Special Assignment

23rd August 1998

A president's private life

A president's private life

President's sex life taboo for media—Mangala

Comparisons with a not so powerful presidency

What they say about that life

A president's private life

The President Clinton- Monica Lewinsky affair has aroused interest worldwide by a public both appalled and dismayed at President Bill Clinton's conduct and the subsequent publicity lent to the affair.

As the US citizens remain split over the issue, The Sunday Times found diverse opinions in a survey conducted amongst a wide spectrum of society which included businessmen, housewives, the clergy, academics, students, and vendors to assess whether a president's private life should be of public concern.

Ninety percent of the people spoken to felt that the private life of a President should be of public concern only if it affects their ability to govern. Many were of the view that a President does have a right to a private life and it should not be a cause for concern for people unless such relationships threatened the security and stability of a country.

Among some of the more interesting views was a comment by a Buddhist Monk of the Gangaramaya Temple Ven. Galboda Gnanissara Thera who said: "a leader's character must be known by the people. It must be a character that needs not be hidden. To lead a nation one has to make certain sacrifices."

Minister A.H.M. Fowzie however maintained that when one enters public office then one's private life definitely is a cause for public concern. He said: "It is very much a public life and the public have a right to know the private life of a President."

Jumar Preena, Manager, Marketing Communications, Mobitel said, as long as the private life of a President does not interfere with the administration of the state machinery, then even a President should have a certain degree of independence and privacy.

Judith Fernandez, a housewife, said, a president has every right to a private life and this should not be of public concern. If President Clinton has been unfaithful then that is for his wife to worry about and not the general public, she said.

Chandana Perera, Deputy General Manager of DHL Courier Services Ltd, was stronger in his condemnation of Clinton's conduct. He maintained that while the affair with Monica Lewinsky may have been a very private matter, public money has been spent on the evolving saga. He added that when elected to office the President of a country should be a role model for the nation and its people. He added that Clinton should step down and hand over to vice president Al Gore who appears to be 'a cleaner guy."

Since President Clinton's amazing admission to an 'inappropriate relationship' last week he has handed over a sample of his DNA, to test if it matches a semen stain on a cocktail dress worn by Lewinsky.

Clinton is certainly not the first US President to have committed an act of adultery. Presidents Kennedy and President Roosevelt were well known for their trysts with women but never made any public confession.

What happens next is now the all important question as the private life of a president has been thrown to the public domain and the possibilities of an impeachment cannot be ignored.

A president can be removed from office only if he has committed treason, bribery, or any other high crimes and misdemeanours. However it has not been defined yet if the private misdemeanour of a president can be cause enough for impeachment.

No American President has ever been removed from office in an impeachment process, and it remains to be seen if President Clinton will be able to retain his Presidency quite apart from the international respect due to any President of the United States of America.

The moot question that has arisen both in the United States as well as in other countries like Sri Lanka is whether or not those in public life have or are entitled to a private life away from the prying eyes of the media hell bent to prop up their circulation figures.

The US courts in the Sullivan Vs The New York Times case, and now the European Courts tend towards saying that those in public life ought to be more prone to public scrutiny even in their private life." If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" is an oft repeated quote to this effect.

The Sunday Times tried to ascertain if in such a situation the honourable step for a president to take would be to resign and protect the moral integrity of a nation. Should a nation be placed before personal interest? The Sunday Times polls survey concluded that a president's private life should only be of public concern if the security and administration of such office is at stake.

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll taken immediately after Clinton's speech found a 20-point drop in the percentage of people who hold a favourable opinion of Clinton, from 60 percent in a CNN poll Aug. 10-12 poll to 40 percent now. The point here is, if a president can admit to a lapse in judgment in matters personal could such lapses overlap into official duties as well or is it possible for a president to function separating personal life from official.

See also page 10

President's sex life taboo for media—Mangala

Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera has said it is alright for the media to scrutinise a president's private life if it threatens the country's security but he added his or her sexual conduct should not be a public discussion since they too have a right to privacy.

When The Sunday Times asked him should there be a public discussion on the sexual conduct of a President, Mr. Samaraweera said "absolutely not.

"A President like any other person must have the right to a private life of their choosing and that must be strictly protected from any kind of snooping by the papparazzi and journalists. The only exception is when their conduct threatens the country's security like the Russian spy Christine Keeler's affair with the then British Minister for Defence in the 1960s.

Since this affair threatened the security of a nation then yes, it is perfectly alright for the media to create public awareness on the issue.

Comparisons with a not so powerful presidency

By Kishali Pinto Jayawardena

Distasteful though it may be in many respects, the scandal surrounding the holder of what has been described as the most powerful elected office in the world carries with it some important lessons for us.

As a touchstone, it puts the lie once and for all to any claims to affinity that the home grown variety may plead with the American Presidency, once the favourite debating ground of Sri Lankan constitutionalists. Suffice to say that such a playing out of an embattled Presidency would be truly mind boggling here.

So, among the negative truths, there are some positives too. For Americans, watching their President give way, this may be cold comfort but for outsiders coping with different presidencies in very different country situations, the American crisis is inevitably fascinating.

The President's assertion that matters of his private life ought to be strictly off limits does not ring quite true in a country quoted for its decision in New York Times Vs Sullivan which warned that public figures must expect to have their private lives aired for comment by the very nature of their public role.

What was crucial from the outset moreover was whether the President had misled the American public, and not merely in strict legal terms. The question was not only whether he had a consensual affair with a White House intern but whether he lied under oath to his constituents regarding this relationship.

To concentrate only on the moralities of the issue would therefore be to miss the point.

Several aspects of the process by which the American Presidency was put under seige pose interesting questions. Take for instance, the manner in which the President was increasingly stripped of his presidential immunity before law.

As remarked last year by the Supreme Court in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, American presidents have been responding to court orders often enough so that "such interactions can scarcely be thought a novelty."

However, the past only saw instances where a President testified against others, never in a criminal investigation in which he himself was the focus.

In this case, the legal barriers behind which the President could plead immunity for himself and those close to him had been falling like so many ninepins one by one. Argument after argument of protective privilege in attempts to prevent Presidential advisors, Secret Service Agents and White House security guards from being questioned by independent counsel Kenneth Starr collapsed in what was appropriately described as a "bumbling dance ofdefeat through the American courts".

The climax came when Lewinsky struck an immunity deal with Starr and in a spectacularly high risk move, Clinton was served a subpoena to appear before a grand jury.

What followed is, of course, the historic confession over television, preceded by secret grand jury testimony where Clinton was questioned by an aggressively intrusive Starr.

The capitulation of Clinton to the subpoena served on him again amounted to a further subjection of the Presidency to the court process.

Indeed, that a sitting U.S. President could be thus relentlessly pursued and finally subpoenaed to testify by an independent counsel appointed by the Attorney General who in turn was brought to Washington by the President himself, comes across as the most bizarre triumph that the American legal/political system can boast of.

Essentially it is this very play of checks and balances in the American political/legal system that is placing Bill Clinton's remaining two years as president in such serious jeopardy.

In the months to come, whether even a damaged American presidency will survive rests on a fragile balance of power between him and the Congress.

In a system where members of a political party are given the freedom to dissent with their leader and not risk losing their seats, dissatisfaction at their President's conduct following Monday's televised confession has been publicly voiced by Democrat as well as Republican representatives.

Many of them are however holding back in the face of the people continuing to give formidable approval ratings regarding their erring leader. Given a significant drop in these ratings, it is difficult to think that the same caution will be preserved by members of Congress once impeachment proceedings are formally launched.

It is an increasingly bleak fate that now faces the President, in the context of his falling popularity polls and the almost certainly hostile tenor of Starr's report which would be sent to Congress for possible impeachment proceedings.

If this prediction comes true, for Bill Clinton, it will be undoubtedly a personal gamble that he has taken once too many. For the country, it will be a costly price to pay to prove, once again and many years after Watergate, that their presidency, along with every other American institution is not above the law.

This brings us to the logical question of comparison. For those of us in transplanted political systems whose cynicism has been honed to a fine edge by the workings or rather misworkings of those systems, the American experience is very illustrative of how the process actually ought to work.

All the crucial reference points on which the Clinton presidency was called to account are lacking in our system.

Presidential immunity in Sri Lanka is blanket, not only where the privacy of the President is arguably involved but in all instances where the conduct of the President is in question.(Article 35 (1)).

Thus it was that in the Mahara by election petition case, the judges refused to entertain an election petition because the President was involved as a party. The subjection of the Parliament to the Sri Lankan President is complete, ranging from the Presidential power to hold the threat of dissolution over a confrontational Parliament to the ambiguity of a President being the head of the Cabinet of Ministers but not called to answer to Parliament.

Members of political parties are faced with expulsion if they do not give personal and party loyalty to their leader.

Drafted with consummate skill by agile minds, the 1978 Constitution ensures a grotesque parody of the separation of powers.

In effect, it enthrones the presidency above all democratic mechanisms of accountability. This power has been historically used to a greater or lesser extent by successive holders of the office.

Hemmed as they are by unenviable political realities, the present incumbents in the seats of power, though admittedly less coercive than their successors, do not appear to have any real political will to change the status quo, in spite of once fervent promises to the contrary.

That is, essentially, the difference between the Sri Lankan Presidency and the American Presidency.

In one, the peccadilloes of an individual cheapens the personal nature of his leadership but not the office itself.

In the other, the continuing structural and constitutional arrogance of a Presidency far removed from the people causes a subversion of the process of governance, regardless of how personally able the holder of the office may be. If one is asked to choose between the two, it is a poor choice, but give me the former any time.

What they say about that life

Should the President's private life be of public concern? This question was put to a cross section of the people here in Sri Lanka in the aftermath of US President's public confession that he had an 'inappropriate relationship' with a White Hose intern. Ninety percent were of the opinion that a president's or a leader's private life should be of public concern only when it affects his or her ability and efficiency in running the country.

Here are some of the views expressed by them.

Ven. Galboda Gnanissara Thera of the Gangaramaya Temple

A leader's character must be known by the people. It must be a character that needs not be hidden. To lead the people one has to make certain sacrifices, have a certain commitment. The Lichchavi Kings lived in such a manner as to say since you cannot see the gods observe our behaviour.

Minister A.H.M. Fowzie

Yes, it is a public life.

A receptionist in a mercantile company

Definitely it shouldn't be.

A senior officer of a finance company

"Yes, during the time period that he/she is holding that post. We are paying and we are looking after them, so their behaviour should be according to that".

A woman security officer

Her private life is of no concern to us.

Office Secretary

No definitely not. I respect a person's private life.

A trishaw driver

In my opinion it should not be.

Jumar Preena, Mobitel, Manager, Marketing Communications, Mobitel

As long as it doesn't interfere with the administration of the state machinery, I think even a person in that high office should have a certain degree of independence.

A student-male

I feel it should be.

An 85-year-old senior citizen

Not necessary.

A worker at a petrol shed

It is good to know and to throw light on their secrets.

A jewellery shop manger

No, it should be considered as private life.

A driver in Bambalapitiya

Yes, there is nothing wrong in getting to know. It is necessary to get to know.

A private bus conductor

There's a lot to say, but during working hours it's difficult.

A 21-year-old journalist from Kandy

No, I don't think so.

Nishantha, a trishaw driver

No

An employee of a garment store

No, that is private.

A young actor

People's private lives are of no use to us. As long as the job is done properly that is all that matters.

A bank employee

I think he or she is also entitled to his or her private life. But if it is during the tenure of his or her office it is of public interest.

A young housewife

No, whatever he does in his private life it's none of our business.

An assistant sales manager

No.

A woman security officer

There is no need.

A shop assistant

When it is the president of the country, the people need to know her private life too.

A young school teacher

No.

A nun

If it is questionable (regarding moral life) people have to take an interest. Otherwise we have no right to interfere.

A University student

No, if it is our life we wouldn't like it. We must respect a person's privacy.

Indika, a trishaw driver

There's no real necessity.

A retired engineer

To some extent. His/her behaviour in private and public has some interconnection.

A doctor

As long as it's your money, you arrack, your purse, no problem. As long as private life does not clash with public concern, no problem".

A school principal

As the leader of the nation, he/she should know to set an example to the people. That a president used his position to force someone into submission, is definitely of public concern, even though it is his private life.

A businessman

A President should not have any secrets from the nation, so there is no reason why the public should not know about her private life.

Jeffrey Steuart, Shipping Executive

No one's private life is of public concern, even the President's.

Niasha Serasinghe, student, Vishaka Vidyalaya

A President can make or break a country's image when he or she chooses to break it through acting improperly in his or her private life. Then it is definitely of public concern.

Anil Nishantha, street vendor

It doesn't bother me what the President does with her private life, as long as she runs the country well.

Nihal Fernando, Lawyer

The President's life need not be of public concern, but seeing that it is a great object of public curiosity, I feel she should be careful in her private life as well.

Damindra Abeyratne, Engineering student

As long as she conducts her private life discreetly, it should be only hers and her family's concern.

Mumtaz Deen, housewife

When someone is in as prominent a position as the President, he should realise that his actions will be closely scrutinised. As such, if he doesn't conduct himself correctly in his private life, then he cannot say it should not be of public concern.

Rekha Kandaswamy, housewife

If Princess Diana's private life was of such public concern, I see no reason why the President's shouldn't be.

Dr. S. Samarasinghe

Even presidents have families and the right to peaceful and quiet life. Such intense scrutiny could place an enormous amount of strain on her family life and could affect the way she runs the country. So public concern should not extend to the private life of a president.

A Student

The President should realise the enormous responsibility of her position, and realise that people are looking to her for leadership and as an example. If she lets the people down badly through indiscretion in her private life, then it is definitely of public concern.

Editorial/Opinion Contents