I agree with the speaker that it is sometimes
necessary, and even desirable, for
political
leaders to withhold information from the
public. A contrary view would reveal a
naivete about the inherent nature of public politics, and about the sorts of compromises
on the part of well-intentioned political leaders necessary in order to further
the public''s ultimate interests. Nevertheless, we must not allow our political leaders
undue freedom to withhold information; otherwise, we risk sanctioning demagoguery
and undermining the philosophical underpinnings of any
democratic society.
One reason for my fundamental agreement with the speaker is that in order to
gain the opportunity for effective public leadership. a would-be leader must first gain
and maintain political power. In the game of politics. complete
forthrightness is a
sign of vulnerability and naivete, neither of which earn a politician respect among his
or her opponents, and which those opponents will use to every advantage to defeat
the politician. In my observation, some measure of pandering to the electorate is
necessary to gain and maintain political leadership. For example, were all politicians
to fully disclose every personal foibles, character flaw, and detail concerning personal
life, few honest politicians would ever by elected.Whik this view might seem cynical,
personal scandals have in fact proven the undoing of many a political career; thus, I
think this view is realistic.
Another reason why I essentially agree with the speaker is that fully disclosing to
the public certain types of information would threaten public safety and perhaps
even national security. For example, if the President were to disclose the government''s
strategies for thwarting specific plans of an international terrorist or a drug trafficker,
those strategies would surely fail, and the public''s health and safety would be compromised
as a result.Withho1ding information might also be necessary to avoid pub
lic panic.While such cases are rare, they do occur occasionally. For example, during
the first few hours of the new millennium the U.S. Pentagon''s missile defense system
experienced aY2K-related malfunction.This fact was withheld from the public until
later in the day, once the problem had been solved; and legitimately so, since immediate
disclosure would have served no useful purpose and might even have resulted in
mass hysteria.
Having recognized that withholding information from the public is often necessary
to serve the interests of that public, legitimate political leadership nevertheless
requires forthrightness with the citizenry as to the leader''s motives and agenda. His
tory informs us that would-be leaders who lack such forthrightness are the same
ones who seize and maintain power either by brute force or by demagoguery-that
is, by deceiving and manipulating the citizenry. Paragons such as Genghis Khan and
Hitler, respectively, come immediately to mind. Any democratic society should of
course abhor demagoguery, which operates against the democratic principle of government
by the people. Consider also less egregious examples, such as President
Nixon''s withholding of information about his active role in the Watergate cover-up.
His behavior demonstrated a concern for self-interest above the broader interests of
the democratic system that granted his political authority in the first place.
In sum, the game of politics calls for a certain amount of disingenuousness and
lack of forthrightness that we might otherwise characterize as dishonesty. And such
behavior is a necessary means to the frnal objective of effective political leadership.
Nevertheless, in any democracy a leader who relies chiefly on deception and secrecy
to preserve that leadershce a private agenda, or to conceal selfish motives,
betrays the democracy-and ends up forfeiting the political game.
More summaries about the Should political leaders withhold information from the public?