Infidelity: no place in Pacific politics
p. 23 · Read in the full issue
IMAGINE that Port Moresby’s Post-Courier or The Fiji Times ran a front-page story alleging that a prominent local political figure was engaged in an extra-marital affair?
There are no allegations of corruption or
incompetence, just the charge of infidelity.
Would there be a scandal? If the charge was proved, would it force the politician to resign?
Should he resign?
The American media has been grappling with such questions after a sleazy tabloid magazine paid a former cabaret singer for her story that she had a 12-year affair with Arkansas Governor, Bill Clinton, who also happens to be the leading Democratic candidates chal lenging President George Bush for the White House.
Despite the spurious nature of the magazine
A’hich originally printed the allegations, Bill
Dlinton was the subject of a national media ceding frenzy which stalled his promising
election campaign.
Nearly three weeks after the first allegations appeared, Clinton eems to have survived mainly because his female accuser, f2-year-old Gennifer Flowers, lacked credibility and proof.
Jut he was also cut some slack by reporters who are still ecovering from the moral hangover of the 1988 election :ampaign when then Democratic frontrunner, Gary Hart, was breed to withdraw after being caught red-handed with a young nodel. fhe American media and public were ultimately disgusted by he whole spectacle a man aspiring to the nation’s highest iffice being pursued by reporters who snooped around his Vashington apartment in the middle of the night. Press onferences which should have dealt with substantial issues yere instead dominated by questions about adultery. yet, everyone now concedes that the character of a •residential candidate and how this is reflected in the conduct f private life is relevant especially since family values re constantly stressed by candidates as the foundation of a appier, healthier nation. ome female South Pacific officials in Washington who have ceil observing the Clinton controversy believe it provides nportant signposts for their nations. he problem is, according to one woman, there is a “code of onour” among South Pacific men to protect each other from ach scandals. n fidelity is ‘acceptable ’ to some South Pacific men holding olitical office or writing about those that do, she said. is needed is better media scrutiny because politicians lust provide moral and ethical leadership as well as political
;adership”.
They have to build our countries and set an example for Dung people. They can’t provide a double standard. If a oman (committed adultery), she would be torn down from üblic office.” his does not mean that the South Pacific media should mimic le excesses of the American press which “goes overboard. No
Washington
one can have a past (in Washington). They forget we’re all human.”
Some standards have been proposed during the Clinton controversy. The first came from the Arkansas Governor himself.
Last year, he virtually admitted that some time in the past, he had caused his wife “pain”, that he had not been a perfect husband, but that his marriage was now solid.
That was all he was willing to say. And increasing numbers of American commen tators think that should be good enough.
While a significant minority of voters say they could never trust a candidate to keep election promises when he couldn’t even keep his marriage vows, most Americans are more lenient. That is not surprising. Half of all American marriages end in divorce, and extramarital affairs are common.
The conservative weekly political magazine The New Republic has outlined what it believes should be standards for media responding to
charges of infidelity against a presidential candidate.
Adultery should not disqualify a candidate even if it is ongoing, said the magazine, unless it “reflects a compulsive or obsessive personality, is conducted in a way that draws glaring attention to itself, or is undertaken with no regard for discretion or
propriety”.
By this criteria, former President John F. Kennedy’s affair with the mafia mistress, Judith Exner, would have been relevant because “it opened him to mob blackmail”.
So was Gary Hart’s philandering because “it indicated recklessness and obsessiveness”.
Bill Clinton? Certainly not. Unless he is caught lying — that, after all, and not sex in itself, was the downfall of Gary Hart.
In fact, according to the standards set by The New Republic , Clinton should never have been put in a position where he may have lied about whether he had an affair with Ms Flowers, because the charges against him should never have been
published.
As part of the public’s right to frisk a politician’s character, his financial and medical records and his track record in the community are open to media scrutiny.
But his sex life “ought to have the presumption of protection from public view”, said The New Republic .
Whatever the media decides, the number of voters who have said they could never vote for Bill Clinton has trebled because of the sex charges and his own admission of past adultery. But enough others say they will vote for him to still give him a shot at the White House.
The debate continues in the United States. At least some senior island officials believe it should also be taken up in the South Pacific. □