Why Our Politicians Must Learn Rhetoric Before They Lead
It often feels as though politicians are accountable to no one. Their words slip past scrutiny, their policies evade logic, and their evasive answers undermine the very institution of Parliament. A recent case in point: Keir Starmer’s inability, at Prime Minister’s Questions, to directly address Lord Mandelson’s questionable associations. Although Lord Mandelson has now finally been sacked, Starmer’s responses at the time were evasive and illogical. He only seemed truly affected when his name was being completely tarnished by the press. This episode exposes not just a personal failure but a systemic one: Parliament exists so that government can hear the voices of the people through their elected representatives—not as a shield for politicians to dodge accountability. The people are the sovereign, not the politicians. Those in power help to run the country; they do not own or rule it.
That brings us to the heart of the matter: politicians desperately need training in rhetoric.
Rhetoric as Accountability
Rhetoric is not about cheap slogans or lofty speeches. At its core, it is the discipline of answering questions persuasively, logically, and ethically. A politician trained in rhetoric cannot afford evasions; they must confront criticisms head-on, defend policies with clarity, and justify decisions with reason. Starmer’s dismissal of Mandelson’s potential conflicts reveals precisely what happens when rhetoric is absent: obfuscation instead of accountability.
Policy Without Logic
Consider Starmer’s proposal for a mandatory digital ID, allegedly to curb illegal immigration and shield citizens from black market exploitation. Yet by definition, black markets thrive in unregulated, unseen systems; they are not deterred by new official frameworks. Anyone with a grounding in rhetoric, logic and common sense, would anticipate this obvious objection, test their argument against it, and refine their policy accordingly. Instead, what we get are hollow justifications that collapse under scrutiny.
The parallel to the failed £37 billion Test and Trace system is striking. Grand schemes are rolled out with little logical grounding, and taxpayers foot the bill for their collapse. This is not merely poor governance—it is poor argumentation.
Philosophy for Leaders
Beyond rhetoric lies epistemology: the study of how we know what we know. Imagine if ministers were required to justify not only what they propose, but also how they know it will work. Would we have seen digital ID championed as a panacea? Would we have rushed into vanity projects like HS2? Epistemology would force leaders to separate genuine evidence from wishful thinking.
Epistemology also sharpens an understanding of fallacies—false or misleading arguments. In Parliament, this is crucial. Politics should be a respectable art, and those who enter its pantheon ought to abide by rules of debate rooted in truth. The Speaker’s role should not only be to regulate order in the Commons but also serve as a neutral body to scrutinise the legitimacy of arguments being made. Watch any Commons or Lords session with the rules of debate in mind, and the quality of argument is often shockingly low. It makes one wonder how some of these figures were ever elected. At a minimum, politicians should undergo formal education in debate, to ensure that when scrutinised, they address the point at hand rather than dodging into tangents or reciting unrelated achievements.
Structural Reform and Rhetorical Culture
Our democratic structures could themselves benefit from this intellectual grounding. On the UK Parliament website it is noted that ‘turnout at the 2024 general election was only 59.7%—the lowest since 2001’. How can we call this a truly democratic voting system when almost half the population does not participate? To ensure that the entire nation’s voice is heard, we could adopt the Australian model of mandatory participation (option to leave a no vote), which guarantees a fuller reflection of the national will. Pair that with coalition-building that obliges the first party to work with the second-most popular party, and you begin to see a system that fosters collaboration instead of polarisation. But such a system only works if politicians are rhetorically competent—able to persuade across divides, rather than posture for their base.
The Case for Rhetoric
The classical philosopher Aristotle defined rhetoric as the art of finding the best means of persuasion in any situation. Considering that our democratic systems are based on Ancient Greece, could we not take a page out of their book? Of course, their systems were somewhat flawed, but at the creation of these systems was a profound respect for politics and all that it encompassed. In a democracy, rhetoric is not an ornament; it is the very mechanism of accountability. Without it, politicians dodge, distract, and defer. With it, they can be compelled to defend their ideas honestly, listen to objections seriously, and respect the intelligence of the people they serve.
Conclusion
If politicians studied rhetoric and epistemology, they would be better equipped to:
Defend themselves under scrutiny.
Ground their policies in logic rather than slogans.
Communicate persuasively across political divides.
Respect the public with answers, not evasions.
Until then, we will continue to be governed by individuals who confuse power with persuasion, and expedience with truth. Moreover, citizens, rightly, will keep asking: are these leaders fools—or do they simply believe we are?
This discussion should not stop at Parliament’s doors. Politics itself must be grounded in truth, and as a nation we must value truth above convenience. This respect for truth should be instilled from the ground up, starting with schools, where rhetoric, philosophy, and epistemology ought to be mandatory subjects. Only then will we learn to distinguish between decisions made for genuine public good and those designed merely to entice citizens—such as lifting travel restrictions in exchange for COVID vaccination. You should receive a vaccine because science proves it protects you, not because the government dangles holidays as a reward.
Our political system falters because we, as citizens, too often tolerate expedience over truth. We are kept distant from government, and term after term, outrage follows as people realise that expedience has trumped principle yet again, but only because we have permitted it. At the very core, we must remember the nature of government: it exists to benefit the people, not to abuse, manipulate, or exercise its will unchecked. Those in power are accountable to the citizens who placed them there, and measures must be taken at a constitutional level to ensure that remains the case. Otherwise, who knows into what authoritarian, Orwellian, dystopian lands we may be heading—if we are not already there.
•••
Petition against Digital IDs United Kingdom
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194
How do we get competent politicians? - Richard Murphy, Funding the Future
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3gE1C76f0Whl9r4xCGgSsD?si=7f4e758e4ebf4df9