Monday, 31st March 2008
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
RSS
Comments
But obviously, KMB has to give the entire concept a twist. I mean, does the gentlemen know the Berlin Wall is down or what?!
p.s. whats the big deal anyway ? Isn't everyone in favour of peace ?
And as for Malta's laws on gay people, whether gay or not the key fact is that they remain people - and how are we expected to treat them?
Before complaining about other parties, look at your own.
Honesty...you'll come back to me with JPO and I'll admit, you're probably right. But you cannot blame the party for what one of their members did. AD is not responsible for Harry's tax returns (I assume).
As to PfP...PN implied that we would rejoing PfP in the electoral manifesto (although not directly, but look in the section to do with the EU...its pretty open ended). By the way, PfP is not a bad thing, its a good thing. I cannot see what all the fuss about neutrality is. PfP does not mean we are no longer neutral, and being neutral does not mean Mohammed al-Something will not come and blow up a bus in Hamrun tomorrow.
By the way, what is the point of saying you're illogical? Maybe it applies to all of your arguments?
Lara. PN is Christian Democrat. Lawrence was president of Azzjoni Kattolika. You cannot expect too many LGBT concessions from them. I don't think we need them, either.
By the way, long time no see. Coming to lectures tomorrow :p
Eventually, the truth always emerges and people who have been caught lying lose all their reputation cos people read right through them, with time.
The problem with lying is that three corners down the road you would have lost your way. Culture developed to mitigate the bad effects emanating from the nature of humanity. Persistent lying renders people unable to think because they can not rely on the 'facts' being presented to them. They start believing what they want based on their fears and desires; what promises an immediate something, And as Adolf Hitler said - What luck for the rulers that men do not think.
Is this where we want to go?
I enjoy these contributions because they permit intellectual exchange, something that has gone missing these last few decades