Defining ethical boundaries

The recent scandal implicating the ex-CIA Director David Petraeus and his biographer Paula Broadwell in an extramarital relationship has created intense media hype. Apart from the fact that the affair contains all the ingredients of a James Bond-style thriller -- sex, espionage, probable national security threat, possible secret document leaks -- it raises serious and long-term questions about the private lives of high profile public figures.
To be honest, I am not interested in the salacious details of the affair. Neither do I want to add to the overhyped media speculation about whether national security has been compromised or not.
For me, the incident raises two critical issues that deserve serious reflection. The first is: “Should public officials be judged by higher moral standards than ordinary people?” To a certain extent this is already the case. There is clear evidence that the American public applies puritanical norms while judging the conduct of public/elected officials.
The rationale seems to be that these officials are the stewards of “public trust” in a way that private sector executives are not! Trust was at the heart of the Clinton scandal. The public was not incensed about the extra-marital affair per se, but that President Clinton had lied and deceived the American people under oath.
Interestingly, it appears that the bar of morality is substantially higher in the United States than in European countries. The public opprobrium attached to the affairs of Herman Caine, Bill Clinton and Eliot Spitzer testifies to the astringent rules of morality in the US.
On the other hand, in France, there was no moral outrage when President Francois Mitterrand's wife and mistress stood next to each other at his funeral. Similarly, in Italy the electorate routinely overlooked Berlusconi's peccadilloes and kept voting him back to the office of the prime minister!
Personally, I would contend that unless a professional rule of conduct has been violated, personal actions, even if they fall outside the generally accepted code of ethics, should not necessarily threaten one's job. However, in the case of General Petraeus, the “private affair” could have a direct bearing on national security. Hence his resignation seemed inevitable.
The second issue rekindled by the Petraeus affair is whether public functionaries deserve the same right to privacy that is available to other citizens. This a complex subject since the entire concept of privacy has been evolving over time in the face of improved technology and the demand for greater transparency, especially by certain interest groups.
We live in an age where information technology makes it practically impossible to protect the privacy of people's personal lives. Consequently, private and public lives now share porous boundaries that are difficult to separate.
In the past, scandals occurred in the lives of public officials and political figures but the spill over affect was contained. A case in point is Thomas Jefferson's illicit relationship with a slave with whom he fathered illegitimate children. Although Jefferson's affair was made public during his lifetime, his effectiveness as one of the greatest leaders of American history was not in any way diminished.
Similarly, even a few decades ago the dalliances of Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy were kept under wraps by an “unspoken” commitment by the media to respect the privacy of public officials.
However, since the feminist movements of the 1970s, the public has railed against the double standards of powerful men in the workplace and demanded greater transparency from the media.
Today, there is a prevalent view in the US that the character of a political candidate has a material impact on his electability. Besides, high public officials are expected to serve as role models, espousing strong family values and moral rectitude.
Although it is extremely difficult to draw a line between public life and private morality, I would argue that everyone deserves a private space! If this is not ensured we may be deprived of many great leaders who would opt out of public office.
The key, therefore, is to strike a balance between what is private and what is public! We may also need to compartmentalise the way we assess our leaders by evaluating their professional capabilities rather than the choices they make in their personal lives.
Finally, a personal note. If the CIA Director can fall prey to cyber surveillance, is there anything we ordinary citizens do that remains private? Our personal lives have been invaded by the virus of background checks and verifications to the extent that intimate details of our professional and personal lives are open to public scrutiny.
The line has clearly been crossed. Is it too late to reinstate our basic civil liberties and privacy? I wonder.

The writer is a renowned Rabindra Sangeet exponent and a former employee of the World Bank.