Aaronovitch writes, in the Times…

…in a mature democracy, there is an enormous amount to be taken on trust (dictatorships don’t have to worry about this), and a belief that your PM or president is, in some way, a superior version of yourself — a father figure — helps to create such trust. If we insist on knowing exactly how much Churchill drinks or what pills Kennedy takes, then leaders cannot easily remain as respected fathers, let alone heroes. Their Nobel prizes simply become peaks from which their falls must be the more catastrophic.

Aaro forgets to tell us why this “trust” should be created (presumably we should take it on trust). Certainly, there are things in a messy democracy that can’t be known to the public – some details of criminal investigations, for example – but, with reasonable scepticism, and the knowledge that secrecy – any secrecy - has been and probably will be exploited, they can demand criteria that must be worked by;  systems of accountability if they’re not obeyed, and so on. The fact that there’ll still be the likelihood of exploitation shows that democracy isn’t brilliant – merely the best thing going.

A question also arises from this column: if Aaro’s so keen to maintain this “respect“, what the hell is he doing in journalism? Busily restoring public faith in politicians?

Advertisement