Truth is not an easy virtue. In our post-modern culture, it is even very difficult to define it. Some believe that everyone has his or her own truth. Descartes' famous dictum: "I think therefore I am" has been changed to "I think this is so, therefore it must be so."
We find it difficulty to be always truthful (as we find it difficult to be chaste, obedient, altruistic) because our human nature is gravely wounded by sin. On the other hand, I think that most are conscious that without the assumption of truth as the basis of our relationships society falls to pieces. Imagine what would happen to society if we live by the assumption that people never (or very rarely) tell us the truth!
Although we see its usefulness, we are not always too eager to recognise it. Pilate asked Christ "What is the truth?" However, Pilate did not wait for the answer. We do this all the time. Many a time we are not ready to face the truth or to witness it. White lies are a stratagem used by many to avoid potentially embarrassing situations. In Catholic moral theology, a whole corpus about mental restriction has been built along the years. The system devised lets you avoid saying the truth without being guilty of saying a lie.
Some people believe that politics and truth do not mix; just as some also believe that advertising, or shall we say journalism, and the truth do not mix. However, let us consider politics only for this piece, otherwise, things would become too complex.
I do not share this cynical approach to politics. Politicians are not more or less truthful than the rest of us, though I concede that the temptation of being untruthful is more common in politics and that people fall into it.
Truth, law abiding and elections
Within this context, I discuss the issue about the post-electoral sworn declaration that candidates have to present. In this declaration, they state how much they, or their agent or any other person, spent on their campaign or in their interest. There are two widespread perceptions: that the amount that can be spent is unrealistically small compared to the task at hand and that many make the declaration even though they spend more than the amount stipulated.
I wrote about this subject in my blog "I want to be Prime Minister" (December 18, 2007). I appealed for the law to be changed not fiddled with. I wrote again about the issue on January 30, 2008. I was reacting to the article penned by Georg Sapiano in The Times of January 24th. He contested the general election for the first time and was facing this dilemma: not communicating well with his constituents or breaking the law.
He chose the first option; did not communicate well with his constituents but put himself away from the temptation of presenting a declaration sworn falsely. I do not remember writing about the subject since then. On the other hand, Georg kept on writing about this subject before and after the election for the European Parliament. The Times and The Sunday Times took up the issue and turned it into a campaign. This helped the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition come real. Last Saturday, they wrote to the Speaker asking him to get the Select Committee of Parliament cracking and propose changes to the law. This, though, is not the end of the story.
Your truth! My truth!
Your compliance. My compliance.
What were the reactions among the public and the politicians while the controversy was going on?
I think that most of the public did not really care. Either they had other issues to worry about or they expect politicians to play with the truth, or both, or they thought that this was a mountain out of a mole hole. Some, on the other hand, considered this to be a matter of principles. They did not want the candidates to file, or be seen as filing, a false declaration.
Some candidates stated publicly the amounts they spent. Most were first time candidates and there declarations were generally held to be credible. One could feel a touch of disappointment in their statement. They felt that they were at an unfair advantage when compared to other stronger candidates.
Dr Frank Portelli and Mr Edward Demicoli, who contested on the PN ticket, took a courageous step. They swore that they broke the law. They said that they did not exceed the limit out of their personal funds but that the limit was exceeded when one considered what was spent in their interest by others.
The cynic could say that Portelli and Demicoli did what they did because the penalty they would have to pay (if found guilty) was moderate (not to say miserable) while on the other hand they reaped the advantage given to those who seem to occupy the high moral ground. It is true that their action must have won them the admiration of many, I included, but this does not justify the cynical attitude just referred too.
Their principled action, I suspect, contributed towards pushing the situation in the direction of a crisis, and thus facilitated the search for a remedy.
Dr Roberta Metsola Tedesco Triccas took a legalistic position. She said that a candidate, under the law, becomes a candidate when he or she is officially approved. She swore that her spending during that period did not exceed the legal limit. She also said that she would be publishing what she spent before that period. I have no problem with her position. I think that it is an accepted principle that whenever a law is restrictive it should be given the narrowest interpretation possible.
Dr Roberta Metsola Tedesco Triccas used this principle in her favour. Besides, as she wrote, when the law is an ass it should be treated as an ass. Her action is also courageous as she opened herself to possible prosecution if the relevant authorities give a different interpretation to the law.
It is interesting to note that all those who publicly challenged the law or publicly interpreted it in a different but credible way - Georg, Frank Portelli and Edward Demicoli, Tedesco Triccas - came from the PN. Why was there no similar reaction from the Partit Laburista? Was this not considered to be an issue important enough for public debate?
All candidates, including our MEPs, as required by law now made their declarations. These will eventually be made public. However, I am disappointed that our MEPs did not feel that it would have been politically more correct had they explained to us voters the rationale behind their position when presenting their sworn declaration. I think we are owned an explanation.
Now the ball is in the court of the relevant institutions that have to verify all the declarations made and confirm their truthfulness or otherwise. I do not jump to conclusion and suggest that these declarations are not truthful. Who am I to make such a presumptuous judgement? However, I expect that in the interest of the candidates, (whose honesty is rashly held suspect by some), in the interest of the law and in the interest of truth these institutions will rise up to the occasion and fulfil their duty, as they never fulfilled it before.
Please do not let us all down. Truth and politics do mix and should be seen mixing.