Virtue of leader > 영어토론방

• 목록

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 구글+ 공유
• 

정치인 또는 지도자의 덕목

"It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."

1.The writer's asserts that it is necessary, often desirable for political leaders to withhold information from the public. I think in many cases politicians hide information for the public only for their vested interests. In a democracy, it is the fundamental right of the general public to know the truth and be informed of all the decisions taken by the political leaders. However, in some situations, it is in the better interest of the public, to withhold information. The decision of whether the information is released to the general public or not, should be taken carefully, after considering the larger interest of the country.

There are some circumstances where it is absolutely necessary to withhold information from the public. The best example in this respect would be the case of defense secrets. It certainly would be suicidal to declare in public before an attack is made on some enemy camp. Under such circumstances, secrecy is of paramount importance; the success of the whole operation depends on it. The public cannot be allowed to know the highly confidential defense secrets, because it always invites some mischief on the part of some people who are against our country.

Let us cite the example of communal violence. Whenever any communal dispute breaks out in some part of the country, the news spreads due to information media and gives rise to hostility between the two warring factions in the other parts of the country as well. This may stir up fresh communal violence in the otherwise peaceful areas. Something similar happened in the Gujarat state in India. A single incident in the Godhra province was enough to spark off a more than two month long bloodbath in the whole state. Utter chaos and disorder reigned supreme and the whole state became inundated by riots and violence.

Such carnage could have been avoided, if the political leaders would have suppressed the news of the violence from spreading in the other parts of the state. Thus, in such situations it is desirable that the politicians withhold information from the public.

Another example could be the media coverage of some catastrophe. During the media coverage of the bombing of the World Trade Centers in U.S.A., not a single dead body was shown. Whereas in India, whenever there is loss of life on a large scale, pictures of mangled and mutilated dead bodies being dragged unceremoniously are aired openly. It is argued that such pictures can have adverse effects on the minds of some people and especially of children. It is always desirable to censor the pictures to be aired for the benefit of the society.

The political leaders often withhold information from the public for their selfish interests. The evil strategies adopted by political leaders for gaining power never come to light and even if they do, the truth is distorted and presented to the public in such a manner that the reputation of the politician is safe. Any news that disparages the reputation of a politician is immediately suppressed. For example, the publicity of the extra marital affair of a former deputy chief minister of the Maharashtra state in India was duly suppressed before it could do any irreparable damage to his image. This amounts to violate the right of the general public to know the truth. Withholding such information deludes the public and causes the wrong people to come into power.

Whenever any political scandal is unearthed, the accused politician alleges that the opposition party has fabricated the plot against him to discredit him. What ensues is the mud slinging of the two parties at each other. In the whole imbroglio, the common man is completely ignored. The general public never gets to know the truth. It causes distrust among the masses for the whole system. The common man is unable to decide whom to put the faith in.

Thus, though it certainly is necessary to withhold information from the public in some cases, it should be done so for the right cause, which is the welfare of the people. The decision should be taken after weighing all the pros and cons. Well-being of the masses should be the sole objective in mind, whatever the decision.

2. In my opinion the claim presented above is true and I agree with the statement that you made it sound as if you were referring to two statements it is often necessary, even desirable, for politics leaders to withhold information from the public? In most countries it is very hard for ordinary people to get to know all the details of the events that occur behind of the public politics. Even in countries with strong democratic traditions, politicians do not divulge information that might hit at the interests of a state and its citizens as well.

Recent tragic events that took place during the terrorists attack on the World Trade Center give us an example when concealing the veritable truth from the public and substitution it by more beneficial information helped the Americans to overcome the consequences of that act of terrorism.(the underlined sentence is not clear enough. The American government supported by most of the journalists, made up a story that the fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania had not been brought down by the air-defense fighter. This is an inspirational story saying that it was the passengers on board who sacrificed their lives to prevent the next target from being destroyed. The whole nation was desperately in need of such facts that would show the heroism of ordinary people and infuse others with the sense of patriotism and pride for their country.

Some parts of military budget are not supposed to be revealed because they may contain top-secret data regarding government expenditure for the creation of weapons based on new technologies. If such strictly confidential information is available for broad mosses may undermine the national security and result in economic losses because not sure about this word 'adversarial' country or countries will possess up-to-date arms without having to invest much intellectual and financial resources in development of that.

In our era of global terrorism many countries face the necessity to fight war with the invisible foe. Politicians in some crucial moments must keep valuable information from the public, for instance, as it is in case of hostage taking. Officials should do their utmost to prevent vital data from being leaked out. It is truly desirable for the authorities not to disclose to the media what they are going to do in order to save hostages lives because hostage takers might take advantage of it.

To conclude, there are cases when political leaders should withhold some information from the public until it can be possible to discuss it publicly without a risk of causing dramatic sequels. It is of interest to people and a state that all aspects of the matter are taken into account before decision to disclose information is made.

3. Political leaders are at the helm of affairs for every nation. They have access to the most sensitive information. Ideally, we should trust the people whom we have elected into power in using their discretion for the dissipation of information, but it no longer works that way. As there are two sides to every coin, the act of withholding information has positive as well as negative effects.

It is an accepted fact that in a democratic nation, the opinion of the people is of prime importance. But if this opinion comes in huge measures, it leads to interference. If the people were given access to all the information, they would naturally tend to analyze and draw their judgment on the issues. This judgment from 1 billion people in a country like India (where a large number of people are uneducated) is more based on emotions and sentiments than on rationality and reasoning. The idea of listening to the opinions of such a humungous number of people for a decision is absurd. Affairs at the helm cannot be decided by the mass hysteria but by using the diplomacy and tact that the officers and diplomats at the helm have cultivated over the years.

Interference is one aspect of the issue concerned. How can we overlook the fact that providing all information to the general masses could pose the threat of misuse of information? The public in practicality does not need to know all the information. By knowing the information, they would probably just opinionate themselves. The value addition that is brought about in the people because of their knowing the data is much less than the threat it would pose if the wrong people have the access to this data. In view of national security, we have to choose to withhold certain information (for example information about the defense sector).

Probably in today’s world, the politicians have gone overboard with the power we have given them. It has so turned out that the politicians are now indiscriminate in withholding information. The information that the demagogues now withhold are such sensitive ones that if the people come to know of it, it would lead to them losing their power. There is a subtle difference between withholding information and hiding information, and the difference is the ulterior motive. As long as the information is not made public for the good of the nation, it is justified. But now the situation is such that information is withheld for the good of the politicians.

In effect, we can come to the conclusion that holding information from the public is no doubt good from the point of view of the welfare of the nation, but there should be some regulating body that decides what kind of information can go public and what cannot. This regulating body should comprise of well-educated and experienced individuals and should not be influenced by the political power. The act of withholding information is totally acceptable to the people of the nation, as long as the intentions behind this are noble.

3. An individual's right to know is the hallmark of any democratic nation. The idea of withholding information from the public may at first seem subversive to the very concept of democracy. But there are a few cases in which withholding information from the public is necessary and may even be desirable. However such situations are far and between, and hence I would prefer to replace the word in the thesis with 'occasionally'.

Political leaders may need to withhold information from the public to maintain law and order. The news of the assassination of a popular public figure may foment unrest among the people. It may be wise to hold back such information from the public domain until all relevant facts are known. For instance when Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated the news of his killing was blocked until it was discovered that the perpetrator of the crime was a Hindu. This helped to prevent communal riots in which thousands of people may have been killed. But in another case when Indira Gandhi was shot dead, the news of her being shot by her own Sikh guards was announced and mass killing resulted

Yet another example in which the censoring of information may be necessary and even desirable is when a nation beset with an epidemic. News of epidemics could cause panic in society even though it is uncalled for. Exaggerated reports and unfounded rumors could result which may cause further harm. Furthermore panic only results in inefficiency. Other temporary downtrends in market forces too may also need to be kept out of the public domain to prevent detrimental effects to society at large. These negative effects could include hoarding and black marketing that could affect the lives of many individuals. Unfortunately there are always unscrupulous people who would stoop to any level to make a quick buck.

Though the facts seem to indicate that it may sometimes be necessary to withhold information from the public, there is also a downside to this point of view. Once the principle of withholding information from the public is accepted politicians may misuse this power to cover up malpractices and even scandals. Thus in all such cases in which information is withheld a retrospection is in order. A disquisition should be held to determine whether the circumstances necessitated the withholding of information. This would guarantee that political leaders do not take undue advantage of this discretionary power that has been granted to them.

As the above examples indicate it is a fact of life that certain situations may arise that calls for discretion in releasing information to the public. In such exceptional circumstances it may be necessary and even desirable for politicians to withhold information from the public keeping in mind the well-being and happiness of individuals in a society.

4. I assert the statement that often it is necessary for political leader to withhold the information from the public for the welfare of the country. But, sometimes the political leaders hinder the information from innocent public for their selfishness.
According to me, the decision of revealing or withhold information should be taken after considering it’s overall effect on the nation.

In a democratic country it is the fundamental right of the public to know about the truth and the major decisions taken by the political leaders. People appoint the leader by giving their precious votes. It is obligation of diplomats to provide proper information to the public. But, sometimes exposing some issues may lead to conflict in the country. A slight leakage of such information can lead to nation’s demolition. For example, military secrets, if unveiled to outsiders may lead to destruction of the country. Under such exceptional circumstances it is necessary for political leaders to disclose the information from the public.

Furthermore, it is necessary to conceal the information from public to maintain peace in the country. Some traitors always want to create violence by inciting the public. The vital reasons behind such public brawl are religion and caste. A small argument on religion or caste leads to tumult within the different parts of the country. Sometimes this communal violence ends up in bloodshed. Such blood slaughter can be avoided if the authorities suppress the news of violence by spreading in other parts of the country.

It is seen that many times political leader try to suppress information for his benefit. The information that spoils his reputation is always suppressed. In front of public he always try to maintain his image as an ideal political leader. The illicit strategies adopted by a political leader for achieving power never come to light. Withholding such information misleads people and finally power goes into hands of tyrants. Under such circumstances it is necessary to reveal the truth to public.

In conclusion, for the public safety, it is necessary in certain circumstances to withhold information from the public. The decision of disclosing the information or not, should be taken by considering its effect on civilians and the country.

24.People in positions of power are most effective when they exercise caution and restraint in the use of that power."

1. By definition a public official is a person holding an office and position of authority. A public official may remain just a public official i. e. he may hold an office, but whether he can be an effective leader depends on whether he maintains highest ethical and moral standards. An effective leader is someone who himself practices and thus inculcates in his followers, rules, conforming to the standards of conduct of his profession.

An official has to deal with people all the time with respect to jobs being done. Also he has to lead a team of members or an office in the process. All the people who deal with him whether those working under him or the common people look up to him. He has responsibilities that he has to fulfill. Such an official needs to be exemplary by setting moral standards. This is because a good leader should act as a motivator and the best motivation to adhere to rules and regulations can be provided by a leader if he practices the regulations himself.

When a leader sticks to his moral principles he is devoid of negative factors such as guilt, shame, embarrassment. Such a leader will always be positive in his approach. Positive attitude is infectious. If an official is true to his job and his moral values, he can create a trend in an office where everybody would like emulate him.. A leader should thus be ethical and forceful in his approach since the personality and reputation of the association that he belongs to, flows from him. Thus he will sow the seeds for a better, moral and ethical society.
A leader of integrity should never try to knowingly deceive his constituents at any time. He should always be open and honest. The leader must consider what is best for his community. This means disregarding himself as personal interests. When society looks at whom they want as their leader there is a certain criterion, one must meet. In that criteria are the ideas of trust, honesty, and morality.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was considered a great leader and a man of high integrity. He was well respected and held in very high regard on a national level. He was trying to stimulate change for a large population. His morality and integrity made Martin Luther King, Jr. the effective leader that he was.

There are some cases like that of President Clinton that would suggest the otherwise. Although he was involved in the Lewinsky Scandal, he was considered to be an effective leader. But immorality is very infectious and could creep into the system very quickly. Thus people who would not support my stand could have Mr. Clinton as an excuse for being effective without being a man of morals and integrity. If leaders compromise moral values or if they are found to be involved in scandals, their image is smeared in the eyes of the people. Their decisions are scrutinized and their motives will be doubted. This would lead to ineffective leadership. He could have been a more effective leader if he would not have been involved in such a scandal. He admitted his mistake and finally he, too stuck to morality to salvage his lost pride.

Today, in every field there is tremendous competition, greed, corruption, red-tapism, violation of rules to get jobs done easily: we hear about these in news everyday. It is very easy for an official to be lured by the benefits like that of making easy money by facilitating some jobs and breaching some procedures. And if a leader takes a lead in such activities rather than following the right procedures and sticking to his moral and ethical principles, in the process he might encourage others to do so.

Thus, in my conclusion I strongly support the view that public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards and by doing so he can become an effective leader as he sets the right example for others and could be seminal in setting a platform for a morally upright society.

2.Power has always been the symbol of ones ability to prevail upon the world. Positions of power have always been sought after; this has been the case right from the advent of mankind. Innumerable coups, wars and battles have been fought for power. But when that coveted position has been achieved people tend to forget the sense of responsibility and duty that power brings along, that sense of responsibility and duty, which demands for restraint and caution.

Apparently, very few people realize that, it is this restraint and caution in the use of power that makes it more effective and makes its arbiter revered. It is well known and well recorded in annuls of history that power has always been used as an ostentatious display of ones might, which of course has led to many a downfall. One needs to understand how restraint and caution helps one achieve his/her objectives.

Firstly, power itself creates a sense of deterrence, which makes others not to commit anything untoward. For example: the power in the hands of a sheriff makes the citizens of a community to comport appropriately. Similarly, is the case with nuclear deterrence of any country, which would cast off its enemies? Secondly, pushing for restraint and caution in spite of holding power creates a sense of reverence towards the people who hold the position and also it creates a sense of uneasiness, fear and unpredictability among the people against whom it can be used, which is the main psychological factor that ascertains dominance and gives a sense of prerogative towards the opponents, which of course is the sign of victory over the opponent.

Notably, Use of power has always been deplored by one and all, as it creates wide spread anxiety among people, not only the ones against whom it has been used but also the many others who will be indirectly affected by it. For example the recent incidents in the Middle East have been a cause of concern for one and all; affecting the whole world morally and financially.

As I conclude, I would like to state that, power itself is powerful. Its effective use by restraint and caution makes it even more powerful.

168."Those who treat politics and morality as though they were separate realms fail to understand either the one or the other."

1.Should politics and morality be treated as though they are mutually exclusive? I strongly agree with the speaker that any person claiming so fails to understand either the one or the other. Morality can be defined in concise words as complete forthrightness and candidness in dealings with others. However, in politics morality involves with the welfare of society, some sort of compromises and legitimate.

It is wrong headed to equate moral behavior in politics with the simple notions of honesty and putting other fellow’s needs ahead of one’s own or other ways in which we typically measure the morality of an individual’s private behavior. Public politics is the game played between two professional politicians and to succeed in the game one must use the tools that are part and parcel of it. Complete forthrightness is a significance of vulnerability and naiveté? Neither of which earn a politician respect among his or her opponents, and that the opponents will use every advantage against honest politician. The politician, who claims that his opponent is giving false assurance to voters, and will not going to do any welfare of society, is not necessarily immoral. Since, we must understand that this sort of rhetoric is part and parcel of public politics and will not going to harm society.

Those who disagree with the statement also fails to understand that in order to gain opportunity for moral leadership politicians must have to accept compromises along the way. Politics is a business not only of idealism but also of pragmatism insofar as in order to be effective a politician must gain and hold onto political power. In my observations, some degree of pandering is necessary to maintain that position. Modern politics is replete with candidates who refused to pander, thereby ruining their own chance to exercise effective leadership.

Finally, those claim that effective politician need not concern themselves with morality fail to appreciate that successful political leadership, if it is to endure, requires a certain measures of public morality, that is serving the society with its best interests. Consider leaders such as Hitler, whom most people were agree was violator of public morality. Ultimately, such leaders forfeit their leadership as a result of immoral means by which they obtain their power. As per my opinion, amoral public behavior might serve a political leader’s interest in preserving power; long term such behavior invariably results in leader’s downfall.

In sum, I agree with the statement since it recognizes the game of politics calls for certain amount of disingenuousness that we might associate with dubious private morality. And it recognizes that such behavior is a necessary mean to the final objective of moral political leadership. Besides, at the end of the political game any politician failing to exercise moral leadership ultimately forfeits the game.

2. Politics and morality are not in separate realms. Admittedly, they will affect each other. However, they are two sides of a coin. They are not mutual exclusive and have to exist together. However, they are not totally the same thing. Sometimes, they will help each other. In some situation, they are harmful to each other. A good leader is the one who impose moral well into his politics. A good moral teacher is the one who know how to use politics to help him develop his idea.

Firstly, politicians have to consider morality. If a country does not have moral rules, they will be revolted or destroyed by others. Notorious emperors governed most of the ends of Chinese dynasties. Hitler, who has good politic skills, is captured since his cruel rules. Moral is an important concern in politics. However, government does not always put it in the highest rank. In war, countries that consider whether they should help their allies have to consider their own benefit first. If the number of people may be killed overwhelm the reputation received after the war, they may not even involved in the war. Moral is important since they may help them establish reputation and charm. However, there are a lot of considerations besides morals in politics.

On the other hand, moral and politics sometimes have to balance the adverse effect from each other too. In the old China, sons who reported their father to the policemen for his sin will be considered very bad people. Moral is harmful to politics in such situation. Besides, colonism may be immoral since which is invading other countries. However, since the benefits are very attractive, government have to do the judge to fight other countries' people for no reasons but their own benefits. Politicians have to consider the effects of moral well since there is no perfect reason for them always adopts moral decisions.

Actually, moral is like rule and guideline for the politics; politics is an important media for moral leader to develop their idea. Although politics and moral has good and adverse effects on each other, they both have to bestow each other a very important role in the long run. In politics, although moral sometimes hinder its plan, politics have to adjust their decision on the moral base. A good leader will never ignore morality. It is totally harmful for them since their people will object an immoral government. On the other hand, for a moral leader, he can never be successful if he knows not politics. Politics can help him develop his idea quickly and effectively. Buddhism in China and Japan was widely speeded since their emperor promoted them much. We can see how an idea developed more effectively with the help of politics.

To sum up, politics is a system to govern a country well. They have to how to guide their people to the correct respond using moral reasons and balance their benefits for their people as a whole which may sometimes violate moral rules. Good politics are good to balance them. Moral leaders have to make such decisions too. Politics are not always beneficial to them. Moral and Politics have correlations but not always the most important consideration for each other.

202. "Unlike great thinkers and great artists, the most effective political leaders must often yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise"

In the history, there are many greatest political leaders. How are they to be so effective? It is really a very complex question.

As a democracy political leader, no doubt he should listen to his citizen, tend to what nation want, satisfy his people and strengthen the nation ability. His primary target is to help his people healthy and wealthy. If of a nation, in which people live in poverty and are been threatening by death, the political leader of cause is not a wise leader. So a wise political leader must first know what his citizens want.

And the leader must often listen to public’s opinion. If he only runs in his own way, neglecting public’s voice, he definitely will step in mistake way, or even opposite to public’s benefit. Then he couldn’t protect his people’s benefit, which would lead to dissatisfying in society. With such dissatisfying going on, no use to say the well being of the nation.

But does that to mean that the effective political leaders must yield to public opinion or abandon principle for the sake of compromise? Of cause it is run to another extreme. First of all, there are must have many different public opinions. Every people usually have different benefits, values and opinions. It is almost impossible to form a total union opinion in public. So it is impracticable for leaders to satisfy every public opinion. Secondly, sometimes public cannot see clear the situation or cannot form a correct way to settle the present problems. After all effective political leaders have more experience and long sight to future. Sometimes, they can see more wise ideas.

In a sum, a leader only yielding to public or a leader deft to public opinion is neither effective leader. A leader, who can bring his people to wealthy and healthy lives, effectively settle social problem without hurting of all human beings can be cold a effective political leader.
 
 Could you say something?