In Book V of his "Histories", Herodotus suggested that, although Aristagoras failed to convince the Spartan king to help the Ionians against Persia, he succeeded in getting Athens to do so because it was easier to deceive a group than a single person.  The point of the historian and geographer was, interestingly, that people can be convinced through deception, disinformation, and the stirring up of emotions and desires for gain.

Today, we still watch with fascination as candidates for the most powerful jobs in countries trade falsehoods and practise dishonesty.  Reputable news organisations have their hands full fact-checking political candidates' truthful wheat from their dishonest chaff.

Of course, politicians are just one group in humankind's less-than-truthful underbelly. The fact is that we all stretch the truth.  We learn to deceive as toddlers.  As we grow up, we become experts in rationalising the fabrications that benefit us. We tell little white lies daily that make others feel good.

Studies have shown that children learn to lie at an average of about 3 years old, often when they realise that other people don't know what the toddlers are thinking. Kang Lee, a professor at the University of Toronto, has done extensive research showing that at age two, only 30 percent lie, but by age three, half do so.  By five or six, nine in every ten become liars.

The problem is that there are many shades of truth-bending.  White lies are described by the psychologist and political scientist Stanley Renshon as the "social lubrication" that makes civilised people operate. When you tell your wife that she doesn't look fat in that outfit when she does, does the lie really do any harm?  Perhaps not, but there are also lies and damned lies.

White lies are pretty straightforward.  However, when people deceive in a big way, they expend great effort in rationalising their lies.  Shaul Shalvi, who runs the Behavioural Ethics Lab at the University of Amsterdam, calls it "justified dishonesty".  It happens when the desire to be ethical clashes with the desire to profit from something.  By lying a little. people make their lies seem legit.

Remember the cyclist Lance Armstrong?  He justified his denials of doping on the ground that his story raised hope in cancer victims, though it also benefited him. The problem is that lying entails a high cost to society; it leads to a loss of trust that is difficult to regain. There are also costs to the liar   ̶   once again noted in studies that measure the effect of deception on the body and brain and how much energy it takes to create and maintain a lie.  The energy spent on telling a lie is a lot more than when one tells the truth.

Politicians do this constantly.  Jennifer Mercieca, a Texas A&M professor of communications who studies political rhetoric and teaches fact-checking, says that politicians "convince themselves that the ends justify the means" and that "the reasons they are doing it are more important".

Lying is closely linked with manipulation in politics, often prevailing over persuasion.  Gone are the days of the "nudges" when politicians tried to influence people's decisions without coercion.  Now, manipulation is pervasive, particularly because developments in psychology and the social and information sciences, as well as changes to the media landscape, have made it more effective.

Recent history in Malta is replete with examples of candidates or parties tarnishing competitors with innuendoes; deliberately concealing the fact that, if elected, they will support a policy that most voters oppose; appealing to xenophobia to garner support for restrictive immigration policies; sparking investigations against rivals on charges they know to be baseless, hoping that the mere fact of an investigation will lead voters to question their rivals' integrity; and attaching "poison pills" to pieces of legislation, forcing opponents not to vote them down despite their misgivings.

Generally speaking, most people feel that politicians are liars.  In fact, several surveys have shown that two-thirds of the population do not trust political parties or the government. The question is whether, given this low level of trust, they give credence to promises made by politicians.  

In 2022, the two major parties made 1,792 electoral pledges altogether.  This implied that whoever won the election would, on average, implement a pledge every two days.  Now, anybody with the least bit of common sense knows that this is impossible, given the magnitude, complications, and enormous costs of some proposals.  One can mention the metro, a tunnel between Malta and Gozo, the eradication of poverty, and a living income for all families as some of the far-fetched proposals.

How could voters trust these pledges if they also believed that politicians lie?  One reason has been proposed by Dr Robert Feldman, Professor of Psychology and Brain Sciences at the University of Massachusetts.  Feldman says that "we are really trained to be deceptive and, if we're not, if we are totally truthful all the time, that's not a good thing, there's a price to be paid for that."

According to this proposition, society rewards people for white lies.  From there, it is only a small leap to what politicians do.  The lies we accept from politicians are lies that are seen as acceptable, because it's what we want to hear.  Who wouldn't like to receive a living income, who would prefer to stay in poverty rather than be lifted out of it, which Gozitan wouldn't want to travel faster to Malta?  As a result, we have become numb to lies.

It is this acceptance of lies that many politicians exploit to manipulate public opinion. Add to that confirmation bias.  Mercieca argues that the public tends to believe things   ̶   even if they are false   ̶   which conform to what they already believe and come from new sources and partisans that they already trust and agree with.  It is not surprising, therefore, that people who follow One or Net TV will swear to the veracity of whatever they learn from their parties' broadcasting outlets.  Emanuel Cuschieri, Dione Borg, Laburisti sal-Mewt, and Ultras Nazzjonalisti provide enough confirmation bias for a lifetime.

As far as I am concerned, my opinion is that most politicians lack wisdom. When they express views on different positions and promise to do everything possible to enact them, hardly any mention the possible trade-offs or costs related to each new policy. Nor do they discuss how their proposed policy would interact with other policies and issues.

The fact is that, for example, the introduction of a universal basic income would probably cost several hundred million euros annually, increase spending to such an extent that fewer taxpayer euros and government resources would be available for other initiatives. It may also mean that the national debt will increase, imposing a heavy burden on future generations.  Does that mean we should eschew it?  Of course not, but we should explore whether we can afford it given other calls on our limited resources.

Most people recognise trade-offs as exchanges that result in both a gain and a loss.  Somebody earning the minimum wage of €215 per week knows full well that he cannot afford to take his wife to a six-course dinner at an expensive restaurant, setting him back by €150.  If he does, he might as well tell her that the gain (a fine dinner) will involve a loss (eating pastizzi for dinner at home during the rest of the month).

Yet, the human mind consistently overlooks wise trade-offs   ̶   trades in which gains significantly exceed losses for all parties involved. This tendency is pervasive: It affects the educated and the uneducated, those inflamed by passion for an issue as well as those who pride themselves on their cool-headed rationality. Don't expect any politician to educate you about this.

Frans Camilleri is an economist. He studied at Oxford and University of East Anglia, is a former corporate head at Air Malta, and has served on various public and private boards.