Ruhollah Abdolmaleki, researcher in regional studies
Governance has long been one of humanity’s most contested ideas. Throughout history, various and often opposing models of political authority have risen and fallen. Social life, as it moves from one era to the next, generally concludes under one system of governance, only to usher in another. Yet no matter which model prevails, humanity has consistently suffered from a lack of noble, righteous rule: history is replete with deception, dishonesty, and the stark contrast between leaders’ words and their deeds.
From the Sophists of ancient Greece to Machiavelli’s pragmatic politics in the 16th century, and even thinkers like Leo Strauss in the 20th century who defended the necessity of political deception, duplicitous conduct has been a fixture of realpolitik.[1] Machiavelli, in The Prince, observed that while honesty and transparency earn praise, rulers who achieved greatness often did not hesitate to deceive; indeed, cunning statesmen frequently achieved more than those who behaved sincerely.[2]
A glance at modern politics, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries, reveals abundant examples of political deceit by Western leaders: the Pentagon Papers exposing secret US wars in Cambodia and Laos; the lies of US presidents during the Watergate scandal in the 1970s and Monica Lewinsky affair in the late 1990s; and the intentional manipulation of intelligence about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, cumulatively validating that deceit and dishonesty are all too common in Western governance.[3] It’s therefore no surprise that deep public distrust toward politicians pervades much of the Western world, a sentiment confirmed by surveys from the late 20th century to today across the US, Australia, and Europe.
In recent years in the US, public dissatisfaction with the political system has soared. Trust in liberal-democratic institutions like Congress and the presidency has markedly declined.
So why has Western governance more than upholding transparency, honesty, and public welfare tended toward exploiting nations, seizing resources, and operating under various forms of modern colonialism? The answer lies in the evolution of Western political thought and the deeds of its leaders. A glaring recent example: Western political support for Israel amid the tragedy unfolding in Gaza, “when thousands of children have been martyred in Gaza over a short period, perhaps over 20,000 of them, those who champion human rights have not only not stopped this, they have also aided the oppressors!”
In contrast, Islamic teachings strongly emphasize sincerity and honesty across all aspects of life — personal, social, and political. Islam proclaims that truth purges corruption, while lies and trickery breed it.[4] In Islamic political thought, honesty is a foundational principle: leaders must speak truthfully to their people — a theme echoed in Nahj al-Balāghah (Sermon 108) and further embodied in Imam Ali’s Letter 53 to his governor Malik al-Ashtar. That letter states that the worthiest individuals in governance are those who truthfully present facts and act with sincerity.
Unlike Western political traditions, Islamic political doctrine regards honesty and avoidance of deceit as immutable components of social order. The Leaders of the Islamic Revolution affirm this, considering the Islamic Revolution a turning point that brought sincerity into global politics. Imam Khamenei has criticized the absence of honesty in global political dealings, asserting that the Iranian people introduced “religion, faith, justice, and truth” into world affairs, a stage long devoid of genuine integrity.
Contrary to the norm among global leaders, especially in the West, whose actions often contradict their rhetoric of defending human rights, the Islamic Republic strives to align speech and action and improve this alignment over time.
Imam Khamenei has stressed the importance of honesty and clarity when addressing the highest political offices in the country, listing them among the essential qualities that senior officials must possess. He has called for accountability and the explanation of presidential responsibilities in a truthful manner, grounded in realism and free from exaggeration, declaring such an approach effective.
Accordingly, one of the most prominent figures in the Islamic Republic’s political system who held key governmental positions and was praised by Imam Khamenei for his honest conduct and straightforward, deception-free approach was the late President Ayatollah Ebrahim Raisi. His clarity and honesty in both domestic and foreign affairs were among his defining traits. Imam Khamenei also commended his governance style, which was marked by truthful, clear, and unambiguous communication with the people, as well as forthrightness and sincerity in diplomatic negotiations. On this matter, the Leader stated: “As for his speech, he spoke to the people in a straightforward, honest manner. He didn’t speak ambiguously or use misleading signs… This frankness and honesty were even evident in diplomatic talks, and this influenced the other parties. In diplomatic talks, which are often a place for convoluted language and hidden intentions, he spoke with openness and sincerity, which left a strong impression on the other side. They trusted him and knew that what he said was the truth.”
This shows how vast the gap between political rhetoric and political action in Western political culture and Islamic political culture truly is.
(The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Khamenei.ir.)
[1] Bakir, V., Herring, E., Miller, D., & Robinson, P. (2018). Lying and deception in politics. In J. Meibauer (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Lying (pp. 529-540).
[2] Machiavelli, Nicolo, (2009). The Prince. Edited by Tim Parks, Penguin Classics, p 69
[3] Bakir, V., Herring, E., Miller, D., & Robinson, P. (2018). Lying and deception in politics. In J. Meibauer (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Lying (pp. 529-540).
[4] Tamīmī Āmadī, ʿA. b. M. (1994). Ghorar al-ḥekam wa dorar al‑kalam (M. J. Ḥoseynī Armavī, Ed.; 5th ed., Vol. 1, p. 281). Tehran: University of Tehran Press.
Comment