The media both print and electronic alike had often wrestled
with the question of whether the private life of public figures but up for
public consumption. They are supposed to cover anything that may affect anybody
who runs for public office. But should there be a line that is never to be
crossed when it comes to the personal matters?
Let’s begin with an example, but before we do so let’s even
forget the public figure aspect of the problem. Consider this situation; you are
an employer and you want hire an individual for a role that is vital for the
success of your organization. Would you
want to know if he is a divorcee and that his marriage collapsed five years
ago? Yes you would, his past may affect his present, and hence you would want
to make sure that his marital woes are a thing of the past and he is now sound
enough to perform his duties. Would you want to know about the fact that his is
currently going through a messy divorce that involves asset separation and child
custody right? Yes you would, his turbulent personal life could leave him
unstable and could affect his ability to do his job. Would you want to know if he
is cheating on his wife? Yes you would, it is none of your business, but does
such behavior highlight a lack of a moral component that is essential for
you’re the job that you entrust him with. If he is cheats on his wife, he may
not cheat with you his employer; perhaps he may sell secrets to a rival? Would
you want to know if the man suffers from an ailment of psychiatric nature or
one that will affect his physical abilities? You would since his physical and
mental disability will restrict his ability to work and you will know about
this during the pre-hiring health checkup round. Finally would you want to know
if he is an addict of a sort perhaps to gambling or drugs? But of course you
should be because he may be involved in illegal activities and may ruin the
reputation of the firm you are running.
If definitely wasn’t difficult to answer those questions, its
plain as a pikestaff. But now answer the following questions by replacing
‘Would you want to know..’ by ‘Do you have the right to know..’. This is when
it gets into the murkier zone. We do on
paper want a person who is physically and mentally ‘stable’, who has a personal
life that is ‘stable’ and who is of sound moral character. But we are paying
him not for who he is but what he does, are we entitled to know what he does
beyond office hours? More importantly does it affect you as an employer to know
what happens beyond office hours?
A politician is (and this may seem hard to believe) our
employee, we cannot all be Chief Ministers (sorry Mr Kejriwal) or MPs or
Ministers or Prime Ministers, hence we lend this power to an individual by
means of voting him or her for a political position. Thus we are an employer,
why should the rules of finding personal information about the individual
differ? A politician or a leader should be judged by his record and record
only. We are also entitled to read any book he may have authored or speeches he
had made to understand his thought. If he has indulged in anything which is
criminal, we have our courts to handle that. We are not entitled to find out
information about his past and his indiscretions. An argument that ‘serious’ journalists and opposition
members make is, “if he lied about his personal life, how can we trust him in
office”. For them let’s look at the
definition of the word ‘personal’ it is “of or concerning one's private life, relationships,
and emotions rather than one's career or public life.” Synonyms for personal are
private, confidential, one's
own business, intimate, secret etc.
The individual is under no obligation to reveal what he does beyond office
hours and if he does either dodge or sandbag the question. He is perfectly
entitled to.
Let’s look at some major political figures, it may be a well-known
fact now that the US President during WW2 FDR had a disability that confined him
to a wheel chair but during the great war this fact was kept away from the
general public and neither the press nor the opposition ever mention this. FDR
is also known to have had a mistress but again the press and the opposition chose
to ignore this aspect. History judges FRD as a great president who helped the
defeat the Nazis in WW2 and whose measures helped pull America out of the great
depression. Would public knowledge about
his health and his philandering have helped?
Another popular American President John F Kennedy also had
major health problems and he suffered from several health complications that
left him in constant pain and rendering him unable to even perform basic tasks
such as pulling papers out of a desk or wearing his shoes. To fight the pain,
Kennedy took as many as 12 medications at once, taking more during times of
stress and many argue that these medications may have affected his mental
soundness. Despite this his perseverance and patience probably saved the world
from nuclear destruction during the Cuban Missile crisis. Was it risky for the US to have Kennedy
contest for president despite his health complications, it most certainly was.
Now for every job these days it is mandatory to have a
medical checkup and this rule should apply to the politician as well. It is essential that the individual who we
are entrusting with such an important job is sound both mentally and
physically. But that is as far as we are entitled to go.
In recent time the Congress and some journalists have
decided to make it their business to make an issue out of Modi’s personal life
a long time ago. The excuse given is that they are ‘discussing d gaps between election
affidavits n his election speech.’ But we all know were the interest really
lies. This action will have a reaction and the public will be treated with a
barrage of needless information that may serve nothing more than aimless
gossip, while the important issues of poverty, development, jobs, national security,
combating corruption and infrastructure will take the back seat.
Somewhere in the country there is somebody is watching these
occurrences, maybe this individual aspires to join politics since he or she had
good ideas and wants to make a difference. This individual may have committed
some indiscretion in the past and is daunted by the prospect of being hounded
by the media and the opposition and the potential public humiliation for the
individual and family members that follows, hence the idea of running for
elections is prematurely terminated. Maybe our country just loses a potential
great leader who may do wonders for us. Ask average individual about joining
politics, the reply will be “I am not cut out for politics; I don’t have the
money or the muscle for it”. A large
group of capable people have already excluded from the process because of the
scrutiny and the rest just don’t they are the sort who can survive. That leaves
us with very little to choose from.
Now we would under ideal circumstances want a leader of boundless
talent and spotless moral character. But in real world that is probably
impossible. Perhaps a total commitment to politics, that include frequent
travelling, meetings at odd hours and spending very little time with the near
and dear ones, will inevitably affect the personal life. Do we hold this
against the leader?
The question to the voting public should ask themselves is
what sort of leader would they want? If we are lucky, we may just find the
right sort of individual who is capable of leading this country to a new path
of growth and prosperity, but do we focus on the indiscretions and personal
problems and deem this as grounds for dismissal and settle for person of
mediocrity just because he is of ‘solid moral character’.
I do have faith in our voting public to make the right
decision here and I hope I am right!
Comments
Post a Comment