How transparent should leaders be about their health?

PETER PHILLIPS’ disclosure that he is being treated for stage-three colon cancer is in line with what, increasingly, is expected of leaders in modern democracies, though not always adhered to. An important question raised by this issue, however, is what ought to be the balance between transparency and privacy on matters of health for a politician who’s in, or is seeking, public office.

In this case, and at this stage, we believe Dr Phillips found a decent equilibrium. In the process, he followed the precedent laid down for leaders of the People’s National Party (PNP) by his political mentor, Michael Manley. Of course, no recent leader of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), insofar as is known, has become seriously ill while in the post. Donald Sangster, who died in office less than two months after succeeding Alexander Bustamante as prime minister in 1967, wasn’t sick before getting the job.

It is probable that Dr Phillips isn’t the only member of parliament (MP) with a serious illness, including cancer, about which their constituents might claim a right to know. After all, voters are the politicians’ ultimate boss and are conceivably entitled to all pertinent information about the applicant, including health status, before deciding who to hire.

There will, perhaps, be the counterargument that having cancer, especially one, such as in Dr Phillips’ case, which the doctors advise is curable. Further, the illness doesn’t necessarily impair an individual’s ability to effectively operate as an MP, or a government minister.

In Dr Phillips’ circumstance, though, there is a greater obligation for disclosure and transparency than applies to another MP, or even a minister. Peter Phillips is not only accountable to residents of East Central St Andrew, who he represents in Parliament. As president of the PNP, he has a broader national constituency and a position which, if his party wins at a general election, would make him the prime minister. In a sense, he is engaged in an extensive job interview with the Jamaican people. Further, as leader of the Opposition, he has important constitutional functions and obligations that are critical to the preservation of democracy.

In this regard, the Jamaican electorate reasonably has an interest in his intellectual and physical energy to do the job, without entitlement to every minutiae of his health. It is, in part, this need for confidence in the leader’s mental powers and likely stamina that caused speculation in recent months about the health of the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, when her hands were noticed to be shaking at public functions.

This insistence by the citizenry for transparency on the health of leaders, though not always fully complied with, is a far cry from what obtained not too many decades ago, when people in high office felt they didn’t have to tell. Or, they stonewalled, as the French president, Georges Pompidou, did for more than a year – as his physical appearance changed – before he died “suddenly”, in office, in 1974.

The PNP’s Michael Manley clearly embraced this obligation to the citizenry when, while in Opposition in the 1980s, and suffering from diverticulitis, he had his physicians, Lawson Douglas and Matthew Beaubrun, give periodic briefings about his condition and state of recovery. Later, as prime minister, and suffering from prostate cancer, Mr Manley was similarly open about his illness.

RIGHT THING TO DO

In Dr Phillips’ case, his doctors are quoted as saying that a surgery to remove cancerous tissue was successful. He will now have a course of preventative chemotherapy, whose side effects, as is widely known, can be debilitating, though hardly insurmountable.

The executive of the PNP has endorsed Dr Phillips’ stay in the post, even though he will, for a while, have to cut back his physical activities. This is an important signal to the wider party.

With Peter Bunting’s challenge of Dr Phillips having concluded only seven months ago, and a general election due by next March, we suspect there would be little appetite within the PNP for any precipitous move against the leader. The governing party would also risk a backlash with any indelicate handling of Dr Phillips’ health issues.

At the same time, being keenly aware of how taxing political leadership can be, and of the importance of a strong PNP to the vibrancy of Jamaica’s two-party democracy, Dr Phillips would know what is the right thing to do if his situation changes.