Should modern politicians display morality in their leadership?

The morality of politicians, in both a civic and personal sense, is being investigated and explored more and more in the public forum, and this heightened scrutiny has prompted further questioning of whether or not political leaders should act ethically. Machiavellis The Prince dictates that success and power, rather than likeability and popularity, are the most important objectives for a leader. He believed that a leader need not behave morally or virtuously, because acting this way in the face of vicious and ruthless opposition would only result in failure. However, this view is based on a pessimistic, pre-democratic conception of the nature of man, and these attitudes can be disproved in the modern context. Politicians also should display ethical conduct in their private lives; although a leaders application of political and personal morals may differ, a persons behaviour in any milieu is indicative of their moral framework. Thus, a leader with a questionably ethical private life may prove to be morally corrupt in a civic sense. Furthermore, the contemporary culture of campaigns and elections is increasingly invasive, with the intimate personal and family history of candidates being scoured for controversy and scandal. With public image and voter approval the cornerstones of democratic success, a politician must lead a morally sound personal life in order to be elected. Despite Machiavellis teachings to the contrary, it is clear that politicians should display morality in their leadership, because of the civilised nature of government and nature of elections in current society. In his 16th century political treatise The Prince, Machiavelli argues that the greatest moral good that a leader can achieve is control over a stable state, and any actions to protect the country are justified even if they are cruel. In essence, overall national welfare and the maintenance of the rulers power is a greater good that excuses any unethical conduct on the behalf of a politician. In accordance with the views of Thucydides, he states that it is a rule of nature that those who have the ability to control, will control, and will exert their dominance over the weak. This competitive and ruthless environment requires leaders to act brutally and with self-interest, as an attempt at generosity or compassion would be seen and exploited as a political weakness. However, this view is based on the realist notion of human nature as selfish, greedy, violent and suspicious; a view that may have been affirmed by the political conflict that surrounded Machiavelli throughout his life in 16th century Florence, but that is negated by the successes of Australias liberalist democracy. The triumphs of our current system, which is based on an optimistic conception of man as a reasonable contributor to government, conflict with the realist notion of human nature, thus conflicting with Machiavellis theories about leadership. Machiavellis claims about the justification of cruelty in politics are supported by two key realist assumptions; that human beings need to be ruled with force and dominance, and that a leader will be consistently met with immoral and merciless opposition. In modern Western society, citizens are granted the right to vote, and are regarded as rational and conscientious individuals. Also, our political system is both moderate and civilized, and a politician is unlikely to face opposition that is unethical and depraved. In this way, the rationale for Machiavellis theory is not supported by contemporary Western politics, meaning that it is necessary for modern leaders to display morality in their professional conduct.

Political leaders should not only display morality in their governance, but also in their private lives. A politicians code of civic morality is what determines their professional decision-making and actions, whereas personal choices are made under a different set of private ethics. However, these two civic and personal codes are not totally disparate; a persons morals in any setting relate to their overall ethical standards. For instance, if a politician is willing to engage in an extramarital affair, and lie to their spouse, will they not be willing to lie to their constituents? After all, professional and private ethics are correlated under a persons core moral framework, and it is plausible that conscious immorality shown in a politicians personal life will be relevant to, and reflected in the leaders public conduct. Also, deciding to enter into such an affair exemplifies selfishness, lack of trustworthiness and lack of respect for others. Unlike morality, which involves considered evaluations and decisions, these personal qualities are to a degree entrenched and undeniable. Therefore, it is necessary for politicians to lead ethical and virtuous private lives, because evidence of immoral behaviour may indicate both negative personality traits and the potential for unethical professional conduct. Public image is an increasingly important factor in Western democratic politics. Given that an election can mean the difference between political success and failure, candidates must work hard to ensure that they are favoured by voters. The advent of mass media such as television has seen the nature of elections expand and change greatly, with campaigns now able to reach almost every citizen of a country in some way. It is this more widespread and comprehensive campaigning that has made it necessary for modern politicians to display moral behaviour at all times. A political triumph such as a trade agreement or a passed bill may not be fully understood or appreciated by the general public. However, a moral discrepancy, especially in a politicians private life, will resonate with the public, because unethical behaviour is something that most people can recognise and understand. I believe that modern politicians have identified this swing in public interest away from policy and towards personality, and this has caused contemporary elections to be rife with smear tactics, family history and petty personal attacks. In the current American Presidential election, Barack Obama has been quoted as saying he is a better dancer than John McCain, and Arnold Schwarzenegger recently showed support for McCain by mocking Obamas scrawny little arms. Of course, these remarks are jokes, but in some cases, the intention is to seriously discredit a potential leader, such as the allegations that Kevin Rudd attended a strip club, and the scrutiny of Sarah Palins pregnant teenage daughter. Every move that a politician makes is scrutinized for controversy and scandal, so political leaders need to behave ethically at all times to avoid a negative public reaction. Modern elections have grown to place great emphasis on the personality of politicians in an appeal to the superficiality of the general public, and this change has made it more crucial for politicians to conduct themselves morally. It is clear that politicians must display morality in their leadership in order to be successful in the modern context. Although unethical politics may be justified in other settings, including the war-torn landscape in which Machiavelli wrote The Prince, the civility and liberty of our current democracy requires Western leaders to act morally in a professional sense. Also, a politician should lead an ethically sound personal life, because any private misconduct could both evidence potential political corruption, and endanger the leaders voter appeal.

By Sarah Lang
. www.etonline.com/news/ on 02/11/08 . www.nypost.com on 02/11/08