Politics and personal life: no, not children!

In this age of social media, where everyone details their life on TikTok, from breakfast to evening pajamas, calling for respect for privacy is like throwing a bottle into the sea, but the alert rating seems outdated to me. Family life is complex, sometimes painful and requires “delicacy” – an outdated word in these times of permanent exhibitionism…

The first responsibility, the responsibility of politicians: should I really put my privacy at risk? Tell me the name of my son, the name of his school, to justify my choice? These details were meant to prove my sincerity, but were they really useful for the school’s cause? The second question is whether we, as journalists, should really give the floor to a former teacher who goes so far as to detail the life of a young boy of a young man who today, at 18, risks being harassed by his classmates. about how difficult it is for him to move from the junior section of kindergarten to the middle section? Is it really good for social life?

In the Udea-Custer case, some fierce opposition elected officials were forced to admit that they too had sent their child to private education. The boomerang effect is guaranteed, the damage is guaranteed. Raquel Garrido and Alexis Corbiere were arrested today – wrongly, in my opinion – after the custody of their daughter, suspected of making anti-Semitic statements, although she is already an adult: if their party had not increased the inquisitorial emphasis… They have, in a very respectable press… release, they declared respect and protection for their children, even if they declared their willingness to take on some responsibility before the “parental court.”

Let us remember Georges Duby, the great historian, for whom private life was “a special area, a zone of immunity offered for care, where everyone can refuse the arms and the means of protection with which he must be equipped when he ventures in public space. France has long shied away from addressing conflicts of interest, not least because it would involve disclosing details of family life.

But after the Mazarin affair, when the second family of President Mitterrand was housed at public expense, the press caught up with the situation. The opposition and journalists rightly tracked the mixture of genres. The law now prohibits the employment of a spouse for reasons of public safety.

The declaration of assets and control over it by the High Authority for Transparency in Public Life is also progress. This should guarantee us against personal enrichment between the beginning and end of the mandate, as well as against conflicts of interest: this goal should not turn into condemnation of the most fortunate, which feeds a form of anti-elite populism. Similarly, when complaints are filed in the Quatennens or Abad cases: combating sexual violence requires the disclosure of at least partial elements of privacy.

But let’s draw the line between useful transparency and voyeurism. Respect for children seems to me to be the first rule, dignity of the individual, revelations about sexual life when it is not public, protection of loved ones, degrading image: everything that, unfortunately, is trampled on social networks must remain sacred for us journalists. Restrictions on freedom of expression must remain a genuine benefit to public debate and serve the general interest. Otherwise, the risk is that personal virtues and vices decide whether you are a good ruler or not.

It is up to the politicians themselves not to succumb to the temptation of glossy paper. Because such excessive disclosure of private life has a consequence: the disintegration of political vocations. And as citizens we can only regret this.