That it should be a criminal offence for a politician to lie

Greetings budding opponents! My case today is simple - that a politician (local or national, being a minister of the state) in a democratic country should not be allowed to lie (tell deliberate mistruths) in public (in a situation where privacy could not reasonably be expected) and not face punishment. Appropriate punishment in most contexts I would perceive as being by-elections, though I don't think that's very important to the debate. As to the format, I'd like to do a slight variant of the Australia–Asia debating format. No cross-examination or anything silly like that, just three substantive speeches (with rebuttal) in rounds 1, 2 and 3. Round 4 will be the so-called "leader's reply", where both teams sum up their case but are not allowed to introduce new material/rebuttal. To simulate the very limited time usually allowed for the leader's reply, both my opponent and I may only write 10 sentences or less in that round. If anyone has any other questions they should feel free to ask them in the comments section! With all these technicalities out of the way, allow me to begin my case by describing my model. Politicians are the greatest liars on the planet. A quick Google search for "examples of politicians lying" yields about 6,180,000 results [1] - that's about 32,000 for every country in the world. And that would be fine if they were any other profession. But we have a problem here. Voters listen to politicians. Based on a politician's statements and general impression of integrity, they decide whether or not to vote for him/her. Being elected on the basis of a lie puts the politician in a position of considerable power, which they use and abuse. The lie gets found out. However, voters need to wait until the next election period until they can do something about it. Therefore, I provide the solution, that being the ability to impose punishment on intentionally lying politicians in the aforementioned manner. I'm not criminalizing campaign promises made in good faith - I'm criminalizing deliberate acts of deceit used to gain access to the most powerful positions on the planet. This solves the problem because it acts as a disincentive for politicians to lie, and because it actually does remove those politicians from office. In this first speech I'll offer two main points of constructive justification for said model and two minor points. My second speech will feature two more, plus some rebuttal. My third speech will be composed of entirely rebuttal and response to my opponent's criticism of my points. So now, on to my first four justifications. Firstly, lying is immoral. I challenge my opponent to name me one religion that endorses lying. Lying has always been seen by mankind as a negative thing. This is because it undermines one's trust in society[3]. My argument here is essentially that it is wrong for society to trust in one when one does not return that trust, because that in and of itself demonstrates one would not be a particularly benevolent ruler to the people. Further, society generally expects politicians to hold to a higher moral code than your average Joe, because the decisions they make are that much more important for the country. Indeed, some speculate that we expect "moral perfection" from our politicians. From a moral standpoint, politicians should not have any right to lie. Secondly, it enables transparency and greater faith in a nation's government. One must merely look at the example of Joseph Stalin, "a man who lied so much that he forgot what truth really was"[2]. When politicians lie, people are unable to distinguish between fact and fiction in government because there is often no mechanism for finding out the truth. This has two effects. First, when people are unable to distinguish truth and untruth, it becomes impossible to have transparency in the government. Transparency is a good thing because it prevents totalitarian regimes from forming. Second, if a lie is ever found out (as they are all the time, judging by source #1), people lose faith in their government. This is bad because it means people are working for a regime that they do not support - something the people are rarely happy about! Thirdly (first of the minor points), lying is already censored in a wide range of less important areas. For instance, many countries forbid firms from decieving customers for profit[2]. Surely a few dollars in one's pocket are much less important than the fate of an entire nation? Therefore it is hypocritical to apply one rule to corporations and another to government. Politicians, after all, face much more important decisions and thus need to be held to a higher standard of accountability. Finally, the principle of democracy is at odds with the lies of politicians. Democracy assumes that voters are able to make informed decisions, so as to help out the majority of voters. However, while politicians lie, how can a voter make an informed decision? Either democracy falls or politicians should not lie. I'm proud to say that I don't support a system wherein politicians are not held accountable for arguably their most important actions. I'm proud to uphold the principles of democracy, transparency and morality within society. I'm proud not to be a hypocrite when it comes to selecting my politicians. I'm proud to propose! Won't you stand with me? Sources 1 - http://www.google.co.nz... 2 - http://www.cuivienen.org... 3 - http://en.wikipedia.org... 4 - http://www.perkel.com...