So during a pandemic, and during a lockdown in the pandemic, some government officials took vacations out of the country.
There are a few complications at hand here when it comes to this controversial topic.
The first, and most prominent in this particular situation, is the grey area between *mandates* and *recommendations*.
The second is that the reason for these mandates and recommendations is something that can affect everyone. So what may normally appear to be a specifically individual decision actually has broader consequences to the general public.
The third is the fact that these individuals are in a position of power; authority, and leadership.
So let's look at number one:
Certain activities during this pandemic are currently considered illegal; something you can be fined for if you do not comply. Other measures are simply recommended. The reason for this is that our government wants to give us the benefit of the doubt - they want to believe that we are capable of making smart, adult decisions about what is essential in our lives.
So, what happened when masks were only recommended? Many people did everything they could to skirt the rules. Individuals came up with a myriad of excuses (although some were valid) not to wear a mask. It was easily explained away. We were told multiple times that if we could not do what was recommended, then it may have to be mandated. Well, now masks are mandated in our province. We should be able to make smarter decisions, but there are so many people who will not follow guidelines unless they are forced, who then complain about losing freedoms when those guidelines DO have to become forced.
Number 2: personal decisions that can affect the public.
It is not illegal to drink alcohol while on antibiotics, or Benzodiazepines, but it is a strong recommendation not to. You have the autonomy to make that decision, but you may still suffer serious consequences if you do not heed the recommendation. Drinking while on serious medications usually only affects the individual, so it remains up to the individual. Covid, though, is a different situation. The decisions people make to skirt a recommendation can have an effect on the greater public. So a politician choosing to travel is making a decision that could put the individual in harm's way AS WELL AS the public, who that person is supposed to be supporting and representing.
That brings me to number 3: being in a position of power and representation.
There is a certain level of decorum that comes with the territory of any career. If someone is a teacher, for instance, certain behaviours - even in private - are not tolerated. People can lose their jobs over certain behaviours, even though they are not illegal. Being a politician comes with its own set of guidelines. Any scandal, any unsavory behaviour, even past behaviour (like photos decades old that show disrespect to a culture or a monument, for example) can be major issues. Not illegal, and yet still unacceptable.
Watching a leader do everything possible to find a loophole for these strong recommendations is selfish and unsavory, in my opinion. It is not illegal for people to travel, it is strongly recommended that no one travel unless it is absolutely essential. How does a leader expect their constituents to follow public health guidelines when that leader is doing everything possible to ignore those guidelines?
So yes, these politicians may have been careful. They may not have done anything they can be fined for. They may be quarantining after-the-fact, and they may be honouring a several-year-old tradition. It's true. Nothing they have done is actually illegal.
But is it right? Is it the right thing to do to fly to Hawaii while simultaneously pleading with the public NOT to travel? Governmental officials expected everyone else to follow the rules and the guidelines meticulously, to get a handle on a global pandemic, and then took their families out of the country.
In a position of leadership, there is more personal accountability, even for private decisions. Each decision is expected to be weighed carefully. Politicians are in positions of public service. Their decisions affect the public in a tangible way - and the 'do as I say, not as I do' approach is rarely successful in such a situation.
We are all struggling with a much-altered lifestyle. We are all dealing with new restrictions and new behaviours daily. We are all navigating this complicated time, and most of us are starved for time with family and friends, not to mention an actual vacation!
So I will grudgingly admit that these vacations were clever. 'Not doing anything wrong' in the eyes of the law is not the same as doing something right, though.
Welcome to the grey area!
I, personally, expect more adult behaviour from politicians that represent the public. I expect better decisions, instead of working to find ways to skirt the rules.
That's junior-high-type rebellious behaviour and is unbecoming of people in leadership positions.
These are some of the reasons I am finding why people are so upset about politicians taking these vacations during a strict lockdown. And I didn't even get to the topic of those individuals being paid leave for the vacation AND for the two-week quarantine after the vacation.
It has been frustrating this entire pandemic watching half of the public making sacrifices to protect everyone, while the other half is doing exactly whatever it is they want to do, not caring who they hurt in the process. How do we get ahead of this thing if we cannot work together?
No comments:
Post a Comment