issue167G-89-互助社８.１７

melinda2036UID: 2108044

It is impossible for an effective political leader to tell the truth all the time. Complete honesty is not a useful virtue for a politician.

Complete honesty is not a useful virtue for a politician

Politicians are always be asked to tell truth to the public. This claim is acceptable conditionally. However, people is charging more when demand politicians to tell truth under whatever conditions and take the complete honesty as a virtue to define a politician.

To begin with, it is unwise to ask politician to tell the truth regardless of the certain conditions. Take the Korean War for example, when the Chinese general PeiDeHuai found the north Korean leader Kin-sung and asked how many solders he still had. The terrible answer Mr peng got was that there was nearly no troop Mrkin left. Under such dangerous condition, if Mrpeng or Mrkin revealed that information, it would undoubtably cause a widespread of panic among the solders, and lower the morale of them. All these factors may undermine the fighting capcity of troops and change the final resules of that war. So under some hasty or terrible condition, hiding some information is effective to keep people calm, and reduced the possible damage caused by horror. Another case is that after the diaster of 9.11, American government delay to release same tape records, which include communications between the firefights and casculties at that time, for nearly one year. This action is done due to the concern of the great sorrow of the reletives of these victims,and revealing these material may cause greater panic and turmoil at that time. In order to alleviate the damage and reduce the pain of people, the politicians at that very condition chose to keep silence for a period of time for further thoroughly investigation.

In the second place, the phrase complete honesty should be defined. What kind of honesty is the complete honesty? Is there a useful standard to charge that honesty or not? If it confines to the public affairs, then it is, in part, acceptable. But if it covers the areas of personal lives of politicians, then the rationality of the completely honesty is being in question. If the public have the curiosity on the privace of a politician, is it reasonable for that politician to reveal his or her personal lives to meet the majority's demand? As we know, privacy is one of the basic human rights. No matter what social status people have, even the politicians, they still have the rights to keep silence about their personal lives even they themselves are put under the numerous cameras.

Admittedly, public has the rights to know the truth. And through the way of questioning government, the normal people can have better comprehension on the opreations of the government,and the contribution of politicians. The more information they get, the more capabilities they have to judge the work of government as well as politicians. So a society can gain a lot under the powerful supervisions from their people.

In summary, it is no doubt that government and politician should fulfill their duties and receive the monitor from the public. At the same time, public should have the basic loyalty in government critically and leave some room for politicians to perform. In this sense, public should not request political leader to tell truth all the time.
虽然写得很差还是交上来，大家帮忙看看呀，我的例子是不是很有争议？