I can see why some sectors of the international press are making a meal out of the French president’s alleged affair with an actress who is much younger than him. There are all the elements which get the tabloids salivating. First there’s the inviting prospect of being able to poke fun at the man in power and to tut-tut over his flings. It seems that the Fourth Estate has a tendency to come over all moralistic when reporting about the love life of politicians.
Never mind the fact that the members of the press themselves, the commentariat and a good proportion of the public are equally occupied playing the game of musical beds. But then having qualms about being hypocritical isn’t going to help when there are deadlines to be met and column inches to be filled.
The temptation to slag off François Hollande’s partner – Valerie Trierweiler – is also difficult to pass up for some. Having been cast into the role of man-stealer after having replaced Hollande’s long-term partner Ségolène Royal, the press is happily commenting about karma and about what goes around comes around. The fact that Trierweiler is not retiring or reserved has not helped to endear her to the French public either.
The president’s new flame, Julie Gayet, adds a dash of glamour to the proceedings, and it all makes for good – if verging on the trivial – copy. The UK press especially – has gone to town with the ‘nudge, nudge, wink, wink’ jokes and double entendres about Hollande’s rumpy pumpy and the lady-magnet status of successive Presidents.
While it all seems like frothy fun (a bit like Sliema Wives transposed to the Elysée), Hollande’s night-time trysts raise the perennial question about the public’s right to know about their leaders’ love lives.
Although it is currently the French president’s amorous affairs that are being held up to scrutiny, the private lives of Maltese politicians and public officials may well soon be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny. Until now, the Maltese have shown a curiously ambivalent attitude towards politicians’ indiscretions. While these indiscretions are generally well known, there seems to be a reluctance to put them down in print. This is mainly due to an unspoken pact between politicians of different stripes (‘I won’t tell about yours and you won’t tell about mine’). It’s also due to the fact that the press was rather deferential and that politicians guarded their privacy jealously. (In this vein Dom Mintoff was very irked about a news story linking him and actress Charlotte Rampling).
People are no longer as respectful of public officials as they once were
But people are no longer as respectful of public officials as they once were, and with people taking to social media, what was once the stuff on village gossip is now being uploaded online.
The issue of whether the private lives of public officials should be the subject of general scrutiny is a topical one. Is there an aspect of the lives of public officials that should remain off-limits to the eyes of the press and the world in general? If so, where does the boundary between the private and public realm, lie? Is scrutiny serving the public’s right to know or merely satisfying their curiosity?
In a press conference the French president made it clear that he believed that his private affairs should not serve as tabloid fodder. To a certain extent I sympathise with this view. It is not always easy to maintain relationships in normal circumstances, let alone in the glare of the world’s spotlights with thousands of people assessing your every move. More to the point, there’s the question of why the public is entitled to be informed about the private lives of elected or public officials. Is it because the public effectively pays their salaries through taxes? Hardly.
Thousands of people are on the public payroll and yet we don’t expect to have the right to know the details of the amorous exploits of everyone in the civil service. Nor do I hold with the argument that a politician who lies to his partner, will be dissembling and conniving in affairs of state. There are many examples of politicians who have been dissembling to the electorate while respecting their marriage vows. Richard Nixon comes to mind.
The one overwhelming reason in favour of transparency regarding the private lives of public officials is that the public should be aware of the reasons or relationships that may affect that official’s decisions on matters concerning the public. For example, if a politician was instrumental in awarding a direct order to his lover’s firm, then the public should be aware of the relationship between the two. This would also be the case where a public official’s relationships expose him to blackmail.
To give another example – if a judge had had an affair which was kept under wraps, he may be conditioned when passing judgment by deciding in favour of parties who could potentially blow his cover.
It is only in cases like these – where the public’s rights may be impinged, that the private realm becomes legitimately the subject of public scrutiny.
cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt