Editorial
Voyeurism MaskedAs Public Concern
Many public officials honorably serve theircountry and they should be commended. But when a few of them losethe capacity to perform fairly and well, there is a need to finda solution.
Because of the tremendous trust and responsibilityprivate citizens and fellow colleagues place on public officials,and because of the constant churning of outside forces who carrytheir own personal agenda on the state of any given "topicof the day," officials are often held up to great scrutiny.
Whether the focus is on their personal livessuch as their marriages or other intimate relationships or theircharacter traits, the public is often privy to what would normallybe very private issues.
The truth is, public officials run for office,not sainthood.
Those who want to represent the people astheir representatives in the Legislative Assembly are held toaccountability for what they do by those who put their faith andtheir vote into the hands of the public official.
And, if officials disappoint the masses,through misdealings, unfavorable philosophies, indecisivenessor other such negative attributes, the electorate has the rightto recall that official, even if it takes four years.
Although not always the case, here in theCayman Islands, christianity plays a substantial role in whatis expected of public officials. Seeped deep in God and His teachings,the public sometimes casts stones for immoral behavior, even ifit is buried back in the annals of one's past, without first checkingthemselves. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone"
If such christian teaching was followedclosely, there would be very few stones to cast. It is human natureto err. And there are very few, even those members of the clergy,who can say that never in their life have they had a "lessthan christian" thought, or acted on a "less than christian"temptation.
Holding a public official accountable isnecessary. But relentlessly hounding that person, however prominentand whatever the non-criminal "inappropriate behavior,"is not.
Although transparency via public scrutinyhas proven to be one of the most powerful forms of monitoringpublic officials, it may not be the fairest.
Such transparency has been fostered by anumber of measures, including a skeptical public opinion and afree and vibrant media sometimes too focused on making transparencywork for the general public and drawing attention to the publicationand not focused enough on revealing the facts that effect theway a public official is able to perform.
There is a tension in today's society betweenthe near reverence for personal privacy and the expectation thatthe lives of public officials be open for almost limitless scrutiny.
This tension is increasing, with proposalsworldwide calling for increased protection of personal informationwhile at the same time we clamour more than ever for the detailsof the lives of prominent people.
Some suggest that a public official cansimply refuse to release personal information or discuss theirprivate lives. But can a member of a public agency just say no?Most public officials have discovered that isn't a good idea.In today's political environment, saying no is tantamount to admittingthere is something to hide. And so, many public officials havetaken to releasing sometimes voluminous personal records in aneffort to answer questions and thwart further digging.
It seems that all we really need to knowis whether an official is physically and psychologically fit tohold office, an assessment most people would be comfortable leavingto trained and unbiased professionals.
Once a candidate is pronounced, "fitto serve" any digging for further information starts to lookmore like reality-based programming than concern for the greaterpublic good.
It may be interesting to some in the publicto know an official's prior conquests, or handling of contention.
However, what we need to ask is whetherit really matters in terms of someone's qualifications for thejob.
If not, then we must admit that voyeurismis not a good enough reason to violate one's privacy.