69. 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 al

In terms of whether political leaders should withhold information from the public, some people believe that it is desirable, while others assert that the public has the right to be fully informed. Admittedly, concealing some information is good for maintaining good image for government, yet may harm the benefits of citizens.

Withholding information which may be harmful for the reputation of government is necessary for political leaders. Actually, most governments in the world have been concealing information from the public all the time, and although some of them were exposed, most have remained unknown. For instance, WikiLeaks, an international non-profit organization that publishes news leaks, claimed in 2016 to have released online 10 million documents in its first 10 years. However, in 2019 Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, was arrested by London's Metropolitan Police. Although the officials said he was arrested because of an allegation of an assault crime, he was actually charged with computer hacking and violating American security by the Justice Department of the US. With Snowden being detained in Russia, the American government tried hard to guarantee its reputation and maintain the social stability by continuously arresting “leakers” who invaded the government’s interests.

However, government’s interests should never transcend the public’s interests. As Rousseau claimed in Social Contract, the sovereign is formed when free and equal people come together and agree to submit their individual, particular wills to the collective or general will. Therefore, the sovereign according to Rousseau, is committed to the good of the individuals who constitute it, and citizens do not need to succumb to the government, on the contrary, the citizens are equal to the sovereign and can revolt against it and remake a contract if it violates the public interests. Through wanting Snowden who told the public about American government monitoring activity and arresting Assange who leaked confidential files of American government, the US government would set a dangerous precedent for journalists or their sources and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations, and most importantly would upset US residents.

In addition, covering up information from the public may not only violate the freedom of speech, but also may cause huge disaster. Take China as an example. Between November 2002 and July 2003, an outbreak of SARS in southern China caused an eventual 8,098 cases, resulting in 774 deaths reported in 37 countries according to the World Health Organization. However, no cases of SARS have been reported worldwide since 2004. It is widely believed that if the Chinese authorities had been more aggressive fighting the disease, more forthcoming with information and had invited the World Health Organization to infected areas, SARS would more likely have been isolated and contained in its early stages before it was allowed it to spread, and hundreds of lives could have been saved.

In a nutshell, although governments want to cover up information to save their images as well as approval ratings, this kind of concealing is not beneficial for the overall public.