I'd be nervous about criminal charges against politicians for the failings of private businesses unless there was evidence of corrupt behaviour on the politicans part.

What I would like to see is criminal charges where it can be shown that a politician has lied (or not taken reasonable steps to confirm what they say). Some that come to mind which are generally well known (although not yet proven in a court of law)

- Howard on the children overboard. No due dilligence in getting the claims confirmed and an apparent ignoring of clarifications which did come.
- Bush and Co WMD in Iraq, and to some extent Howard and co if they didn't have the claims examined thoroughly.
- Clinton and no sexual relations with that women, what he does in the office is not the publics business but lies are. I got the impression that women who'd complained of predatory sexual tactics prior to him becoming president were not given a fair chance at having that dealt with once he became president.
- Bligh and Fraser for denying prior to the last election plans to drop the fuel subsidy and sell off public assets then apparently discovering just after the election that the states finances were not going as well as they thought.
- Gillard and the no carbon tax in a government I lead
- Abbott if he get's into power and finds some committments which were not written down are no longer committments.
- Others shown to be deceiving the public as a result of docuemnts released by Wikileaks

There needs to be some way for politicians to protect genuine secrets without being allowed to use that privilige for personal or political gain.

R0bert

Interesting thoughts, thanks all.

Lexi, I also doubt very much that Haarde will be found guilty. But the fact that Iceland has such a law, and has decided that it needs an airing after laying dormant for over a century, could well act as some kind of incentive to politicians to take more notice of what is going on.

Pelican, I doubt whether any parliament, anywhere in the world, would pass legislation that allows the normal processes of government to be open to criminal prosecution. Politicians are already above the law in a number of areas, covered by parliamentary privilege. But a lesser sanction - say, disallowing an MP to vote against the specifics of his stated (lodged, signed, notarized) pre-election commitments might be an interesting start. No criminality, just an enforcement of a contract willingly entered into with his/her electorate.

Arjay, Iceland has a population just a little larger than that of Wollongong. Do you think anyone really cares whether they bailed out their banks or not?

R0bert, I agree that criminal sanctions are inappropriate for non-criminal behaviour. But there needs to be, in my opinion, some form of circuit-breaker (forgive the cliché) that serves to restore confidence in the processes of government. Processes that, as you eloquently illustrate, have taken some massive punishment in recent times.

Without some kind of new and enforceable compact between electorate and the elected, nothing much is likely to change, I feel.

Pericles
I was not advocating legal action in terms of the normal process of government but thought wrongly that was where you were heading.

The manifesto is a good idea and would serve to strengthen good democracy. And it could be where deviation from the agreement would require consent from the electorate (ie. in the case of unforseen circumstances).

There are certainly many ways to improve the current accountability regime.

"And it could be where deviation from the agreement would require consent from the electorate (ie. in the case of unforseen circumstances)."

The simplest might be to require a credible form of bi-partisan support for the deviation, if an opposition was unreasonably withholding it then the government could put it to some form or referendum (or an election if necessary). Opposition for oppositions sake could be punished by the voters as would contrived excuses but genuine changes of circumstances requiring urgent action could be dealt with quickly.

It takes a while to set up an election but in a genuine crisis breifing the oppostion on the details and giving them access to the necessary information to form an informed and independant opinion should not take long.

Might need some work around the detail, eg would both the Coalitions and Greens approval be required in our current parliment to break a committment?

R0bert

Hi there Pericles...

A thoroughly thought provaking thread. I must, say many of the correspondents here have put some interesting propositions. Generally supporting mechanisms in which to ensure our politicians act candidly, lawfully, and honourably.

My own view, always very basic and simplistic, would put another broader question to those in the Forum.

Difficult as it may be to determine and prove if a politician acts either; foolishly, unconscionably or criminally - What really worries me is, when a politician knowingly lies.

In my previous occupation, we were sworn in. If we were caught lying, either to our superiors or to the courts, we were 'for it' !

To my simple mind and intellect, there are some members in both state and federal parliaments who DO lie and lie seemingly with impunity.
Yet, they too are also sworn in. What's the difference ?

I've mentioned previously I'm a conservative. And Lexi somewhere herein, was identified as Labor. So what. Liberals are just as culpable of lying, as any other member of the parliament.

Thus, I do support your broad hypothesis for some legal remedy Pericles, absolutely.

I don't care how small Iceland is Pericles.They stood up to the criminal bullies and made their point.Iceland is the mouse that roared.

Greece Italy and the rest of the PIGS should do likewise.Tell them to stick their counterfeiting debt and create their own credit.