Editorial

7th September 1997

A sombre week has come to an end The mortal remains of Diana, Princess of Wales and Queen of Hearts have been laid to rest and in Calcutta Mother Teresa has passed away. They fashioned their lives in separate ways and their deaths were in sharp contrast as well.

As for Diana she was young, vivacious and possessed that rare quality of nobility 'with the common touch' . She was the girl next door, the shy virginal aristocrat discovered by the Royal scouts for the future King. Thrust into the Royal Family, her early innocence captivated the British public which at the time was drifting from the House of Windsor.

Diana was soon catapulted from the relative obscurity of a kindergarten teacher to a mega-star princess by the media that loved her, and she them. She had style, she was coy, she was a refreshing bundle of joy in a family trained to be not normal mortals. Her relationship with the Royal Family fell apart, as did her friendship with the media to an extent none would have dreamed of. She was no longer the charismatic and seemingly bashful bride later conforming to the traditional image of the dutiful young wife and loving mother. She began manipulating the media, she was no candle in the wind. She knew exactly what she was about.

One of the important issues that have emerged from the Diana saga was the matter of privacy for public figures.

There seems to be much hype or hypocrisy about the invasion of privacy and the private lives of public figures.

In Britain itself we saw the very people who were shouting about the invasion of Princess Diana's privacy, also complaining about the Queen's failure to display her sorrow in public and join the people in their massive outpouring of grief and gratitude to Diana. Isn't that an invasion of the Queen's privacy? Is she not entitled to mourn her late and estranged daughter-in-law's death in her own way? No, they say, she is not only a private person but also the Sovereign. She represents the people and must reflect their wishes and feelings. She has no right to a private life, they argue.

Absolutely . Public figures cannot do whatever they like. Power demands a high price from its practitioners. If they cannot stand the heat, they must get out of the kitchen. Anyone who lives on public money — queens, princesses, Presidents, politicians and public officials — is subject to public scrutiny and accountability. We do not condone the aggressive intrusion into the private life of Princess Diana, mainly by the paparazzi but sometimes also by those in the mainstream media. And yet, as the Mother of the future King of England, who lived on the public purse her private life had to be subjected to public scrutiny.

When Sri Lankan presidents had domestic problems either with estranged or sick wives, the media did not rub salt into the wounds. Nor did they commission paparazzi to take photographs of presidents vacationing in the Maldives.

Almost coinciding with the global debate on enhancing privacy laws following Diana's untimely death, the Sri Lanka Parliament will next week begin discussing ways and means of balancing media freedom with the right to privacy and social responsibility.

Unless we wish to live in a dull and regimented society, where only the official version gets recorded, it will be a travesty of justice to hang the Messenger for Diana's death.

The media in Sri Lanka may learn a lesson from Diana's tragic death not to make icons of public figures. The wisdom of our great religions tells us that the paths of glory lead but to the grave. So may Princess Diana rest in peace.

The great English writer Shakespeare once said "the evil that men do lives after them, while the good is often interred with their bones." In the case of Diana, however, the reverse is likely to hold true.

Go to the Political Column

Return to the Editorial/Opinion contents page