ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics

The media always want a good story; they are interested in the health of celebrities when there is no clear reason why they should have any right to this private information. The health of the leader is not something that the press or public needs to know about unless it is an illness that is likely to affect the president’s capacity to make decisions. A government’s decision should not be based upon the possibility that information on the leader’s health will leak and should take a consistent line that it is a private matter or provide a bare minimum of information.

Administrative capabilities should not be compared to health. Unhealthy leaders may perform better than the healthy ones, people could be misled to choose inappropriate leaders while taking health as a black spot while the leader could actually have a better potential than the rest. If the electorate had just elected on the basis of health, or had been fully informed about presidents health then it is plausible that neither FD Roosevelt of JF Kennedy would have been elected. Neither completely hid their illnesses but they were not discussed and did not become election issues as they would have in a modern election. 1  1 Berish, Amy, ‘FDR and Polio’, Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum,

If a candidate has a condition during an election campaign then there is a clear right to know when the electorate is making the decision. But does such a right to know apply at other times when it will make no difference to the people? There can only be a right to know if it is going to affect the people, something that many illnesses won’t do.

All of these procedures could be put in place even if there is secrecy. Doctors are already committed to patient-doctor confidentiality so are unlikely to tell the press if they are told beforehand to be ready to receive the President.

Deputy leaders are appointed and they are well versed with how the leader is managing issues and are capable of taking up the role immediately after the leader resigns or dies. Being open and transparent about a leader being ill simply creates the lack of stability. If he lives it is best if the illness is not revealed as everything will carry on as before. If the leader dies then it is best nothing is known until his successor is announced so reducing the period of uncertainty.

When leaders choose to serve the country they should be ready to sacrifice their privacy for the country. There is clearly a different standard for those who are in government and should be publicly accountable to those who are not. Even more minor illnesses can damage the running of the country through either affecting the judgment of the leader or limiting the amount of time he can work. The people have the right to demand their leader has his full attention of the issues affecting the nation. If he can't do that then he should resign.

If the leader in-charge is in illness, to avoid any repudiation, the representative from the other side could meet the leader in order to confirm or even have a video conference with the leader in charge. The leader only needs to set the overall policy, not negotiate the fine details. When Nixon went to China the Americans knew Mao was ill but realised that he still set the overall direction of policy.

Transparency is still better than secrecy. There are several reasons why the opportunity of instability is as present when keeping the leader's health a secret. The first is that it is likely that at least some of the leader's rivals are in government so are likely to be in the loop on any illness. In this case secrecy simply gives these individuals more opportunity to do as they wish. Secondly a lack of transparency creates uncertainty which can be filled by a rival wanting to seize power; if the leader is just ill and there is a void of information it is simply for rivals to seize the narrative and claim he is dead enabling their takeover.