he promised no Helicopters and kept his promise – cost $700million loss. 2) magnitude of promise and consequence – Harpers senate appointments vs removing the GST? Comparable if broken? Harper is on record – an elected senate but parliament and the provinces are not cooperating…and if he did not fill SENATE positions now then he as PM/CPC party looses senate power. 3)promises being affected by fluid issues eg 1st nations and consultation and separatists issues in Quebec that can affect implemenation…and oops votes(?)
    4) promised and implemented legislation for "balanced budgets", could not be achieved, repealed the "law? really this is fruity republic stuff…these are all about the democratic deficit …lets hope for a better system, reporting and reasoning.

  • Bruce M

    I would like to know about radiation levels from the Japanese reactors.

    Does anyone in Canada know?

    Try asking our politicians that.

  • DuffConacher

    See Democracy Watch's February 2011op-ed, from which some parts of this article are drawn, about how an honesty-in-politics law and enforcement system could work in a timely and effective way, without involving the courts or lawyers, not only for election promises but also for misleading statements in between elections, at: http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/OpEdFeb2411.html

    and see many more details on Democracy Watch's Honesty in Politics Campaign page at: http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/honestydir.html
    and on http://www.CoffeeParty.ca

    Hope this helps,
    Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch http://www.goodgovernment.ca
    Organizer of the CoffeeParty.ca movement http://www.CoffeeParty.ca

  • Michael

    Get caught lying (or taking advantage of the public trust) – forefeit your pension!

  • http://halooverride.blogspot.com/ Halo_Override

    The downside is that it would never pass. The upside is that if it did, it would save Canada a hundred thousand zillion dollars a year.

  • FVerhoeven

    Here's another one for Mr.Coyne:

    Ask Mr.Ignatieff what agreement he signed onto in 2008, because the media seems to want to uphold this lie more so than anyone else. What did Ignatieff sign onto in 2008, and what exactly was signed in cooperation with the BQ, which party's involvment btw was mentioned in the two 2008 documents belonging together.

    Now, ask Mr.Harper why he never signed a coalition agreement in 2004. And ask Mr.Harper why he never signed a coalition agreement which would have involved the BQ?

    Ask both men the above mentioned questions and see who will have to lie in order to wiggle himself out of the predicament.

    I will guarantee you that it won't be Harper doing the wiggling. Harper knew very well that he could not go any further in a letter to the GG, for proposing a formal agreement with the BQ would go against everything Harper and his vision for this federation stands for.

    (And don't go digging for excuses: The 1997 letter addresses something entirely different than formal coalition forming.)

  • Camille

    I am still waiting to hear about policies that matter in the long haul. The government that we elect in May will be responsible for the Columbia River Treaty..you know..just one of those important issues that impacts power production, land use and let's not forget..our water.

From Macleans