WHY NOT REMOVE POLITICIANS WHO ARE CAUGHT DELIBERATELY LYING?

WHY NOT REMOVE POLITICIANS WHO ARE CAUGHT DELIBERATELY LYING?

The government of Wales has announced what could become a historic first in modern democracy: removing politicians from office if they are proven to have deliberately lied to the public.

My immediate reaction was simple: Why not?

For years, many of us have been advocating reforms to improve accountability in government. We have laws against theft, graft, corruption, bribery, and other abuses of power. But what about deliberate lying?

Some people might argue that stealing public funds is a more serious offense than lying. I agree. In fact, corruption should remain a top priority. However, that does not mean we should ignore dishonesty.

After all, many acts of corruption begin with lies.

Politicians promise one thing and do another. They conceal information. They manipulate facts. They mislead voters. Yet in many cases, there are no consequences.

Why should that be acceptable?

The Welsh proposal is not aimed at honest mistakes, differences of opinion, or changing positions based on new information. It targets deliberate deception—knowingly telling the public something that is false.

Supporters say that democracy cannot function properly if voters are constantly being misled. I think they have a point.

If a cashier lies to an employer, that cashier could lose a job. If a lawyer knowingly lies in court, there are sanctions. If a doctor falsifies records, there are penalties.

Why should politicians be exempt?

Of course, the issue is not as simple as it sounds.

One challenge is proving intent. There is a huge difference between being wrong and deliberately lying. A politician may make a statement based on incomplete information and later discover that it was inaccurate. That should not automatically be grounds for removal.

Another concern is political weaponization. Imagine opposition groups filing endless complaints against rivals simply to harass them. Any system designed to punish lying must therefore be independent, fair, and insulated from partisan politics.

Still, these challenges are not impossible to overcome.

We already have courts, ombudsmen, commissions on elections, and other institutions that evaluate evidence and determine intent. Why can’t we create a similar mechanism for deliberate political deception?

In the Philippines, this discussion may be even more important.

Our country suffers not only from corruption but also from misinformation, disinformation, and false promises. Every election season, voters are bombarded with claims that are often forgotten after the ballots are counted.

What if candidates knew that deliberate falsehoods could eventually cost them their positions?

Would they be more careful?

Would public trust improve?

I believe the answer is yes.

Personally, I think the strongest deterrent is not a correction notice or a temporary suspension. The strongest deterrent is the possibility of removal from office.

Nothing focuses the mind of a politician more than the risk of losing power.

Perhaps Wales is conducting a grand experiment for the rest of the world. If it succeeds, it could become a model for other democracies, including the Philippines.

This idea may not solve all political problems. It will not eliminate corruption overnight. It will not guarantee good governance.

But it could establish a very important principle: public office is a public trust, and deliberate lying is a betrayal of that trust.

To me, this is almost a no-brainer.

If we can remove politicians for stealing public money, why shouldn't we also remove politicians who are caught deliberately lying to the people who elected them?

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres  iseneres@yahoo.com  senseneres.blogspot.com  09088877282/07-01-2027

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

HOW IS THE CRIME RATE COMPUTED IN THE PHILIPPINES?

HOW IS THE CRIME RATE COMPUTED IN THE PHILIPPINES? When we talk about the crime rate in the Philippines, we often assume that the figures we see are accurate reflections of reality. But have we ever paused to ask—how exactly is the crime rate computed? Where does this data come from, and how reliable is it? The computation of the crime rate in the Philippines is officially handled by the Philippine National Police (PNP). The formula itself is straightforward: Crime Rate = (Total Reported Crimes / Total Population) x 100,000 This simple equation gives us the number of crimes per 100,000 people, allowing for fair comparison across regions and time periods. However, the reality behind these numbers is more complex than it appears. Data from the Ground The foundation of our national crime rate is empirical data collected at the grassroots level—from individual police stations scattered across the country. Every reported crime is logged in local police blotters, forming the buil...
Read more

GREY AREAS IN GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS

GREY AREAS IN GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS Dear Mr. President: May I ask who is going to be the arbiter or referee whenever there are overlaps in functions between two or more government agencies? I imagine that there would be no problem if these agencies would just cooperate and collaborate with each other, but what if they are unable to settle their differences and they would just end up throwing blame at each other or finger pointing at each other? Allow me to cite some examples. Who is supposed to take the lead in waste to energy projects? Is it supposed to be the DENR that is supposed to handle waste? Or is it supposed to be the DOE that is supposed to handle energy generation? Or is it supposed to be the DILG since it is the one that could direct or influence the waste to energy projects of LGUs? Who is supposed to take the lead in producing and promoting the use of biofuels? Is it supposed to be the DA, since the production of biofuels is supposed to be all about planting biofuel ...
Read more

SOME IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO MAKE USE OF WASTE GLASS COLLECTED FROM OUR WATERWAYS

SOME IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO MAKE USE OF WASTE GLASS COLLECTED FROM OUR WATERWAYS It seems that wherever we go these days—rivers, creeks, esteros, even along our coastlines—we see not just plastic waste but also a good deal of glass bottles, jars, and broken fragments. While plastics usually get the headlines, glass is just as problematic. Unlike organic matter, it does not decompose; it just sits there, often breaking into sharp pieces that pose dangers to humans, animals, and the environment. So, what can we do about it? Collecting it is the first logical step, and in fact, collecting glass is easier than collecting plastic because glass is just one category. Plastics, by contrast, have about seven categories, and these require separate processing streams. That makes glass, in a way, less complicated to deal with. But what happens after collection? That’s where we need to get creative. In Bali, for example, they have the “Sungai Carafe”—a beautifully designed water container made fr...
Read more