By Claire Demerse
In our complicated world, there are a few things we can all agree on.
Used car salesmen are sleazy, doctors have bad handwriting, hookers have hearts of gold and politicians lie.
Everyone recognizes that last stereotype, and studies suggest that most Canadians believe it. But one Ottawa advocacy group says that’s no reason to let our elected representatives get away with making promises they don’t intend to keep.
Duff Conacher, the head of the non-partisan Democracy Watch, wants a new law giving Canadians an easy way to challenge politicians who lie. This month, he released a plan for an honesty commission that would investigate voter complaints and, ideally, have the power to fine MPs or even dismiss them from Parliament.
It sounds ridiculous, if not impossible, to stop politicians from doing something that seems to come so naturally. But there are some good arguments for Conacher’s proposal, and it’s simple enough that it just might work.
Conacher also says the timing is right to stop politician’s lies. Right now, scandals and voter cynicism are forcing politicians to think hard about ethics. He says “we’re in a time of sea change. The parties are actually battling it out to set the highest standards.”
In one province, it’s already illegal for a candidate or party to mislead voters during an election.
Under B.C.’s Election Act, winning votes by “fraudulent means” is banned. During their 1996 election campaign, the NDP government in B.C. told voters they were running a surplus, and only revealed a $369 million deficit after winning the election. Three voters took the NDP to court to contest the election and won at the provincial level before the Supreme Court refused to hear the case in 2000.
Right now, Conacher argues, politicians get an easy ride.
If a Canadian corporation produces false advertising, consumers can trigger an official investigation just by filling out a complaint form. If a company lies to its shareholders, they have the right to sue.
But governments can make and break election promises with no consequences, except in the court of public opinion. And if voters don’t like the government’s flip-flop on, say, scrapping the GST, it’s a four- or five-year wait until the next election.
Ian Greene, a political scientist at York University, says Conacher may be on to something.
“There’s the theory that we won’t vote for politicians who lie. But so many Canadians feel that all politicians lie, so there has to be something else.
Canadians would welcome a mechanism like this, if it could be made to work.”
Some political parties already tap into the public desire for honest politicians to win votes. Knowing voters don’t believe them, politicians make their election platform a contract with the public, and promise to uphold their end of the bargain. The Liberal Red Book in 1993 and the Ontario Conservative party’s 1995 Common Sense Revolution used this tactic, and both went on to win their elections.
Of course, that doesn’t mean they followed their own prescriptions. But that’s not always a bad thing, according to Greene.
“The Harris government kept a promise and so we got Walkerton. Sometimes it would be wonderful if politicians broke their promises,” he says.
A major survey of Canadian attitudes about political ethics, published in 1998, suggests Greene’s view is rare.
Eighty per cent of those surveyed said it is never or rarely acceptable to break a promise.
The study found that Canadians are somewhat tolerant of lies about the private lives of politicians, but unforgiving of broken promises about public issues. The study’s main author, Maureen Mancuso, a political scientist from the University of Guelph, concluded that “voters really do insist on being told the truth, whatever the consequences.”
Even so, Ottawa Centre Liberal MP Mac Harb isn’t convinced that political honesty needs much improvement.
“We have a system already. It’s called an election. Between elections, you cannot be at the mercy of everyone,” Harb said in an interview.
Besides, honesty is not a problem for the Liberal party, he added. “We always fulfil our promises. When we don’t fulfil a commitment, by and large, we explain why. We’re still working on some promises. Nobody’s perfect.”
You can say that again.
Still, Harb says he supports anything that improves transparency, so Conacher’s proposal “shouldn’t be rejected out of hand. It deserves a close look.”
That’s exactly the kind of non-promise every veteran politician knows how to make. And if Conacher’s vision ever did become reality, its main consequence might be exactly that—not more honesty in politics, but more vagueness.
If breaking promises could lead to fines, politicians are certainly savvy enough to stop just short of making them.
But if that’s the worst consequence, why not give it a try? Like everyone else, politicians will never be completely honest, but they could certainly do better with a bigger incentive. Conacher’s plan looks simple and inexpensive. If the polls are right, it’s also something voters want. And it might, for once, give Canadians a chance to feel a little less cynical about
politics.