Bending the truth is part of democratic politics

February 4, 2026 · 0 Comments

MARK PAVILONS

My son recently asked me why politicians aren’t punished for lying.
That should be against the law, he argued.
I puzzled and puzzled until my puzzler was sore.
“Well, you see, er, well, there are different kinds of lying … Um, white lies, bold-faced lies, bendies, stretchies …” I uttered.
With public floggings no longer in vogue, and medieval stocks or pillories quite scarce, I was perplexed and had no valid solution to offer. I do so love public humiliation and would support a referendum on bringing them back to a town square near you!
But lying in public – actually saying something that is totally wrong – should be discouraged, right? And lying in our upper chambers should come with some form of punishment, even a couple of whacks by the Sergeant-at-Arms and his Mace.
Call it artful evasion, misspeaking, exaggeration or storytelling.
“O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive,” said Walter Scott.
And Robert Gates said that most governments lie to each other: “That’s the way business gets done.”
Perhaps were was some of that when our PM visited China recently. And, we witness – almost daily – the most voracious lier on the planet: Donald Trump.
Politicians are the most maligned group of people on the planet. As Mart Gross shared: “Politicians are masters of the art of deception.”
How do we curb this ingrained activity in our democratic society?
Well, Wales plans tough rules making politicians lose jobs for deliberately lying. Their politicians are discussing a law that would punish politicians who deliberately lie to the public. The plan focuses on Members of the Senedd and aims to bring real consequences when trust is broken. Supporters believe honesty should be a basic duty in public life, not a choice.
A Senedd committee suggested stronger standards and clearer definitions around “deliberate deception.” One idea includes a recall style process where serious breaches could lead to removal from office. The proposals also look closely at election time lies, with plans to tighten rules around false statements used to win votes from the public.
The debate continues but already members, including those in Labour, have said it could fail to get enough support without significant changes like defining what a “false or misleading” statement would be.
Making it a criminal offence to make false or misleading statements of fact to help an election candidate, this legislation “sets out to build stronger foundations for Welsh democracy.”
One would think there would be wide-spread support for this. Not so, my friends.
Cross-party Senedd committees warned it would “seriously hinder full and proper democratic discourse during an election campaign.” It criticized the fact that it does not define exactly what a “false or misleading” statement is, to who it would apply or how.
I’m not sure how banning out-and-out lies hinders an election campaign. If anything, it would make it much more pleasant and the public wouldn’t be subjected to those ridiculous TV ads.
One Welsh politician said: “Strengthening the ways we hold members to account is essential for public trust and the Senedd should get this right.”
I think our friends over there are on to something.
Glancing at our own situation, this intrepid journalist (a member of another highly maligned group) could find very little in the way of direct reference to lying by politicians.
In fact, free speech and debate is fundamental to the process at both Parliament Hill and Queen’s Park.
According to former Speaker Peter Milliken: “As members of Parliament, we all deal regularly with differing interpretations of various events or situations and differing views of documents laid before the House. Members can, and often do, disagree about the actual facts of the same situation. Disagreements of this kind form the basis of our debates. Our rules are designed to permit and indeed to encourage members to present differing views on the given issue. This tolerance of different points of view is an essential feature of the freedom of speech and of the decision making process that lie at the heart of our parliamentary system.”
Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms expressly guarantees free speech and expression, but it does not guarantee access to information, and access to all documents in government hands.
According to the Supreme Court, “… free expression is valued above all as being instrumental to democratic governance.”
I understand different views and opinions. But lies are neither. Either something is true and accurate or it’s not. There is no in between. You shouldn’t have differing opinions on the facts!
I get that politicians have to tread carefully. But often, officials tend to talk a lot but say nothing. They’re well versed in double-speak and not answering direct questions from journalists. Is it any wonder my brothers and sisters in arms have a hard time uncovering the truth?
I have witnessed this first-hand during my journalism career. When people asked me “what’s the truth?” I respond: “It depends who you ask.”
Politicians and civil servants are experts at “artful evasion.” It must taught be to them before they take office.
It seems passing a law to ban lying by politicians would be difficult, narrow and specific, and wouldn’t properly handcuff our politicians from bending the truth.
I suppose with freedom not only comes responsibility, but the given right to side-step the truth.
“The truth is incontrovertible,” Winston Churchill once said. “Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
Perhaps the ball is in our court, as intelligent taxpayers and voters.
William Faulkner urged us to never be afraid to “raise your voice for honesty and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world … would do this, it would change the earth.”
Hear, hear!