It has become clear this week that the Conservative Party have released several publicity videos attacking their political opponents, at least one of which attacks the leader of the Labour Party; and which uses, it would seem, editing to misrepresent the views being relayed.
The video in question shows elements of an interview of Jeremy Corbyn in which he is asked if he condemns the IRA and their campaign of bombing in the 1980s. Jeremy Corbyn responds by saying that “…bombing is wrong, all bombing is wrong, of course I condemn it.” The interviewer then pressed again and asked “But you’re condemning all bombing, can you condemn the IRA without equating it to..” The subsequent response shown on the Conservative video is “No…” at which point the video cuts to another topic. During the real interview however, the answer Jeremy Corby gave was “No, I think what you have to say is all bombing has to be condemned and you have to bring about a peace process” and when pressed specifically on the IRA again his response was to say “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”
There is a substantive difference between the two answers “No” and “I condemn all the bombing…by the IRA”. They are in fact polar opposites; which leads us to conclude that either the Conservative Party did not listen to the full interview, or that they willfully chose to edit an interview given so that they could misrepresent the views of the leader of the opposition. If we assume (which I think is fair) that this ‘edit’ was a deliberate act, then it follows that the Conservative Party have knowingly published a communication which is founded (at least in part) on a lie. Does this then mean that the Conservative Party are not supportive of the democratic process?
If an argument resorts to misrepresentations and lies in order to secure support, then surely it is not worthy of any support thus garnered? This is especially true when applied to a democratic process…
It is perhaps a common belief that the purpose of a democratic system of government is to permit the implementation of a system of government which represents the wishes of the majority of the voting population. Systems across the world vary in terms of the fairness of their implementation, however they perhaps all aspire to this goal.
It should therefore be safe to assume that anyone who stands for election under such a system, is generally supportive of democracy and believes that the wishes of the people should be represented. That said, it would seem logical and reasonable to assume that a candidate would therefore, fully and honestly declare their beliefs and ambitions so that the voters have a real chance to select the candidate whom they believe will best represent their wishes. After all, if when standing for election the candidates wishes and beliefs are hidden, or misrepresented, how can the electorate judge for whom they should cast their vote..?
It would seem logical that if you have to lie in order to secure a vote, that you would not have secured that vote had you not lied (otherwise you would not have had to lie). Votes thus obtained then, cannot represent the true wishes of the voters, and as such the use of lies to secure votes is a departure from the democratic process. Surely this is a most grievous of situations – one in which the current government of the United Kingdom seemingly believes that the truth is no longer a necessary part of the democratic process.
Even outside of the democratic process, if you are to lead, if your argument is to convince people to follow, then it must do so honestly and openly. To secure support on lies cannot be considered to be leading; it is suppression; it is an act of repression against those who might otherwise seek to follow a different path. On a democratic level, this represents a removal of choice from the electorate, it is an oppression, a theft if you will – if not of the vote itself, then certainly of the freedom to choose.
To undertake such an approach, is to consider that the process of democracy is less important that the result of that process. This equates to the power (to lead) being the end, and not the means to the end. The principles for which the agent following this path stands immediately become secondary to the principle of securing power – and hence no store can be held in anything that that agent says. Following a path such as this therefore, renders the process invalid – you simply cannot be elected in a free and fair election if you are lying to the voters, because the election is no longer free no fair. In which case, why bother with the facade? Better simply to declare yourself dictator in chief and be done!
If you truly believe in democracy, if you truly believe in giving the population what they want, then you have to give them the chance to choose – and that cannot be done when lies take the place of truth.