Political office often breeds paternalism, an inclination to protect the public from disturbing information. Though seemingly well-intentioned, paternalism arises from distrust of citizens, the attitude that people are not mature or well-informed enough to handle the truth.
Public office exposes elected officials to the underbelly of a community, the unpleasant and sometimes dark truths hidden in the shadows of bureaucracy that inevitably come to light. Just as individual psyches contain secrets and shame, so too does government, which, after all, is made up of fallible individuals.
Some information revealed to office holders is kept under wraps for good reason; matters subject to litigation, contract or property negotiations, and personnel complaints all appropriately deserve the protection of confidentiality until such matters are resolved. The public’s right to know is not infinite and the law provides a framework for what can be kept confidential.
Matters of government outside those given legal protection from disclosure, however, belong in the public sphere, and when government paternalism hides or disguises information that citizens deserve to know about, it violates the public’s trust. Though such revelations may be embarrassing, worrisome, financially threatening or unpleasant, voters are adults and must be treated that way.
Once in political office it’s easy to slide into paternalism. The combination of “inside information,” personal relationships and wanting to please the public naturally incline government and elected officials to put on the best face possible for the public, no matter the subject or disclosure. This is part human nature and part self-protection; as parents we spend many years protecting our children from things that might upset them and that we feel they shouldn’t know, and avoiding personal blame and criticism often inclines us to shade the truth. In personal relationships and child-rearing, this is tolerable, but in governance, it is not.
Paternalism inclines government to disguise or bury facts so as not to upset voters and members of the community. It’s true that having the confidence of voters is central to governance, but it should be earned through honesty, full disclosure and evidence of trust in the citizens. Though paternalism may appear to be based on the well-meaning inclination to protect the community, in the end it erodes confidence in government and those we elect and hire to run it. The truth almost always emerges, and today information is more difficult to hide than ever.
The best possible approach in governance is openness and full disclosure. This means ensuring that information, reports, financials, and transactions are publicly available easily and without limitation unless protected by law. It also means that when the mistakes of government are discovered, either by the public or by government itself, the proper response is to openly admit them, find out how they happened, and correct them. Only this approach preserves the public’s trust, no matter how unseemly or unpleasant the information. Sonoma’s water fund fiasco is a case in point.
Much about holding public office in a small town is pleasant; mingling with friends and neighbors combines easily with public duties without friction or conflict, but such pleasantries are not the whole story. Public office holders get to “look behind the curtain” and often learn about things kept from the public. Paternalistic inclinations to hide information from the public are from a misplaced sense of duty, however, and always a mistake.