How a lack of truthfulness can undermine democratic representation: The case of post-referendum Brexit discourses
| Published date | 01 November 2021 |
| Date | 01 November 2021 |
| Author | Sten Hansson,Sandra Kröger |
| DOI | 10.1177/1369148120974009 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120974009
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2021, Vol. 23(4) 609 –626
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1369148120974009
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
How a lack of truthfulness
can undermine democratic
representation: The case
of post-referendum Brexit
discourses
Sten Hansson1 and Sandra Kröger2
Abstract
This article draws attention to how the ethics of democratic representation operates as a
discreet factor in a crisis of representation afflicting Western democracies by identifying the ways
a disregard for truthfulness can harm democratic representation. We argue that such a disregard
undermines democratic representation by (1) reducing freedom and equality, (2) weakening
accountability, (3) undermining citizens’ trust in democratic institutions, and (4) jeopardising
the ability to compromise. We illustrate the processes that produce these effects by analysing
examples of untruthful communication about Brexit by senior British politicians in the post-
referendum debates. We show how all four of these effects were triggered by the ways they
misled the public by (1) making claims about overwhelming popular support for their policy, (2)
misrepresenting the power relations between the European Union and the national government,
and (3) seriously downplaying the complexity of negotiations involved in leaving the European
Union and reaching trade deals thereafter.
Keywords
accountability, Brexit, critical discourse analysis, deception, democratic representation, lying,
truthfulness
Introduction
In representation theory, scholars have mainly addressed questions of formalistic, sub-
stantive, and descriptive representation (e.g. do existing mechanisms of authorisation and
accountability still work satisfactorily? How can the link between represented and repre-
sentative be strengthened? Should women represent women?) (Kröger and Friedrich,
2013; Pitkin, 1967). In contrast, little attention has been paid to the ethics of democratic
representation, and specifically the virtues of elected representatives. This gap appears
1University of Tartu, Institute of Social Studies, Tartu, Estonia
2University of Exeter, Department of Politics, Exeter, UK
Corresponding author:
Sten Hansson, University of Tartu, Lossi 36, 51003 Tartu, Estonia.
Email: sten.hansson@ut.ee
974009BPI0010.1177/1369148120974009The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsHansson and Kröger
research-article2020
Original Article
610 The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 23(4)
unwarranted in the light of the dynamic dimension of political representation stressed
recently by scholars (see below), and particularly, the ways representatives exert power
over the represented (Disch, 2011: 107–108; Saward, 2010).
In this contribution, we address this gap by what we consider a crucial virtue repre-
sentatives should possess, namely, truthfulness, and how its absence contributes to under-
mining democratic representation. We use the case of post 2016 referendum debates in
the United Kingdom to develop the argument and discuss how untruthful or misleading
language use by policymakers might have negative implications for democratic represen-
tation, and for citizens’ faith in representative democracy as a whole. To address this
qualitative question, one has to combine insights and analytic tools from two fields of
research: (1) discourse studies that help to uncover the mechanisms of deception in lan-
guage use and demonstrate these by analysing some empirical cases in detail and (2)
democratic theory that provides a basis for spelling out the possible implications of vari-
ous forms of untruthful communication for representation.
As we elaborate below, truthfulness matters for freedom and equality, accountability,
citizens’ trust in democratic institutions, and the ability to compromise. And yet, truthful-
ness as an established norm of democratic politics seems to be breaking down, while
emotion and unfounded assertions are increasingly accepted as common currency. As
‘facts’ are disputed and ‘experts’ derided (Davies, 2018), boundaries between the ‘real’
and the ‘fictional’ become increasingly blurred, leading to the fictionalisation of politics
(Wodak, 2011). In Hannah Arendt’s (1967) words, ‘what is at stake here is . . . common
and factual reality itself, and this is indeed a political problem of the first order’.
The article proceeds as follows. First, we spell out why democratic representation
requires truthfulness, with truthfulness relying on accuracy (the information is not false
and can be publicly verified) and sincerity (the representative is honest and does not seek
to mislead or deceive). If elected representatives do not give accurate information, citi-
zens cannot count on the policies they are proposing actually being in the citizens’ inter-
est. And if elected representatives are not sincere, citizens do not know whether they will
actually do what they said they would do. Both will make it harder for citizens to know
which representative best aligns with their interest and so make democratic representation
problematic. Both will undermine citizens’ ability to hold officeholders to account. Of
course, we cannot always be sure whether politicians knowingly seek to deceive or
whether they simply try to persuade their audiences. Normatively, however, any depar-
ture from truthfulness has deleterious effects on democratic representation and, ulti-
mately, on representative democracy as it affects citizens’ trust in government and
people’s ability to compromise. Second, we introduce our methodology (pragmatism),
method (discourse analysis), and data set. Third, we discuss the possible implications of
untruthful communication for freedom and equality, accountability, trust in democratic
institutions, and the ability to compromise and illustrate these with statements about
Brexit made between 2017 and 2019 by leading British policymakers.1 We conclude by
discussing the relevance of our findings for the ethics of democratic representation and by
proposing avenues for future research.
How truthfulness matters for democratic representation
The crisis of democratic representation has been associated with a loss of faith in repre-
sentative democracy more generally, including the effectiveness of the democratic mech-
anisms of authorisation and accountability in ensuring politicians respond to the concerns
To continue reading
Request your trial