There is a debate over politicians’ honesty where some argue that it is their duty to be sincere in all circumstances while others claim that in some instances, there should be exceptions. Despite the fact that transparency ensures a strong bond between citizens and authoritative bodies, I firmly believe politicians should have the right to not disclose serious matters that might harm the nation and its reputation.
The question of whether politicians should always be honest is a complex one, as it touches moral, political and trustworthiness matters and some individuals say that political leaders bear the liability of disclosing each and every matter that comes to the attention of the public. The primary reason for this is that honesty is often touted as the cornerstone of effective leadership, as it guarantees trust and accountability. Once an individual is elected as a public official, they have to act in the best interest of their electorates, as without trust citizens may disengage, leading to a political instability and negligence. Take politicians of Sweden, for example. Swedish political bodies, ensuring fairness and effectiveness, work under a well-established framework of institutions, which is why their population put their trust in them.
On the other hand, however, others emphasize the importance of room for independence where elected representatives are allowed not to detail the information about political matters which would jeopardize the national security. Revealing every subject during negotiations may expose the countries position to danger, weakening international relations with other countries. This, in turn, might lead to, if not tackled carefully and responsibly, counterproductivity, putting the nation at risk.
Additionally, uncovering sensitive political issues might escalate tensions among public, leading to chaos and instability. For instance, during pandemic, certain governmental bodies in certain states withheld some of the details to prevent panic buying. Ultimately, as in philosophy, actions must be judged by their consequences and if the lie benefits the society as a whole, it should be considered as justifiable.
All things considered, lies, even small ones, might expose the political representatives’ reputation to risk as their legitimacy hinges on maintaining trust and accountability. Once these two moralities are compromised, it may cause political disengagement. However, in circumstances where the whole country’s safety and reputation is on the line, the full transparency is not a justifiable option. Therefore, a little misrepresentation can be accepted.