Private lives must be saved

One common concern people are raising about this whole issue of politics and its relation to private lives can be summed up in a question a journalist of The Times recently asked me, that is, whether it is in the public’s interest to be informed on whether a politician is facing criminal charges over a personal matter (unrelated directly to one’s political duties)?

My take on this one is as clear as crystal, no, and I am adamant on this one. It is definitely not up to anyone to dig into people’s life, be it journalists, opinion leaders, bloggers or anyone else. It will only take a different dimension in exceptional circumstances when an individual’s behaviour can be clearly linked with his/her public duties and until that is unambiguous we are in duty bound by discretion and unadulterated prudence.

I do believe that a politician’s private life and personal decisions have a bearing on his/her abilities as politicians. Nevertheless, I have often spoken about the fact that our political scene is exceedingly nourished by “perception politics”’.

In my eyes, this episode involving Cyrus Engerer has taken us on the threshold of ethical journalism.

These last couple of years we have witnessed a trend in the way we have directed our critique, which has really and truly been more often than not focused on the “persona” rather than the “agenda per se”. Agreed, politicians need to be vigilant and watchful of their behaviour that affects their public office but does the legitimate interest in knowing more about a politician extend to details about personal relations, sexuality, lifestyle, business interests and other?

I feel that what has come out of all of this is a dehydrated media that is ready to go down all the way to satiate its thirst for stories, to get the audiences and to ensure the “hits” are good. Referring to what Tony Blair had said when asked about the David Blunkett’s love affair case, “Politicians are entitled to private lives the same as anyone else”.

I keep asking myself whether politics has become too personal and in what way will this impact on who enters the fray. I think we, as consumers of information, just savour the witch-hunts that come with politics – and that is where our apprehension on the matter seems to end. As far as I am concerned, there are two ingredients that I would judge a politician on (and they need to be intertwined firstly, whether the behaviour is illegal and, secondly, if it impacts his/her performance in the public role.

In the case of Mr Engerer, was it in the public’s interest to know about his charges? Seeing he hasn’t denied the charges, does his alleged crime reflect badly on him as a politician? No. Mr Engerer paid a massive price for trying to work towards something that he believes in. I would like to judge him on his political achievements.

He carried his weight in the Nikki Dimech saga, was appointed deputy mayor of a very politically delicate and turbulent council, has spoken eloquently during the divorce debate, came out strongly when Pastor Gordon Manchè invited gay people to “convert”, was applauded when he spoke at the most recent Nationalist Party general council, was an automatic PN choice in the media to project freshness and political eagerness and then welcomed with open arms when he moved to the Labour Party.

I am sure that there is some spine in this man. Someone has to convince me that he has no political validity. On the sideline, I strongly believe that he is not a “party man” but a “political evolutionary” and this will keep getting in the way of his political career trajectory. To me he is “issue loyal” rather than a “party loyalist”. I can’t believe he will fit in any box.

Finally, I feel that the public interest should not rank higher than the individual’s right to privacy. More than this case itself, what worries me is what we are doing to politics and potential politicians.

The relationship between politics and the citizens is always a very fragile one. We need to be cautious. Journalists, bloggers and opinion makers have realised that there is always a story behind a politician and people are always very keen to know what an MP is doing in his bedroom or other. Getting it all out in the public can be a threat to democracy because it will make it ever more difficult to encourage talented people to enter the political tussle. If we succumb to this intrusive style of journalism we risk creating a democracy deficit as a consequence.

We Maltese seem to be so obsessed with politicians having to be whiter than white. Let me burst the bubble: it’s not the case, they are humans! I will be the first to judge Mr Engerer but by what he delivers and not by what photos he attaches to his e-mails.

http://andrewazzopardi.wordpress.com

Dr Azzopardi is a senior lecturer at the University of Malta’s Department of Youth and Community Studies.