Why do politicians lie?

What is it that explains why politicians lie constantly and systematically?

In the times we live in, it is almost a truism to say that politicians lie. There are more than a few leaders of all kinds of parties and ideologies who have been caught saying something that they never fulfilled once they were elected by the electorate.

One might think that it is because they consider their voters to be idiots, who will not notice the lie. However, considering that thanks to the Internet we can easily confirm what they have lied about, one cannot help but wonder why politicians lie. They should know that they are going to be disproved sooner or later.

In the following we will go deeper into this question, seeing that, really, it is not just about lying, but about making their falsehoods a really powerful tool.

• Related article, "What is Political Psychology?"

Why do politicians lie so often?

To say that politicians lie sounds almost logical. Some will say that, really, it is not so, simply that they say they promise something in their electoral programs but for X or Y in the end they cannot confirm it. Others, perhaps with their feet more on the ground, will say that politicians do indeed lie consciously, with the clear intention of getting elected. with the clear intention of getting themselves elected by their voters and then, when they are already in power, they will take it upon themselves to disappoint those who elected them.

Be that as it may, one cannot help thinking that in the times we live in, a politician who lies is not a very intelligent and cautious politician. Thanks to the Internet and the access to all the information available, it is not very difficult to find on websites of ideology antagonistic to that of a particular politician who brings out everything he has lied about. Taking this into account, we could think that these people are really stupid, since they know that there is a resource that will disprove everything they have said.

In an ideal and logical world, the lying politician would be caught and removed from the political career because nobody wants to vote for him. But we live neither in an ideal world nor in a logical one. The politician blatantly tells falsehoods, knows that the Internet will show what he has lied about and, even so, he gets enormous fame, many voters and a lot of repercussion.and an unbelievable impact. Let's look at Donald Trump or Jair Bolsonaro. Before being elected, they said a lot of nonsense, things that any American and Brazilian could quickly deny and, despite this, they ended up being elected president.

Taking all this into account, in addition to the question that gives the name to this article (Why do politicians lie?), it also comes to mind how, even by lying, they manage to gain fame. It would seem that it should be just the opposite and it has become clear that with these two examples we have just mentioned, not only have they done well, but it seems that their fame is getting better and better, even with a terrible management of such crucial aspects in history as the COVID-19.

A world of falsehoods

False information, more modernly comprised of what is known as "fake news," seems to be spreading at a faster rate than the truth.. We may think that believing lies or wanting to believe them is something modern, boosted by new technologies, but it seems that this has been going on for a long time, even when writing did not exist.

It seems that the existence of intergroup conflicts throughout our evolutionary history has shaped our minds. Human psychology seems to be predisposed to disseminate information that, regardless of whether it is true or not, if it meets the following characteristics is seen as potentially credible.

• Mobilize the ingroup against the outgroup.
• Facilitate coordination of attention and efforts within one's own group.
• Signaling commitment to the group by ingroup members.

Far from what many may think, the human mind is designed to select and disseminate information that is effective in achieving these objectives, not to give true information, especially in the case of the ingroup.The human mind is designed to select and disseminate information that is effective in achieving these goals, not to give true information, especially if social conflict is occurring. In case there is a conflict between two groups, human beings are psychologically prepared to prioritize that information that helps us to win the conflict against the exogroup, even if objectively that information is clearly a fallacy.

It must be said that it is not entirely true to claim that humans do not pay due attention to true information. It is adaptive and effective to have true knowledge of the outside world, especially in aspects that contribute to individual and group survival in terms of Biological needs such as food, shelter or avoiding a threat such as a predator. For example, in a tribe, it is adaptive to tell the other members where the best grazing grounds for hunting wildebeest are located.

However, in the course of human evolution, our mind generated, adopted and propagated beliefs that could serve other functions, even if the information itself is not true. Lying has a clear evolutionary componentotherwise we would not make it. By lying we can manipulate other people, make them imagine things that they are not and make them behave in a way that is beneficial to us. Lying would have been useful for a group at odds with another group to be able to finish off the other, even if the motivation was based on falsehoods.

Conflict in nonhuman animals

Naturally, conflict or struggle is not exclusive to the human species. On more than one occasion we have seen in television documentaries how two individuals of the same species confront each other over issues such as dominance over territory, food or obtaining a mate. These confrontations usually follow a series of steps to assess whether there are chances of victory or, if not, there is a good chance of losing with serious injury or even death.

In most cases, the best predictor of fighting ability is size and physical strength. This is why natural selection has been developing mechanisms in different species to evaluate the size and strength of the opponent, in order to find out if they have a chance. An example of this can be found in deer, which, before fighting, usually start bawling. It has been found that the volume of their bellowing correlates directly with their size. The louder they are, the bigger they are.

But what is surprising is that sometimes deer lie. In an attempt to avoid a fight they are sure to lose and intimidate their opponent, deer of, shall we say, modest size emit loud bellows, as if they were bigger than they are. In this way, and with a bit of luck, can intimidate an opponent who, surely, if they had decided to fight them, would have defeated them and left them badly injured. and left them badly wounded. In this way, these small-sized deer obtain food, territory and mates without having to put their lives at risk.

Another natural deception mechanism is piloerection, i.e., goose bumps and raised hair. In humans this mechanism is no longer of much use, but in hairier species it allows us to confuse our opponents by giving them the impression that they are bigger and, therefore, stronger than they really are. Thus, especially in the face of a predator or any other threatening animal, many animal species can save their lives by lying to their opponent about their size.

Intergroup conflicts and coalitional instincts

In the human case, conflicts have taken an important evolutionary leap. In our species, conflicts can occur not only between individuals, but also between very large groups.. Humans know that several weak individuals do not stand a chance against a stronger individual separately, but together they can beat him up.

Alliances are a fundamental aspect of our evolutionary history, and have also been seen to occur in some primates such as chimpanzees.

As individuals, if we don't have any coalitions with other people, we are "naked", we are weak to anyone who does. Belonging to a coalition has become an evolutionary imperative, as important as getting food or shelter.

Humans, while we are not a species that is a superorganism like ants, we do organize ourselves in a very social structure. We have acquired a very strong sense of belonging to all kinds of groups.The first step is to become a member of a coalition that guarantees our protection and security.

Once we are inside, we end up acquiring certain patterns of behavior and thinking. Our sense of belonging to the group makes us less critical of what is said within it. It is much easier for us to believe what is shared within the group, even if from the outside we see it as something really delirious and not very credible. Sharing the same beliefs as the rest of the members of the group makes us feel more a part of it, while criticism distances us. Lying can unite a group, especially if it is told to highlight its differences with respect to the ex-group..

When there is a conflict between two groups, cohesion and coordination between the members of each group are two essential aspects to win the conflict. If two groups are in dispute and find themselves on equal terms, the one that manages to organize itself better, that has more homogeneous thinking and takes more synchronized action will be the winning group.

All this has a direct bearing on why politicians and, in general, any political party or even nation lie. Lying about the characteristics of one's own group, exaggerating its virtues, lying about those of the other group, highlighting or inventing defects, contributes to the ingroup's ingroup.The in-group is even more motivated, has greater self-esteem and a greater capacity for action.

An example of this can be seen in military parades. In these parades, states present their entire military arsenal with a clear political intention: to intimidate the rival. By means of a perfectly synchronized army parading through the streets of the capital, showing its weapons, tanks and even artifacts that are nothing more than cardboard-stone, the government sends two messages. One, that they are a great nation, extolling patriotic pride, and two, that other countries dare not attack them because they are well prepared, which is not necessarily true.

The other example is the speech of politicians. Politicians lie, tell falsehoods of all kinds and conditions with the clear intention of making their audience feel that if they do not vote for them, they will be letting a potential threat, whether perpetrated by their political rival or by their inaction, happen. Electoral races are just another type of inter-group conflict and, as in any other, it is necessary to improve ingroup coordination through deception. Lies in these contexts serve to:

• Solving coordination problems.
• Agreeing with false beliefs is a sign of commitment to the group.
• Exerting dominance over the group by making them believe exaggerated information.

Lies and coordination

Donald L. Horowitz explains in his book The Deadly Ethnic Riot that before and after the ethnic massacres that have taken place throughout the world in the course of history rumors have been the tool that has been used to move into action.. The circulation of these rumors, that is, unverified and often unverifiable information, plays a very important role in attacking the exogroup, seen as a terrible threat that will soon attack us.

The content of these rumors tends to target the rival group as a soulless enemy, which devalues our group. This exogroup is very powerful and if something is not done to stop it, it will harm us, maybe even destroy us. Rumors convey a sense of urgency, that if something is not done we will be seriously harmed. A simple example to understand is the case of Germany when Adolf Hitler was beginning to burst onto the political scene, saying how the Jews were conspiring to destroy the nation and that it was necessary to "defend ourselves".

Many politicians today sow doubt with rumors that they cannot confirm and have no intention of confirming.. In many speeches, especially by politicians in favor of conspiratorial ideas, it is not uncommon to find phrases of the style "I don't know if it is true but...", a type of verbal structure that comes to sow doubt and fear in the population, who cannot help thinking "and if it is true... we should do something now!"

Lies and dominance

Making statements made of lies can serve the politician to signal his motivation to help the group in a conflict, but also to signal that the same politician has the right capabilities to lead the group to victory. to signal that the same politician has the right capabilities to lead the group to victory..

The human mind in times of conflict is designed to promote those leaders who have or appear to have the personal characteristics that will most effectively solve the problems of the in-group.

One of the characteristics that every politician must have is that of dominance, that is, the ability to induce compliance with an action either by intimidation or coercion. When there is a conflict, whether it is a war or simply a politically tense situation, people prefer dominant leaders, reflected in their motivation that they should be able to induce an action either by intimidation or coercion.This is reflected in their motivation to escalate the conflict and attack the enemy once and for all. Dominance is manifested by challenging the ex-group.

The politician who lies, who attacks another party or follower of an antagonistic political ideology does so with the clear intention of looking dominant, a figure of power before his potential voters. He dares to say things the way he thinks or the way his audience wants them to be said, even if they are not true. By challenging the norms they are seen as more authentic, more daring, more truthful. Ironically, politicians lie to be seen as the most right and we the people, who like to be told things as we believe them to be, not as they truly are, follow them.

Bibliographical references:

• Horowitz, D. L. (2003) The Deadly Ethnic Riot. University of California Press.
• Petersen, M., Osmundsen, M., & Tooby, J. (2020, August 29). The Evolutionary Psychology of Conflict and the Functions of Falsehood. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/kaby9.