Political Leaders and Good Citizenship

Surveys in many countries indicate a significant loss of public confidence in politicians, which is unsurprising given several recent scandals involving abuse of power. This has led to widespread public disillusionment with, and disconnection from, political processes. However, in democracies at least, the fact that citizens elect politicians whose ethical shortcomings are notorious makes them partly responsible for this state of affairs. While it is true that citizens are entitled to vote in accordance with their personal interests, good citizenship requires that citizens take the public interest into account when exercising their vote. This may mean voting for a candidate they prefer less but whose values and behaviour make them more worthy of office. Good citizenship also requires that, politicians should balance their own sectional political interests with those of society as a whole when exercising power, which may require adopting a course of action that is politically disadvantageous. Given their position of power and advantage, politicians are under a particular obligation to foster knowledge of civics. Unfortunately, some politicians find it politically advantageous to discourage citizens from becoming informed and instead propagate misinformation and disinformation. This was particularly evident in Australia during constitutional referenda in 1999 and 2023, leading some commentators to advocate truth in political advertising legislation which would criminalise false or misleading statements made during election or referendum campaigns. However, the creation of an official political ‘truth’ is incompatible with freedom of expression and, more fundamentally, with Mill’s sceptical epistemology discussed in Chap. 1 , which recognises that since it is not possible conclusively to state that something is true, suppressing a statement because it is considered untrue is to claim infallibility, and that the search for truth is enhanced by an encountering error. Political decision-making is an inescapable burden of citizenship and cannot be avoided by vesting in the state the power to determine what is true and untrue. The chapter concludes by arguing that the discussion of good citizenship reveals the limits of law: Law is a coercive system. It is also reactive—its power is felt after it has been breached when a sanction is imposed. By contrast, the values and practices of good citizenship are founded on a voluntary internal commitment resulting in proactive behaviours benefitting society.