- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
How much separation is there between the public role of a leader such as a politician, a general, or a CEO, and the way he conducts his personal life? Does the character of a public figure affect his suitability to do his duties, elected or appointed?
If we take the French (France not PQ), point of view it probably doesn't matter at all. What is a French politician if he hasn't had at least one affair, or been involved in at least one scandal?
If, on the other hand, we take the point of view that is often prevalent in the US, then the character and behaviour of a public figure can be big news, and often the source of argument over an individual's suitability for office. These arguments can range from the significant to the ridiculous (ie: President Obama putting Dijon mustard on his red hot instead of good old American mustard).
I'm raising this as a result of the Mayor Ford saga, although my question is only about him in passing. What I have noticed (most recently in a Globe and Mail article on Friday 02 November) is that many of the mayor's defenders (the "Ford Nation" folks) have stated very clearly that his personal behaviours don't concern them, even if they become quite public. Some folks on this site have posted similar opinions. This leads to my question.
The bar seems to be set at " is he a convicted criminal, or not?", with the implication being that as long as person hasn't been found guilty of anything, they are suitable to hold positions of responsibility. Is this right?
I don't know exactly where the line is. I'm not sure, for example, that somebody should be removed from office because they had an extramarital affair that doesn't involve anybody at the office. On the other hand, I tend to believe that if a person consistently demonstrates poor judgement in their private behaviour, and clear weaknesses in their character, then they should probably be removed from their position whether or not they have committed any crime.
I use the military as an example. It isn't necessary to commit a criminal offence to be removed from a position of trust, responsibility and power: all that is required is reasonable grounds to doubt the person's suitability to hold the position. The military draws a very clear line between the consequences of violating the Code of Service Discipline, and the consequences of unacceptable behaviour.
Is that yardstick applicable to public figures outside the military? Should public leaders be held to a higher standard than Joe Citizen? Or is there a "fence" between character/behaviour and suitability for office?
If we take the French (France not PQ), point of view it probably doesn't matter at all. What is a French politician if he hasn't had at least one affair, or been involved in at least one scandal?
If, on the other hand, we take the point of view that is often prevalent in the US, then the character and behaviour of a public figure can be big news, and often the source of argument over an individual's suitability for office. These arguments can range from the significant to the ridiculous (ie: President Obama putting Dijon mustard on his red hot instead of good old American mustard).
I'm raising this as a result of the Mayor Ford saga, although my question is only about him in passing. What I have noticed (most recently in a Globe and Mail article on Friday 02 November) is that many of the mayor's defenders (the "Ford Nation" folks) have stated very clearly that his personal behaviours don't concern them, even if they become quite public. Some folks on this site have posted similar opinions. This leads to my question.
The bar seems to be set at " is he a convicted criminal, or not?", with the implication being that as long as person hasn't been found guilty of anything, they are suitable to hold positions of responsibility. Is this right?
I don't know exactly where the line is. I'm not sure, for example, that somebody should be removed from office because they had an extramarital affair that doesn't involve anybody at the office. On the other hand, I tend to believe that if a person consistently demonstrates poor judgement in their private behaviour, and clear weaknesses in their character, then they should probably be removed from their position whether or not they have committed any crime.
I use the military as an example. It isn't necessary to commit a criminal offence to be removed from a position of trust, responsibility and power: all that is required is reasonable grounds to doubt the person's suitability to hold the position. The military draws a very clear line between the consequences of violating the Code of Service Discipline, and the consequences of unacceptable behaviour.
Is that yardstick applicable to public figures outside the military? Should public leaders be held to a higher standard than Joe Citizen? Or is there a "fence" between character/behaviour and suitability for office?