How a lack of truthfulness can undermine democratic representation: The case of post-referendum Brexit discourses

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.

Political Constitutionalism and Referendums: The Case of Brexit

“…The Brexit referendum has been subjected to a high degree of criticism, especially, but not solely, by those favouring remaining in the EU. These criticisms have ranged from concerns about the misleading character of the Leave campaign, including financial irregularities, misinformation and the use of algorithms for media advertising that derived from dubiously obtained personal information (Hansson and Kröger, 2021), to dissatisfaction with the franchise, especially for its failure to include resident EU nationals or to reduce the voting age to 16 (Grayling, 2017: 189–97; Offe, 2017: 18–21). The evaluation developed here focuses on the second set of criticisms relating to the referendum's institutional design and constitutional credentials rather than the first set relating to its conduct.…”

Strategies of Blaming on Social Media: An Experimental Study of Linguistic Framing and Retweetability

“…These two categories map clearly onto key criteria against which citizens have been found to evaluate politicians. Surveys in political science and political communication indicate that people expect politicians to display integrity and keep their promises (e.g., Valgarðsson et al, 2021); failure to do so engenders public distrust and criticism (e.g., Arendt, 1972;Garland, 2021;Hansson & Kröger, 2021;Judge, 2022;Mercieca, 2020). Normative expectations towards political leaders also often relate to their capacity to address social problems and implement policies as intended (Green & Jennings, 2017;McConnell, 2015).…”

Discursive Strategies of Blaming: The Language of Judgment and Political Protest Online

“…Second, officeholders are frequently criticized for engaging in deceptive communication or dishonest acts that may undermine citizen's trust in political representatives and democratic institutions more generally (e.g., Arendt, 1972;Garland, 2021;Mercieca, 2020). Normatively, the truthfulness of the political leaders is vital for democracy (Hansson & Kröger, 2021), and surveys indicate that people expect politicians to display integrity and keep their promises (e.g., Valgarðsson et al, 2021).…”