Some people believe it is often necessary even desirable for political leaders to withhold information from the public Others believe that the public has a right to be fully informed Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns wit

How would responsible political leaders treat with various information for the public that they serve? There exists two contradictory views: someone believes that it is necessary for them to withhold information from the demotic, while others argue that the public has a right to be fully informed. In my humble view, I tend to give my support to the latter as it guarantees fundamental equality in citizens, while I reserve my approval for the former because it leads to several detrimental results.

To start off, under certain circumstances, it is beneficial for leaders to conceal sensitive information for the public, because such information, if exposed, will cast potentially negative influences on the society as a whole. For instance, information relevant with national defense or military deployment, belong to such category. Supposed that we publicize such secrets to the public merely for the purpose of serving the principle of information transparency, it is likely that terrorists or potential enemies of the nation might utilize such messages to demolish facilities or slaughter innocents. This is the situation which we are definitely unwilling to see. In this sense, contemplation of national security endows leaders with responsibility to withdraw from sharing secrets without reservation.

However, tenable as such view hold in some cases, I have to contend that exclusive emphasis of hiding sensitive information would inversely give rise to grim results for governments. Since iniquity of information might be utilized by politician with low morality for their private ends, such asymmetry might generate potential delinquencies and dire corruptions. Furthermore, even terrible result is that such venal behaviors can be further deteriorated out of ensuing information protection. In this sense, it is likely to invoke a negative self-aggrandizing circle, which might drag governments into incorrigible holes. For example, at the very beginning of coronavirus in Wuhan, several irresponsible government officials eschewed with confirming existence of this epidemic in order to keep so-called social stability. However, without immediate process, Wuhan now later had to suffer city lockdown more than two months. It is withholding unnecessary information and default of officials that make more citizens to be plagued by this tragedy.

Furthermore, given the nature and long-term goal of politics, the idea that government should disclose the truth for the demotic could build public trust and promote settlement of social issue, which further accelerates political efficiency. In this first place, exposure of information is able to build up efficient surveillance for political officials and enhance their esteem among the public. Therefore, people are willing to trust their integrity and accordingly execute their orders. On another hand, as information is divulged in public, leaders’ illegal behaviors will be restricted, which helps to break the negative corruption circle mentioned above. For supporting examples, we can go no further to how China's central government response to coronavirus, after understanding urgent quandary of Wuhan. From Chairman Xi to every responsible official, they stick to deliver the latest epidemic updates to Chinese citizens every day. Despite the fact that virus increased greatly at the initial phase, such transparent information not only win respect of the public, but also facilitate to overall progress of fight with virus.

In summary, despite the fact that political officials might hide information for the sake of nation security or other reasons, we shouldn't advocate such policy as a general guideline, considering dire consequences mentioned above. Conversely, it is necessary to guarantee the public to learn comprehensive information, in order to accelerate society equality and consolidate national cohesion.