The thin, fine line of public propriety

A lot has been happening lately, and most of the time, the crux of the matter always seems to be the same thing: at which point does someone cross that imaginary line between what is acceptable behaviour or not?

From the appropriate demeanour between boss and subordinate, to the conduct of a police officer and what he does when he is off duty and other areas of life where one’s behaviour needs to be constantly kept in check: teachers, for example, public officials, those in key positions which demand respect and authority, and obviously, politicians who have been elected to office. It matters to us because they are paid from our taxes and are therefore accountable to us.

Do things really need to be spelt out for all concerned? I never thought they had to. I always assumed that it should be quite obvious that once you are in a certain type of job/profession/position, the way you behave has to be exemplary. Yes, that means even when you are not officially “on duty”.

But I guess not everyone is wired in the same way when it come to ethical issues. I don’t know if it is because something is lacking in our educational system, or because these basics have not been taught at home, or simply because of the laissez-faire attitude of “mhux xorta”? (so what?) which has come about due to the tremors in our culture caused by the breaking down of taboos and social mores.

In the short span of some 30 years, Maltese society has gone through an upheaval of such massive proportions and at such breakneck speed that I often have to remind myself that until recently as the early 80s, people used to consider it the height of disgrace and embarrassment to the family if (for example) they broke off a long engagement and cancelled their wedding plans. Many just gritted their teeth and went through with the wedding, with all the disastrous consequences which inevitably followed.

Fast forward to today, and the contrast could not be more stark. For many reasons, this is a good thing – that heavy clock of social disapproval was often very stifling and led to many unhappy private lives as people were forced to live the lives they did not want.

But the slackening of social opprobrium for the private citizen should not be put into the same basket as when you are in the public eye, or when you hold a specific kind of office, and what you do/say in the public domain. There are some things which are just not done and what always surprises is me is that people are unaware of what they are, or what is worse, shrug them off and say, “so what?”.

The biggest non sequitur is when they tell you “live and let live”, which completely confuses the whole issue because that axiom definitely does not apply in these cases. Live and let live is when, for example, someone is gay and wants to get married – that kind of decision does not impinge on me and my life in any way. Or else is divorced, has a new partner and remarries. In that case, yes, who cares? Certainly, and most definitely, not me.

What DOES matter is whether their behaviour as a public person (especially an elected representative) paid out of the public purse, is in keeping with the decorum of the office s/he holds. That’s where that fine, thin line comes into play which is often blurred, because people start mouthing the word ‘liberal’.

Being liberal does not mean that “anything goes”; it simply means that you are tolerant and accepting of those who have a different lifestyle to yours and you do not try to impose your own values or morals on others. But being liberal does not mean that it is OK to post inappropriate comments on Facebook when you are a high ranking public servant, or that you consort with people of highly dubious character when you are supposed to uphold the law.

What is also unacceptable is sheer hypocrisy. To give an example, it would not matter one iota if a politician or other public figure had a broken marriage, but it would matter a great deal if in public he thumps on about the sanctity of family values, and then has a messy private life. It is not his private life per se which is in the public interest, but the fact that he is a hypocrite and has no business being in a position to legislate on family issues. Frankly, if your own marriage has failed the best course of action is to keep sensibly quiet rather than to pontificate about other people’s families.

There is another aspect of contemporary Maltese life which has changed the private/public dynamic, just as it has across the world. With social media the private has become public, and whereas there was a time when what you did in your own time was known only by you and your immediate friends, these days people will persist in uploading photos and information about themselves in compromising, questionable situations, sometimes in various stages of undress. Now, if you are Mr or Ms Nobody with an ordinary job, I suppose that does not really matter. However, there is no getting around the fact that public figures, as well as professions which put you in touch with the public, are very different.

What has changed these days I think is the lack of discretion (and sometimes just plan common sense). If, before Facebook, photos were shared with a few friends and family, these days the 200+ people on your FB friends list have access to sometimes quite intimate snapshots of your life. Photos which often speak volumes about the kind of person you really are, and which should really not be online. But I think “being liberal” has become thoroughly confused with flaunting what you’ve got with the kind of “in your face” attitude I would expect from thoughtless teenagers who are too immature to think of the long-term consequences.

But when this behaviour comes from adults in the public eye, their inability to comprehend that they have crossed that fine, thin line really makes me wonder whether they are capable of exercising sound judgement and competence in their official role.