The Sarlusconi Berluscozy mania: a new trend?
What do you think about the public exposure of politicians’ private life?
About a year ago, Silvio Berlusconi was writing a love letter to his wife in the Italian press. Recently, France has fed the international press with juicy stories that sell. The “President Bling-Bling”, the “Sarko-show”, many are the new references to the President of the French Republic. His love stories now make the headlines across Europe. This marks a new trend in the way politicians deal with their communication. Tony Blair had set the trend of a 21st century political communication. Yet, despite the crispy Spin Doctor’s Diary by Alastair Campbell, Mr Blair did not exactly intend to expose his private life to such extent.
Last month, French weekly publication Le Courrier International (n°899) gave French readers an overview of what the foreign press writes about their President. Der Spiegel (Germany) for instance expressed that in ‘no other place than the founding country of modern democracy had government action so well transformed into a soap opera’. In the UK, The Times speaks about a ‘mortifying soap opera’. And all the way to Argentina, Terra Magazine hits with ‘Sarkozy, the permanent erection’.
Last year, Mr Berlusconi apologized to his wife in a letter he published in the Italian press. He consciously made his private life public.
Corriere Della Sera, 1st febbraio 2007 – Berlusconi scrive a Veronica: « Scusami »
Cara Veronica,
eccoti le mie scuse. Ero recalcitrante in privato, perché sono giocoso ma anche orgoglioso. Sfidato in pubblico, la tentazione di cederti è forte. E non le resisto. Siamo insieme da una vita. Tre figli adorabili che hai preparato per l’esistenza con la cura e il rigore amoroso di quella splendida persona che sei, e che sei sempre stata per me dal giorno in cui ci siamo conosciuti e innamorati. [- - -]Scusami dunque, te ne prego, e prendi questa testimonianza pubblica di un orgoglio privato che cede alla tua collera come un atto d’amore. Uno tra tanti.
Un grosso bacio
Silvio.
Between 1997 and 2007, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair had set a new trend in political communication and in communicating about his private life. Did this go unbridled? Are our new politicians victims of the 21st century reality television? Why would they transform their private life into political events? What are the stakes of politicians’ private life being entangled with the public sphere?
So what is your view on this?
5 Comments
Leave a commentLeave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Loading ...
A societal change?
I believe that this issue is not just related to politicians and their exposure of private life. In the recent past years the world has been overwhelmed with reality shows ranging from Big Brother, Idol, Wife Exchange and many others which are all full of private life details that should be kept away from the public eye. On the other hand, this program’s quality is very low, made to entrain the mass, cheap and commercial, but surprisingly very popular and watched. It is strange that people are so attracted to other people’s life, that they are so eager to intrude other people’s privacy. They want to peep into celebrities’ life and life of ordinary people just like themselves.
The same thing is with the politicians that are even more interesting since they are important public figures. Of course their private life and love stories are not what should fill the headlines and amuse people. Their role is of a high importance and their responsibility is to represent people and do their job for which they were elected which is in the first place solving the burning issues that each country is faced with, work on the progress of the society and improve life standard of citizens.
But, even more troublesome is the social deformation and urge of people to enter others’ life and I think that the society should address this problem and find the answer why people do not have content, joy, entertainment in their own life and look for it in reality shows, yellow pages, scandals. It is likely that their own lives are empty, that they are depressed or do not want to face their problems and it is easier to run away from your own reality. I think that this is a core of the problem and we all need to revise our concept of values, to stop accepting and absorbing everything that is served to us by media and to make our lives better and more interesting so that there is no need to search for the missing parts in other people’s lives.
Unprofessional and unethical
The politicians are the people we voted for and trough our votes we gave them the legitimacy to represent us. According to that, those people that are today’s politicians one day used to be just like most of the people are today, just the “regular mortals”. Becoming a politician has not changed them in the sense of their private lives, actually in the sense of their needs and feelings they behave just like all other humans do. But it certainly has changed them in the sense of how they have to deal with their private life now that they are “famous”. In my opinion they should really be careful about things they make public. We have given them the legitimacy of leaders because we’ve believed they were serious and conscious people who have deserved to represent us and who will do that in a proper way. By ‘the proper way’ I certainly don’t mean “Hollywood superstar” lifestyle! Some politicians are making their private lives public with hidden intensions that are most of the time very obvious. They think they’ll earn voter’s support by making scandals, filling in the headlines and doing things the “regular mortals” do, like for instance cheating their wife or getting married?! And then acting like beggars whose life is destroyed for ever?! I agree they are “normal” people just like we all are and they have the same needs as every human been. But still, they also have to think that they are representatives of the people that gave them their trust. That is why they have to act professionally and try to separate their private lives from their business. I’m not saying they have to hide their lives, wives, husbands, children etc. but they really should not try to make those things public only to gain votes. For me this should not become a trend in politics because it’s highly unprofessional and unethical, and as far as I’m concerned, my support they would never get.
Privacy and accountability: a challenge
When it comes to privacy and accountability, people always demand the former for themselves and the latter for everyone else, or so the writer David Brin would argue. Demanding accountability for politicians and yet respecting their privacy is a difficult balance.
The difference between the private life and public life of a citizen or servant of the state is not a new one. Harold Johnstone’s The Private Life of the Romans, written nearly two centuries ago, attempted to document the difference between the official and private roles found amongst those who lived in what some see as a precursor to the European Union – the Roman Empire.
Johnstone examined classes of Roman citizenry and broke down their obligations, their privileges etc. By doing so, he hoped to understand the machinery and procedures of government and the division between private life and public service. One result he found was that the lines between public and private were often crossed, even in the highly organised and structured society of the Romans.
So the issues around this topic are not new. What are these issues, however?
At the centre of this topic is the balance between a free press that is largely uncensored and an individual’s right to privacy. More pertinent is the right to privacy that politicians have – does a politician deserve special respect for his or her privacy, or does the fact that he or she is a public figure mean that he or she by definition, made a decision to give up some of their right to privacy and therefore deserves less respect for their privacy? Added to this is the fact that because a politician is a public figure, there exist solid reasons for the media to discuss all aspects of their lives because doing so is in the ‘public interest’. Surely, this is a case of blurred lines of public and private.
Where do those lines between private and public life exist? I think the lines can be so blurred for a politician that they can be almost non-existent. For example, Hillary Clinton’s recent outburst of tears and emotion during the US Presidential campaign led to media commentators questioning if her public/private moment happened for public (voter ratings) or private (a deep seated need to lead America) reasons. Naturally, Clinton’s outpouring was volunteered by her, meaning that she was on television and in the public eye, when her private emotions were revealed. This is a form of news reporting, of events that happen, which journalists report and comment on.
The issues are different when the media probe the private lives of politicians to see if they can find something to attract readers. That form of journalism walks along a narrow line, on one side of which lies the investigative journalism that produces important revelations of the misuse of power, like the Watergate scandal of the 1970s during the Presidency of Richard Nixon. And there is the other side, which produces journalism that gives us details of what the contents of Sarko’s refuse bin consist of. Personally, I find that type of gossip-journalism a waste of print, but as the readership of many ‘tabloid’ papers shows, a readership for it exists. And, if we are honest, most people are fascinated by the private lives behind the public face.
To reject both types of journalism is to place a degree of restriction on the freedom of the press. To accept this latter type of journalism entirely, however, is to a certain extent, to sign up to a form of journalism that potentially has little or no respect for people’s lives.
What is my view? Legislation in European Member States has begun to increasingly support laws that protect the privacy of individuals including public figures. I respect the need for the media to examine the private lives of politicians as that can be a useful public service. However, without a guard or check (i.e. privacy laws) such media examinations can get out of control. The treatment of Diana, Princess of Wales is a case in point. So I am in favour of increased protection for privacy of all individuals, with the apparently contradictory support for the freedom of the press.
In a society where ID-cards are increasingly being requested by governments and private data of citizens (from mobile phone text messages to emails) is automatically collected and stored under EU law, its clear that politicians and governments are quite interested in our private lives, to say the least. With some restrictions, it seems fair that we turn the tables and we are allowed a measure of the same access to their lives.
Privacy must be respected and it is at times essential to the democratic process. The secret ballot and anonymous political speech are two examples of this and it would be a mistake to demand unlimited access to the privacy of politicians and forget the need to protect our own.
The Sarlousconi-Berlouscozy mania : a new trend in political life?
The right question behind this seems to be: democracy in a crisis? Throughout the European Union, political commentators have noted a growing dissatisfaction with politics and politicians. People are becoming less and less interested in public affairs. The chasm between the rulers and the ruled is widening. Abstentions from elections, complaints about politics and politicians, and protest votes are all signs of disaffection with politics. Democracy, observers believe, is an ailing body.
We also have to take into account that media shapes and construct partly our daily life in the modern societies, and new media play a key role in political communication. The result of a weakened public sphere- in the habermasian/ liberal meaning- is the transformation from citizens to spectators and at the same time the emergence of politicians-showmen like Berlusconi and Sarkozy.
Can a public figure have a private life?
It is hard to judge why a person exposes his/her private life or not. There are different points of views on public exposure of the politicians or other famous people. Sometimes it is not understandable why people are annoyed about famous politicians’ personal life. They should be bothered about his/her professional life and watch whether he/she as a president/prime minister is doing his/her duties or not. If he takes advantages of his position and exploits anyone, that’s of course a different thing.
Yet can a public figure have a private life? Recent events have highlighted the importance of this question. In the French presidential election, both candidates tried to keep their domestic life separate from their campaign. Segolene Royal is not married to Francois Holland, the father of her four children. When asked whether they were a couple, Royal replied, “Our lives belong to us”. Similarly, in response to rumours that President Nicolas Sarkozy’s wife had left him, a spokesman for Sarkozy said, “That’s a private matter.”
Thinking on the point of view of a multidisciplinary science like Human Rights it is one’s right to make public his/her private life. Some famous people expose their private life and some others want to be respected on the basis of privacy rights. We can admit that there are some politicians who expose their private life in public as far as it attracts attention in the public opinion; this means that people are interested in knowing about it. But on the other hand, it still means that politicians use public exposure to gain popularity.
We elect people to office to do good things. Sarkozy or Berluskoni are not necessarily good men. But that fact does not mean they are incapable of imbuing their politics and policies with good values. However, I have to believe that people have heard so much of this that they have developed filters that help them screen out what matters least. They know that it takes a bit of low dealing to accomplish great things.