Behind the Curtains: The Pros and Cons of Publicizing Politicians’ Private Lives

Perhaps one of the most fascinating political and cultural disparities between the United States and many other places in the world is the way in which the public treats the private lives of its leaders. The degree of importance that people and media seem to give to public representatives’ private affairs varies tremendously from place to place. One clear example of this trend is the role that first ladies are expected to fill: if not directly involved in the political scene, then at least as figures of public importance.
Of similar importance in France a few months ago was a specific “private-political” scandal, which landed the nation in headlines across the globe. When French president Francois Hollande was found cheating on his wife with actress Julie Gayet, the media world jumped on the news and devoured it for several weeks. The public was inundated by coverage of the news and Hollande’s approval rate suffered from this scandal, as several polls showed.
It is definitely not the first time that a political leader’s private scandal has had a considerable impact on public opinion. Most famous among all cheating scandals is probably the Clinton case, which—along with other causes—led to the Democratic president’s impeachment. Interestingly, Lewinsky has recently come back into the public eye, notably writing a piece for Vanity Fair. A more interesting story comes from Hollande’s predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy. When his affair with Carla Bruni became public, his ratings fell. Later, when he instead decided to get married to Ms. Bruni, and finally when the couple had a daughter, approval ratings increased. These data show that public opinion considers a leader’s private life to be a critical factor for the leader’s approval, even when these private events do not necessarily interfere with policy outcome.
But should the public care about the private life of a leader? Or should it only focus on the public actions that impact governance directly? Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any black-or-white answer. Most likely the answer is yes to both questions, to a certain extent. Most everyone rationally agrees that gossip regarding the private lives of public figures should never be the focus of media attention, but at the same time there is an underlying expectation that public figures act as role models of behavior. Therefore, a very fine line must be drawn between the parts of the private life of a leader that do and do not receive media attention, and, most of the time, where it’s drawn depends on the country.
The data we can see, in fact, show that different countries differ in their reaction to events in the private life of a public leader. In some countries, the reaction to, say, a head of state cheating on his partner causes the leader’s approval to fall sharply, while in other countries the change is minimal or not detectable at all. This is usually linked to that nation’s general approval or disapproval of the act of adultery. In some cases, these differences in opinion might occur because of poverty differences: when a country has extremely pressing issues to focus on, the leader’s efforts to solve those issues are the only relevant details for his approval. In other cases, indifference towards cheating might occur because of religious differences: while adultery might be considered a scandal in a Christian country or in any country whose majority is monogamous, it might be perfectly tolerated in countries with a polygamous population or governing elite.
However, these possibilities do not account for anything close to the entire range of different reactions to  “private” scandals seen around the globe. There appears to be an underlying cultural component as well, that particularly and uniquely determines the degree of interest in the private life of a country’s leader. Take Italy, for instance. Former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was the central character in numerous private scandals, which led to his divorce and to charges of child prostitution. The events were mostly similar to, if not worse than, the case of former American President Clinton; however, interestingly, in Berlusconi’s case, these events and even the subsequent charges didn’t lead to any impeachment or resignation. While there is no clear explanation of this phenomenon, it just seems like in Italy people are not as concerned with the leader’s private life as much as Americans are.
Spousal Significance
A clear example of this difference in interest can be found in the actual difference in role that the leader’s partner plays in the country. Take the American concept of First Lady: in the US, the First Lady is almost an institution. She has substantial public visibility and relevance; she is a fundamental component of the presidential team, involved in campaigns and public projects. She even has an office within the White House and a webpage as part of the White House website. Michelle Obama, even around the world, is almost as famous as her husband, and so were Laura and Barbara Bush, as well as Hillary Clinton during her time in the White House. As a result of what can only be described as cultural norms, reaffirmed over time, the American First Lady has a hold over the public.
This, however, is far from the case elsewhere in the world. When trying to think about how many foreign “First Ladies” one can name, it’s difficult to come up with many. The names of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang’s partner, of Angela Merkel’s husband, or of current Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi’s wife are not as well known as that of Michelle Obama. In Italy, the concept of First Lady is so foreign that there isn’t even a translation of it to Italian; people simply use the English expression whenever they refer to Michelle Obama or other American presidents’ wives.
In the end, therefore, the extreme popularity of the United States First Lady is certainly well established in connection to the president, as well as to her crucial role as an outspoken advocate in policy endeavors of her own choosing; the same cannot be said for other countries. Similarly, the vested interest of the general populace in the private affairs of its heads of state differs hugely among nations. Especially in the United States, such matters are given high importance, while in other nations across the world they are considered nonissues.  Whatever the specific reason, there seems to be a cultural effect that causes people in different countries to exhibit these dissimilar attitudes. There is certainly no right or wrong answer, no best or worst model, but whatever the degree of interest in the leader’s private life, one key feature remains constant: when leaders decide to become involved in public office, they have little other to do than abide by the expectations they chose to face by becoming public figures.
Image source: www.dw.de