Like Caesar's wife, a politician should be above suspicion

IN THE last few years, it seems as if a basic political principle has been abandoned and another, of doubtful relevance, has been set up in its place

The first time this became apparent was in the last days of the Major government, when Neil Hamilton, with the highly vocal aid of his wife Christine, was attempting to defend his name against the accusation of taking money without declaring it. Night after night they could be seen furiously confronting their accusers, making the same point over and over again.

The point they insisted on was this: that in English law, there is a presumption of innocence until the accused is found guilty. That principle, they squawked, should in fairness have been applied to Hamilton, and to demand his resignation before the proof of his culpability was produced was contrary to every basic liberty.

It was notable that no one, as far as I know, challenged this assertion, and it seemed as if everyone accepted that, whatever one might think of the Hamilton case, there was a basic principle involved, that he should, indeed, be considered innocent until proved otherwise. It was only the demands of the electorate and the increasing untenability of his position which led to his enforced resignation; and in an ideal world, that principle would have been given proper consideration.

That, it might have seemed, was a single case, and with the change of government, a more measured consideration of whether the principle was relevant here might have been expected. But it has not happened. Now, it seems as if there is a genuine supposition that a minister, suspected of misbehaviour, may continue with his job until a firm conclusion has been reached that the accusations are without foundation.

In particular, the case of Keith Vaz shows the working of the supposition that a minister, like the lowest common criminal, has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. That, on the whole, may seem the proper response, after the Parliamentary Commissioner found much of the case against him unproven. But even in this case, I wonder how wise it is to start insisting on the innocent- until-proven-guilty principle; indeed, whether it is even relevant.

The sight of a government minister hanging on in the face of accusations is an unedifying one, and, as Mr Major discovered, it can damage an administration fatally, whatever the outcome of investigations.

There is, in fact, a much more appropriate political principle to be applied, and one which seems to have been forgotten. When the Hamiltons seemed to be ignoring it, it was easy to think them disingenuous; but nobody else raised it either, and by now it hardly seems to apply.

The principle, an ancient one, is this: "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion." In the normal course of affairs, a man is entitled to a presumption of innocence; if a politician commits a criminal act, he does not lose that right. But what ought to be plain is that if extensive evidence of wrongdoing surfaces, the politician should resign immediately. To hang on, insisting on the presumption of innocence, can only damage the government. I can't be alone in finding the sight of politicians saying that their right to keep their job until found guilty is a human right distinctly nauseating.

Any administration neglects questions of propriety at its peril. The last government completely failed to see that what brought it down was the widespread disgust at what was perceived as growing corruption. Not Europe or taxation; just the steady drip of stories about ministers taking money, and the sight of them insisting that they were innocent until proven guilty.

On the whole, British political culture has not been corrupt, and I don't believe it is now; but when the electorate starts to worry that a culture of corruption is creeping in, then a government is in trouble. If, as now seems likely, a general and false belief is taking hold that politicians are as bad as each other, and are all in it out of self-interest, then trust has broken down, and the consequences for civic life will be a catastrophe on a Sicilian scale.

The principle of "Caesar's wife" is absolutely vital for any government seeking to uphold public rectitude; what may carry more direct weight is the consideration that it is also vital for a government seeking re- election. Nobody wants to make it easier for a paper, on an idle day, to hound innocent ministers out, but there is a simple rule that ought to apply without exception; that if questions of conduct lead to the case being referred to the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards, in no circumstances may the minister remain in office.

That may seem hard if the accusations come to nothing, but governments must accept that the appearance of corruption can be as damaging as the reality, and that the insistence on quite irrelevant legal principles is apt only to increase cynicism and disenchantment among the people it is meant to reassure.

hensherp@dircon.co.uk

Copyright 2001 Independent Newspapers UK Limited
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.