- 最后登录
- 2013-12-28
- 在线时间
- 113 小时
- 寄托币
- 345
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2011-7-17
- 阅读权限
- 20
- 帖子
- 11
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 204
- UID
- 3131341
- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 345
- 注册时间
- 2011-7-17
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 11
|
ISSUE69
Government officers given excessive power might cause adverse effect, especially in the case without any oversight. In a democratic society, taxpayers surely hold the right to be informed about the leaders’ motives and government daily operation. And to supervise political leaders and government is an obligation of each citizen. Nevertheless, full disclosure might risk throwing the nation and its people to danger. Nowadays terrorist attacks and other threatening activities are increasingly serious. Therefore, I strongly endorse the opinion that it is sometimes necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to conceal information from the public.
Taking the security of the public into consideration, the requirement of pure forthrightness is irrational and adverse. Undue revelation might set the public in a dangerous case. If the United States government released the information, prior to taking actions, about strategies to apprehend Saddam Hussein, the security of America and its citizenry would be threatened while the objective would have a chance to escape from punishment. Otherwise, moderate concealing to the public is also of significant benefit for avoiding the public panic. I cannot imagine what will happen if the government confirms 2012 as the end of the world and immediately informs its people. There is no denying that an immeasurable number of people will die from accidents, such as stampede, due to mass panic and depression. As a result, a would-have-been natural disaster will become a man-made one.
From the perspective of personal interests, it is not prudent for a political leader to show the information, in the nude, to the public. Because he or she will be considered as immature and be assailed for vulnerability by the political opponents. To gain and consolidate political leadership, it is essential for a leader to withhold information, from the public, about personal foibles, sociable defects, and detailed private life. As media has become an influential factor, which could not be ignored, in an election, the flaws of a candidate will be unnecessarily enlarged, misleading voters and leading to a completely different result.
Having recognized the importance of withholding, licit political leadership yet calls for moderate forthrightness. Information as to what policy would be carried out, what their motives are and so forth, should be known by the public. Deceit and withholding earns nothing but distrust. What is more, by demagoguery reactionaries will take advantages of such an opaque political condition and make the whole country fall into disturbance, even in wars. Just consider the typical examples of feudal dynasties in the long history of China. Monarchs attempted to maintain their power and manipulate their people, by burning books and burying the informed people to withhold negative but true information. As a consequence, they were proved to be highly wrong after their being overthrown. Moreover, constitution endues people the right to know. Effective democratic supervision helps a lot to avoid and reduce corruption and malfeasance.
All in all, government and political leaders should strike a balance in the extent to which they disclose to the public. Meanwhile, citizenry should not require complete disclosure and should employ rights in a reasonable way. Because the ultimate purpose of moderate withholding is to ensure the security and interests of the public and even the nation. |
|