How do we handle a mentally unwell MP?
Igot the impression this week that commentators and National Party figures who poured scorn on MP Jami-Lee Ross for his various transgressions should be feeling ashamed of themselves.
Apparently we should all have known Ross was mentally unwell and needed to be handled with kid gloves.
This, of course, is entirely predictable in a climate where criticism of anyone outside the norm is regarded as insensitive, reinforcing stereotypes, part of the problem etc.
I certainly don’t feel any shame or remorse for joining the chorus of condemnation of Ross and I’m not sure the gloves should go back on, even now.
This week we are expected to believe that Ross’ mental illness was behind all his bad decisions leading up to his expulsion from the National Party caucus.
Yet we don’t know any details about his illness, other than that it required allowances to be made. He could be paranoid, narcissistic, have a split personality, be delusional or depressed, all of the aforementioned, or none.
People labouring under those conditions obviously make bad decisions but so do people who overrate their abilities and whose judgment is coloured by greed, hate, vindictiveness and a sense of entitlement. Some people just have a bad temperament.
The point is how is anybody to know what drives the offending behaviour?
It’s also hard to know whether the bad behaviour caused such pressure and recrimination that it led to Ross’ mental illness or whether the mental illness led to the errant behaviour.
It seems in Ross’ case that he was put under pressure when he was suspected of leaking Simon Bridges’ expenses for his national familiarisation tour. Then he was confronted with his marital indiscretions and his allegedly overbearing attitude to some women.
That apparently caused his first mental breakdown. He then appeared to recover to such an extent that he was able to mount a campaign to reveal a taped conversation with Bridges that was supposed to prove skulduggery relating to party donations.
In fact, he fell well short and was justifiably vilified for the treachery he displayed. Then he had another breakdown.
So what are we to believe? That it was all a big mistake due to his unspecified mental illness or that he became mentally unwell in a highly stressful and isolated situation where he looked far from heroic?
Maybe the party could have handled this differently. Clearly Ross is not mentally resilient enough for the cut-throat game that politics can be but how is that unsuitability to be identified?
Imagine a scenario in which Ross showed himself to be mentally unstable and was politely told he needed to get out of politics and leave the party, even if just for his own sake.
You can just see the outcry if he went public and claimed his mental health issues, that he believed had no effect on his performance, had led to his callous party asking him to step aside.
If he was a pilot, or a judge or a journalist or a truck driver, he would be told to have a rest or find another job. Why should we make more allowances for an MP?
MPs also have personal responsibilities to avoid situations where their disability is exacerbated and leads to poor decisions. It’s not too much to expect people earning the salary and perks to which MPs are entitled to act responsibly.
In addition, we have to be sure mental illness is not being used as an excuse.
A person charged with murder can plead insanity but must show they could not distinguish between right and wrong at the time of the offending.
Such a high standard is inappropriate for ordinary living but if we are told to absolve Ross because of mental illness then the onus should be on him to show he was incapacitated to the extent he could not make good decisions, even in his own interests.
Journalists are now in an invidious position.
Let’s assume Ross, looking poised and comfortable, calls a press conference to announce more revelations about his former friends in the National Party.
Do we ignore him because of his underlying illness and advise him to seek help or do we treat him as a flawed individual, assume his mental illness in under control, and report what he has to say, based on its merits?
According to some of the pundits, journalists apparently have to be politically correct social workers as well as reporting events and their background.
It is unusual for a politician to throw caution and good sense to the wind and irretrievably undermine their own career under the belief they are serving the public good by revealing information.
But it doesn’t mean they are having a mental health crisis requiring the media to consult friends and medical staff to ensure that person is in their right mind.
I think it’s great we are becoming far more open about mental illness and that can only lead to more understanding and less stigma.
But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t have the high-profile, high-paying, highly responsible position and expect people to make all sorts of allowances.
According to some of the pundits, journalists apparently have to be politically correct social workers as well as reporting events and their background.