“A good politician” according to H.L. Mencken (journalist, literary critic and essayist) “is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar”. In our current political landscape across and within nations, one may find Mencken’s observation not far from what one may be thinking of current reality. What makes an honest politician? What happens to honesty, integrity and good intentions of politicians after they have gained the votes/support of the electorate? Is there something in and about current politics that both attracts those inclined more to lying and quickly turn well-intended and honest ones into dishonest leaders? It is not beyond the imagination to opine that politicians with honesty and integrity seem to be largely located as independent voices, in a small opposition party or sequestered on the back benches of ruling ones. To keep their sanity and integrity many depart from politics either being pushed out or frustrated by the lying around them. Those who remain will find themselves walking the political tightrope having to concede some of their own key values or intentionally glancing in a different direction. Perusing their voting patterns on key issues in parliamentary debates will offer some interesting insights.

Over recent years I have noticed how lying or the propensity to lie has become an expected habit in our politics. To this end one would be excused from thinking that in the case of some political leaders the descriptor ‘pathological liar’ would not be far away from some truth. Even if one may wish to rationalize that such lying is merely an attempt to ‘bend-stretch truth’, ‘terminological inexactitude’, or be ‘economical with truth’ to gain an upper hand in a key debate, one is confronted with the stark reality that there is clearly a ‘deeper and habitual pattern’ to mislead and misdirect – all for the sake of good polling and being re-electable. Perhaps, it is time to contemplate that our democratic life together will flourish on honesty and integrity, and not necessarily dependent on only free speech. In some quarters, the latter has given permission for lies to be peddled as truths.

Sadly, the evidence would seem to suggest that honesty in politics is not always, as they say, the best policy. Evidence seems to suggest that politicians who are more willing and inclined to lie are often the ones who get re-elected. If such is the case, then it would not be impossible to imagine that some may see greater benefit in lying and getting away with it and consequently behave as if lying is a necessary ‘virtue’ of their role as a politician. We are currently seeing how repeated untruths or lies, and unverified ideas (passed as facts) are misleading masses of people. Lying has become ingrained in some quarters, and uncritical/lazy consuming may make many feel that lying is natural or normal. When lies are broadcast daily and repeatedly through the many available variety of media outlets, it is no wonder people start believing them. Psychologists may name this as ‘illusory truth phenomenon’, that is, we are more likely to believe a statement or idea is true the more often we are bombarded with it. This will be the case even if our initial sense and instinct tell us that it is false and that it contradicts the hard evidence around. This is a weakness that propaganda and influencers work on, capitalize and deploy.

In 1971, Hannah Arendt wrote an incisive review essay on the leaked Pentagon Papers – a top-secret Department of Defense history of the U.S. role in Indochina from 1945 to 1967. The mammoth report revealed that multiple presidential administrations misled the public about the extent of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Arendt’s piece was titled “Lying in Politics: Reflections on The Pentagon Papers” (The New York Review of Books, Nov 8, 1971) Arendt observed:

“Truthfulness has never been counted among the political virtues and lies have always been regarded as justifiable tools in political dealings. Whoever reflects on these matters can only be surprised how little attention has been paid, in our tradition of philosophical and political thought, to their significance, on the one hand, for the nature of action and, on the other, for the nature of our ability to deny in thought and word whatever happens to be the actual fact. This active, aggressive capability of ours is clearly different from our passive susceptibility to falling prey to error, illusion, the distortions of memory, and to whatever else can be blamed on the failings of our sensual and mental apparatus.”

A glance at current events around us would be enough to make one despair at the deceptions and scandals in politics, government, and finance/economy/business related ventures. Re-reading Arendt’s piece offers insights into ways to continue holding on to some form of hope: that lies will be uncovered and liars will be held accountable. Her confidence so many years ago in the role of a free and responsible press/media, in strategically organized opposition, and in courageous voices who refuse to be intimidated offer some hope. And as the Dean of Southwark Cathedral writes: “No one is above the law and no one is beneath it either…We won’t mourn or be despondent for long, we will organize. We won’t put grievance into circulation, there’s too much of it…”[Byline Times, January 2026 issue]. And, while I continue to hope I am finding some telling distraction in the French TV Series “Tout le monde ment” (everybody lies): in the pursuit of truth in a world where power more than often corrupts, deploying unconventional ways with detours and risks, there are still some who are committed to holding culprits accountable, exposing/unravelling their game plan, and bringing them to justice. Following the money is a repeating thread. It unravels and reveals much.

jagessar@caribleaper December 18, 2025