Why do politicians distort and deceive or even lie?

Abdullah A Dewan "Since a politician never believes what he says," Charles de Gaulle once remarked, "he is quite surprised to be taken at his word." Along the same lines, Winston Churchill observed, "Although we expect politicians to lie, we still hold them accountable for the terminological inexactitudes, which are discovered". Internet is chockfull with the question "Why do politicians lie". Research and experience tell us that politicians lie because people expect too much of them. They deceive because they've to hide their broken pledges. They engage in hyperbole because they've to win election. They distort facts because truth hurts. They do all these because their political base doesn't want to hear the facts about the economy, job prospects, price spirals, and most of all their leaders' deficiencies. Whether it's the instinct to reconcile the conflicts between expectations and reality or to justify the indefensible -- all politicians in every country resort to deceptions, distortion, exaggerations, and even lies. People want to hear about optimism -- and "hope and change" for the better. That's why politicians make pledges that are rosy and unrealistic even knowing -- given resource and time constraints, position in power hierarchy, and most all their seemingly insatiable pent up "rent seeking" motive - they won't be able to deliver the pledges. As we watch on TV every day that words and actions of politicians are subject to intense scrutiny by columnists and commentators -- all supposedly acting to serve the public's awareness about the politicians they'd elect. And yet, despite all the analysis by pundits and hairsplitters they make statements wilfully that are far from facts and contemptibly baseless. This demeanor becomes a way of politicking -- and more so in nascent democracies --and politicians can get away because of lack of transparency, dissemination of politically motivated misinformation, absence of media freedom and its lack of access to vital information. Let us review some recent examples of Bangladeshi politicians and then decide if they're distorting facts and spreading misinformation. On October 19, opposition leader Khaleda Zia said that Jamaat-a-Islam's Ameer Motiur Rahman Nizami, Moulana Sayedee, and Secretary General Ali Ahsan Mojaheed did not work against the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. She claimed that they were being prosecuted under false and fabricated charges. What would any one call such a bizarre claim other than asinine if not outright deception and distortions of facts? With reference to the Padma Bridge funding foreign minister Dipu Moni pointed finger at unidentified quarters lodging complaints to the World Bank (WB) about corruption. She claimed: "Differentiating between allegations of corruption and proven corruption, the image of the Bangladesh government has not been dented or sullied." She made these claims even though the facts are out in the public. WB withheld $1.2 billion Padma bridge funds after discovering attempted (or, alleged) corruption. And subsequently Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Japan, International Cooperation Agency (JICA) also followed the suit. What else has to happen to damage a government's image? May be faking the bridge built and then showing it disappeared mysteriously would do the trick. Prime Minister Hasina said on October 19 that corruption in the communications ministry during the last BNP government led to the halting of Padma Bridge funding. I was literally transfixed to read this outrageous claim, given what has been going on with WB and other bridge funding agencies. Then on October 21, the Prime Minister told the AL Parliamentary Party meeting that "a Bangladeshi Nobel laureate" had lobbied the WB through a top US official against financing the bridge construction even though her finance minister refuted such a rumor Professor Yunus categorically dismissed the claim as "baseless" while attending social business conference in Moscow. No one can defend the extent of alleged corruption of the former communication minister Nazmul Huda. No one also believes that Professor Yunus would harm his country's interest. So, why engage in finding unfounded scapegoats, given WB has already provided some unassailable evidence of rent-seeking attempt by the minister now in charge of the ministry of communication. Naturally, one now wonders: Is the country's top political leadership now in power making grounds to save the minister? Is that the reason the government vainly made some attempts to secure funds from other sources? To secure WB funding, the government is now grudgingly considering two options: either removal or replacement of the minister concerned or creating a separate body to oversee the bridge construction. Firing the concerned minister is tantamount to a corruption admission trap - one that is politically awkward and administratively humiliating. But, that may be exactly what the WB wants notwithstanding the government's assurance of corruption investigations by anti-corruption commission (ACC). WB emphatically told the government about its decision to not finance the project with the incumbent minister at the helm. WB claimed to have photographic evidence of his business agent -- seeking a percentage of the contract value from a company bidding to pre-qualify. It must be mentioned that the minister concerned has always denied any wrong-doing. What the WB did -- going after the alleged corruption - could have easily been shunned by letting the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) do the investigation once the smell of corruption started sprouting. Now if the minister concerned is gone, as some reports predict, what's the guarantee that the next one to oversee the bridge construction wouldn't be engaged in "rent seeking" intrigues and maneuverings. It seems WB doesn't have much confidence in ACC's power to prosecute the alleged corruption shenanigan of a minister given that this political government - rightly or wrongly - withdrew all corruption cases against its own party loyalists by-passing the ACC and the legal course. In fact, we don't see any successful prosecution of corrupt officials since the assumption of power by the Awami League (AL) led government - as if allegations of rampant corruption by the people and the Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) are all conspiracy driven figments. Question is: WhAT qualifies these people to be leaders? There is scientific evidence correlating deceptive behavior with leadership qualities. A 1993 study by Colgate University psychologists Caroline Keating found "best liars among pre-school children emerge as leaders during school play periods. With adults she found that leaders are the best misleaders." A succession of philosophers, from Plato to Machiavelli to Disraeli, has observed that "lying is a legitimate element of governing". Sissela Bok, a Harvard philosopher who has written extensively on the subject, said that "politicians often claim an ethical basis for deliberately misleading the public". Now some tips: when politicians start talking and utter the following phrases: "to tell you the truth" or "honestly speaking" or "as a matter of fact" or "as a matter of principle" or "I have the facts" and so on, TV journalists must start zooming in their video cameras to record the lies that are sure to follow - believe it not. The writer, formerly a Physicist and Nuclear Engineer, is a Professor of Economics at Eastern Michigan University, USA. He may be reached at E-mail : adewan@emich.edu