Politicians and their Private Parts: A Debate
The Village Politicians by John Lewis Krimmel (c. 1819)
Thesis: Elected officials waive their right to a private life.
For by Rhys George
Everyone deserves the right to privacy, right? While the right to privacy is indeed a fundamental aspect of individual freedom, critics argue that a measured waiver of their private lives is a beneficial trade-off for the broader ideals of transparency and accountability. [1] Public officials hold positions of power and influence that directly impact society as a whole; this level of responsibility prompts the acknowledgement that assuming such roles often entails a relinquishment of certain aspects of one’s private life.
Transparency is a foundational pillar of a democratic society, allowing citizens to make informed decisions about their leaders. By willingly sharing certain aspects of their private lives, public officials demonstrate a commitment to openness and honesty. In today’s technology driven world, where information is spread abundantly, the public’s demand for transparency has intensified. An illustrative case involves former United States President Donald Trump, who encountered consistent demands to disclose his tax returns, a tradition adhered to by presidential candidates since the 1970s. Proponents of transparency argued that this information was crucial for understanding financial interests, potential conflicts of interest, and overall openness regarding a publicly elected official. [2]
The Independent Commission Against Corruption outlines that for public officials to act in the public interest, they need a set of guiding ethics. These ethics are based on impartiality, public duty and public accountability, including principles of transparency, honesty, and objectivity. [3] An individual’s private life can often be a gauge for their moral character. [4] Instances where personal behaviour aligns with public expectations can positively enhance the ethical framework and public trust in governance. Contrastingly, misconduct or ethical lapses can erode public trust. By allowing a measured examination of their private lives, public officials display their commitment to maintaining the highest ethical standards, reiterating the notion that those in power are held to a higher moral standard.
An example of an ethical lapse that resulted in an erosion of public trust is the case involving then New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. Governor Spitzer, known for his aggressive stance on corruption and crime, resigned from office in 2008 following revelations of his involvement with a high-end prostitution ring. The findings shocked the public and the political establishment, as Spitzer had built his career on a platform of moral rectitude and strict law enforcement. The Scandal led to Spitzer’s resignation within days of the news breaking, sending a stark reminder of how a personal ethical lapse can have immediate and severe consequences for public trust. [5] The case serves as an example that public officials, especially those in positions of power and responsibility, are held to high standards of ethical conduct. When these standards are compromised, public trust is undermined.
The argument for public officials to waive their right to privacy extends to another cornerstone of representative democracy, accountability of officials to their electorate. [6] Public officials are entrusted with making decisions that impact the lives of countless individuals. The decisions made by these officials should be for the greater good of their electorate. To ensure this it becomes essential for officials to be accountable not only for their professional conduct but also for their personal choices. A measured sacrifice of privacy provides a mechanism for the public to assess the alignment of a leader’s private values with the values they purport to uphold in their public capacity.
The interconnected nature of modern society and the 24/7 news cycle makes it challenging for public officials to compartmentalise their private and public lives. Instances of misconduct, if left undisclosed, can become ticking time bombs, potentially exploding at a time detrimental to the effective functioning of government.
The call for transparency isn’t about prying into the minutiae of elected official’s personal lives, but an acknowledgement that aspects of private behaviour can impact private responsibilities. This in mind, the waiver of privacy can be viewed as a proactive measure, demonstrating a public official’s willingness to be held accountable for their actions, creating an environment of trust and integrity.
Against by Nirvana Prasad
Everyone remembers that day in December 2019, when former Prime Minister Scott Morrison jetted off to Hawaii for a family holiday while the country was on fire. The rage that Australians felt towards this stinging betrayal almost rivalled the heat of the flames that threatened to engulf the country. But what if we examined this from the perspective that politicians are humans too?
Over the millennia of human thought and development, scholars have presented nuanced takes on the relationship between privacy and politicians, mostly agreeing that politicians must partially concede their right to privacy in order to be held accountable by the public. [1] It is crucial to maintain this balance for two main reasons: the personal privacy and effectiveness of politicians, and respecting the privacy of private citizens affected by the release of such information. Thus, the public should be granted a peek into the necessary private aspects of politicians’ lives through a tinted window, where they are still able to hold them accountable for their political lives but are unable to intrude on their personal lives.
The Pedestal
'Everyone has something to hide. And if they couldn't hide it the world would be in a lot worse mess than it is' - Richard Matheson. [2]
Historically, people have viewed their leaders with a sense of solemnity and awe, owing to either respect or terror. Elected officials are especially seen as possessing desirable leadership and ethical qualities that the public admires. However, by revering these politicians, the public inadvertently places them on a moral pedestal, expecting them to maintain this virtue in their private lives. [3] Thus, when something private contradicts this publicly constructed image, all hell breaks loose. [4] To prevent such conflict, it is best to honour politicians’ privacy, allowing the public to glimpse necessary aspects of their personal lives through a tinted window.
Consider the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, which destroyed the public's perception of their President. This event sparked a debate about where to draw the line between an elected official's public and private responsibilities, with Clinton himself arguing that his family life is 'nobody's business' but his own. [5] Although the President's actions were morally reprehensible, concerns were raised regarding how much of this information should have been published, because despite his private debauchery, it was of little relevance to the general thrust of his presidency. [6] Well, it depends on what your definition of the word ‘was’ is.
Thus, exposing the private lives of politicians does not inherently benefit the public. It only blurs the line between personal and public lives in office and threatens the precarious existing stability.
The Rubble
'When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property' - Thomas Jefferson. [7]
Once this pedestal comes crashing down, it affects the lives of countless private citizens. While politicians themselves are required by law to disclose some private information, such as their wealth, sponsorships, and business connections, [8] others affected by breaches of their privacy do not owe the public this same level of disclosure. Thus, friends and family members of elected officials cannot escape unscathed from the prying nature of the media despite never consenting to this level of probing.
A recent example of this is the speculation surrounding Nathan Albanese, son of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, completing an internship at PwC. The Prime Minister established a clear distinction in a public statement, that his son is not a 'public figure', but instead 'a young person trying to make his way in the world'. [9] This event shows that despite never running for office, the close relations of politicians cannot escape from breaches of their privacy. As private citizens are the unavoidable collateral damage of prying into the lives of politicians, it is best to maintain a barrier where the public can see only what is necessary of their private lives.
Conclusion
It is in the best interest of the public, elected officials, and private citizens to limit media probing into the private lives of politicians. Allowing the public to examine their chosen representatives through a glass, darkly protects the privacy of individuals and the establishment as a whole.
For by Rhys George
[1] Simeon Djankov et al, ‘Disclosure by Politicians’ (2010) 2(2) American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 179.
[2] Ibid 195.
[3] Part 2 of the Government Sector Employment Act 2013 establishes the ethical framework.
[4] Louise Mitchell, ‘Integrity and virtue: The forming of good character’ (2015) 82(2) The Linacre quarterly, 149-169.
[5] Shelley Wigley, ‘Telling your own bad news: Eliot Spitzer and a test of the stealing thunder strategy’ (2011) 37(1) Public Relations Review 50-56.
[6] Zohal Hessami ‘Accountability and incentives of appointed and elected public officials’ (2018) 100(1) Review of Economics and Statistics 51-64.
Against by Nirvana Prasad
[1] Rob Lawlor and Kevin Macnish, ‘Protecting Politicians’ Privacy for the Sake of Democracy’ in Carl Fox and Joe Saunders (eds), Media Ethics, Free Speech, and the Requirements of Democracy (Routledge, 2019) 87, 87-101.
[2] Richard Matheson, A Stir of Echoes (J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1958).
[3] Judy Nadler and Miriam Schulman, ‘The Personal Lives of Public Officials’, Markkula Centre for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University (Web Page, 23 October 2015) <https://www.scu.edu/government-ethics/resources/what-is-government-ethics/the-personal-lives-of-public-officials/>.
[4] William Davies, ‘Why we stopped trusting elites’, The Guardian (online, 29 November 2018), [3], <https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/nov/29/why-we-stopped-trusting-elites-the-new-populism>.
[5] Michael Grunwald, ‘New Attitudes Toward Private Lives’, Washington Post (online, 14 September 1998) [6] <https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/privacy091498.htm>.
[6] Public Broadcasting Service, ‘Legacy of the Clinton Administration’, PBS (Article, 2012) <https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/clinton-legacy/>.
[7] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1807.
[8] Simeon Djankov et al, ‘Disclosure by Politicians’ (2010) 2(2) American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 179.
[9] Henry Belot, ‘Anthony Albanese says ‘my son is not a public figure’ after questions about PwC internship’, The Guardian (online, 21 August 2023) <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/21/anthony-albanese-son-nathan-pwc-internship-public-figure-comment>.
This article was originally published under the title ‘Do elected officials waive their right to a private life?’ in The Brief Edition 1, 2024 — Through a Glass, Darkly.