Ethical Responsibility of Public Officials For Their Private Acts

There are many instances where a debate is spurred regarding “whether public officials are ethically responsible for their private acts which are legally right but socially controversial?” One of the controversial areas of government ethics is the personal moral conduct of public officials. The underlying concern here is whether the public servant or elected official is a person of good moral character and worthy to hold public office. Many countries prohibit some forms of immoral conduct, especially those directly linked to the performance of one’s public duties
Regulation of other forms of immoral conduct, in particular those that do not have a direct link to one’s official duties, is a much more controversial topic. Some may argue that persons engaging in extra-marital affairs in their private lives or who have had past drug abuse problems have poor moral character, and cannot be trusted as public officials. On the other hand, it could be argued that judgment of public officials should be limited to their professional qualifications and work, not their private lives. This view would hold that public officials have a right to a certain level of privacy in their personal lives.

Can a politician be ethical in public if he or she is unethical in private?

This question deals with a longstanding ethical debate about what is called "the unity of the virtues", advocated by many ancient Greek philosophers. The unity of the virtues: A person could not possess one of the cardinal virtues-prudence, temperance, courage, and justice-without possessing them all. That means a person would either posses all the virtues or none of them. For example, that a politician who cheats on his wife is not someone who can be trusted with the public's business either. Also it is argued that one of the central tasks of the public sphere is educational-helping shape the thinking of the next generation. Hence, a public servant must serve as an example of good conduct.
But political office is not what it was in the ancient world. For the ancient leaders, the required expertise was moral expertise. But today, we expect our leaders to have entirely different sorts of expertise-economic, public policy etc. Where is the line between a politician's personal and public life? Everyone, including public figures, is entitled to right to privacy.
But certain issues that might be considered private for a private individual can become matters of reasonable public interest when that individual is a public official. Becoming a public servant means putting the public's interest ahead of your own. If a private matter affects the performance of the officeholder's duties, than it is no longer private. So behaviors that might impede performance, like financial problems, especially in a person with budgetary responsibilities, is matter of public interest. Because a politician represents the public, constituents will be better represented if he or she practices the virtues of honesty and trustworthiness in both personal and private life.

By: Mona Kaushal