WE like to think we live in a democracy: a society where decisions are taken openly on our behalf by representatives elected by us, and where our opinion counts.

The sorry sequence of events that began with hyping of evidence for war against Iraq and ended with the tragic death of Dr David Kelly reveals how nave that belief is.

Democracy is only ever an ideal. It would be nice to think we could all be party to every major decision made on our behalf. But no modern society could function that way.

What is clear from the events leading up to the Iraq invasion is that Tony Blair was determined to go to war, against the wishes of most of his people. What is less clear is why.

Setting aside moral objections, there are a number of reasons Mr Blair may have felt war was in the country's best interests.

He may genuinely have believed Iraq posed a threat. The inadequacy of the evidence he was able to produce is no proof he did not believe this. It is at least plausible there could have been solid evidence which, for security reasons - such as tipping off Saddam about invasion plans and so placing the lives of our soldiers at greater risk - Mr Blair could not make public. In the light of the subsequent failure to uncover any evidence of weapons of mass destruction this now seems less plausible, but not impossible.

Mr Blair may have known something he could not tell us: and knowing it may have felt he had no choice but to hype other evidence to persuade a reluctant British public to support war.

He may have made the decision for political reasons. Britain is now a nation that punches above its weight: but how much of our influence in the world depends upon our friendship with the US?

We may like to think we are a nation that stands on its own two feet, and pursues its own rules of national integrity. But how many of us would be really happy with the loss of prestige, power and wealth that a severing of ties with the US would involve?

Mr Blair may have felt securing our trans-Atlantic friendship was worth going to war for, even in pursuit of a cause he did not really believe.

Again, these are not reasons he could have given the British public.

Mr Blair may even have made the decision on the "moral" grounds that Saddam was an evil dictator and it was the responsibility of civilised nations to help the Iraqi people overthrow him.

The failure to secure UN support, however, made it difficult to make this case effectively.

Whether you agree with war or not, any of the above reasons would have been "honourable" provided you accept Mr Blair was motivated by what he felt was best for his country. But about at least two of them, he simply could not be truthful.

Truth would have given too much away, or would have been too damaging to our national self-esteem.

There has undoubtedly been much sordid buck-passing and finger-pointing in the past few weeks as politicians and journalists struggled to save reputations and careers.

Nothing honourable about any of that. But it is likely that it was that original inability to be truthful about the real reasons for war - possibly for honourable motives - that ultimately led to the tragic death of Dr Kelly.

In an ideal world, truth may be beautiful. But it isn't always in the state's best interests, and so is often just another casualty of the comfortable lives we lead.

Updated: 11:41 Thursday, July 24, 2003