This week in Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) highlighted yet again the sheer inappropriateness of the rules(?) governing political speech; and it strikes me that if there is any hope that a functioning democracy can ever be achieved, the rules need to change.

The comments and speeches made by Members of the United Kingdom Parliament are protected in law (Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689) which determine that no Member of Parliament can be held legally accountable for anything that they say in parliament: a right which effectively allows a Member of Parliament to say whatever they please.  Yet, other than a few traditions laid down in Erskine May (regarded as being part of the UK’s uncodified constitution) and the ‘Nolan’ principles, the codes of conduct for Members of Parliament have no legal sanction and are therefore essentially voluntary .  In extreme circumstances, the Commissioner for Standards may well recommend sanctions (which may include suspension or expulsion – however these have to be ratified by the House of Commons and even if applied, do not prevent the individual from standing again in the resulting by-election).

The practical upshot of all this is that our democratically elected representatives are free to lie, slander and misrepresent the truth whenever it suits their purpose… which is what they do – with little risk of comeback. Together with the guidelines for Parliament, this effectively means that a Member of Parliament can lie, but cannot then be accused of having lied!  As Ian Blackford found out this week, it is even considered ‘unsavoury’ for him to ask Boris Johnson if he is a liar!  Of course, should the worst occur, and an expulsion be recommended by the Committee for Standards and Privileges, the majority party can of course vote against such a measure, which in practical terms means that the government of the day can continue with its bad behaviour with more or less impunity.

In point of fact, this lack of penalty for misrepresentation has engendered not only continual ‘doublespeak’ inside the parliament itself, but has seen this behaviour spread to public statements made and interviews given to the media.  Glossing over the fact that it is surely hard to hold a debate on any issue in an environment where the reality or truth of a situation can be deliberately misrepresented (gaslighting), it must also be confusing to the general public who could well find themselves unable to know whom to believe when confronted with many opposing ‘facts’ for any given subject.  (This is a factor which plays increasingly into the phenomenon of echo-chambers, a feature of today’s society which serves to amplify the partisan nature of politics.)

The question then that we should ask ourselves, is whether or not we find this acceptable.  Does society consider that it is the personal responsibility of every individual citizen to do their own research on matters and then draw conclusions?  Or do we rather expect that political figures should be legally held to account for what they say; and hope thereby to provoke a change in behaviour so that they start telling the truth?  I hesitate to say it, but do we think that the citizens of a country should be protected from being lied to by their own representatives?  Under present conditions, I would even go so far as to question whether or not there is any point in parliament at all – for as long as it remains a forum in which the speakers can simply lie outright…

I am aware of the difficulty in determining what is a lie and what isn’t a lie – such a judgement is not always empirical, however if as a first step Parliamentary Privilege  was revoked to allow Members of Parliament to be subject to the same laws as the rest of us, it would at least open the door to legal prosecution.  If nothing else, this would perhaps make MPs think twice before making egregious statements and would enable them to really be held to account by the electorate.  At the very least, the introduction of the prosecution of MPs for spouting lies would certainly render this state of affaire more visible to the public, and if coupled with the prospect of an MP being dismissed and barred from standing again – then we may even encourage a political environment which is less confrontational, less subjective and in which we stand a chance of seeing real objective debate.

Such a move may also serve to restrict unsubstantiated allegations and judgements being passed-off by politicians as fact.  This week in PMQs, Boris Johnson finished an ‘answer’ to a question by stating that the electorate had a choice between “…a continually failing Welsh Labour government or a Welsh Conservative administration…”.  I have no idea whether or not the Welsh government is failing (what would the criteria for such a judgement be..?) but in his answer Boris Johnson gave no evidence for his assertion, or indeed his opinion that a Welsh Conservative government would be any better.  However, when taken as a sound-bite and out of context, it is easy see how someone could choose to believe therefore that the government in Wales is failing.

Subjective or false statements need to be controlled in any democratic system if it expects that citizens are to be enabled in making informed decisions.  The absence of such controls permits a system where politicians have ‘alternative facts’, where they can say anything they like and can promise anything they like: whoever shouts the loudest wins!  Society has already seen the results of politicians who knowingly lie to the electorate: the Brexit referendum in 2016 and the insurrection at the Capitol building on January 6th 2020.

We simply cannot continue to allow our representatives to lie to us, or to make irresponsible and unreasonable claims.  True democracy can only be founded on reasoned debate – anything less than that only leaves the electorate a ‘faith’ choice, which by its very definition is not scientific or reasoned.