One of an elected officials primary focuses is keeping up appearances. Half of their job is maintaining an image that the public finds pleasing. They shake hands, kiss babies, make appearances at events and do a lot of smiling, and it is indeed appealing. But what the public does not see is that this routine of keeping up appearances can cause stress. This is not because public officials are secretly bad people. It is because they are normal people who have flaws and can become exhausted with always trying to cover them up.
All elected officials are acutely conscious of their public image. Every time they do something and any member of the public is around to see it, they have to think about how what they are doing would be represented to their voting public. Even the most moral of people can fall into bad circumstances in this role, even if it is merely due to an event being misinterpreted and misrepresented. This leads an elected official to scrutinizing their own behavior constantly.
Even to the sturdiest politician, this constant dance with public image can become stressful. Anything about them that can end up in the media has the potential to be twisted and misconstrued, and it can lead to a state of paranoia for the politician. The natural human response to this is to express some of their stress, but with cameras and news people constantly prying, releasing stress can be impossible at times.
The unfortunate thing about this predicament is that it often leads to a purging or binging of bad behavior on the elected official’s part. It is frequently the case that one can only keep their imperfections bottled in for so long before they come out with a vengeance. This is why we so frequently see politicians acting out with incredibly bad behavior, and we think to ourselves that if anyone should know better, it is them. But before you judge a politician, consider the expectations on their shoulders and ask yourself if the politicians you see in the media making mistakes are unhealthy or just human.
One of our unspoken but always present criteria for an elected official is good mental health. This is criteria we expect of any working professional, but perhaps none more so than those we elect to public office. Elected officials are responsible in many ways for the well being and quality of life of the people in their jurisdiction. People elect public officials trusting that they will represent their interests in an intelligent, sound way. Voters would recoil from a candidate who demonstrated mental health problems.
This is a fair requirement. An elected official who is not mentally healthy would not be capable of making sound decisions that represent the public’s best interest. Anyone who is mentally unhealthy struggles to make good decisions. Being mentally unhealthy means that you do not perceive things correctly. You interpret things in an unrealistic way that is not based in reality but is based in your own unhealthy thought patterns. It is not too much to require that our elected leaders have good mental health for sound decision making.
Having said this, we also need to remember to be reasonable in what we expect from elected leaders. Some people forget that elected officials are still human and hold them to a standard of perfection that is unattainable for anyone. This is not a healthy or reasonable standard to place on a person.
It is important that we define a fair standard of mental health for our public officials. We cannot elect people who are unstable or in danger of poor decision making. Yet we also cannot expect sheer perfection from our elected leaders. We must find a reasonable compromise. It is true that an elected official should have a very strong history of mental health and should be held accountable for evidence that suggests otherwise. But an elected official also deserves privacy and should not have every element of their personal lives scrutinized. There is a point where defining mental health standards becomes very subjective and is unreasonable to apply to an elected official of any kind.
Public officials and elected government leaders face a particular set of challenges when they undergo rehabilitation for addiction. As most severe addictions require residential inpatient treatment, government officials end up more separated from their civil duties and their lifestyles than usual. This is where the concept of executive drug and alcohol rehabilitation comes in useful. Executive addiction treatment centers are created with working professionals, such as elected officials, in mind, and accomodate their need to stay connected to their pubic office and their lifestyle while still focusing daily on sobriety.
Public officials prefer the option of executive rehab because it allows them to keep their public office functioning while they receive extensive mental and medical treatment. Executive drug and alcohol treatment programs often boast a high class environment to keep with the client’s usual surroundings, the most current treatment methods and highly trained staff available and a familiarity with the needs and pressures on successful elected officials, particularly those who have remained functional and successful despite their addiction problems.
At private drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers, public officials can expect to find business center type accommodations, such as internet, phones and fax machines in order to remain active in their line of work. Professional rehabs will also frequently adjust the schedule of their programs to accommodate business trips and meetings that the client needs to attend. This, accompanied by a thorough detoxification, a modern treatment program, individual and group counselling sessions, and continuing support services is what ensures the success of the executive rehabilitation program.
For elected government officials who require a rehabilitation center that keeps their jurisdiction’s success in mind, executive rehab is the treatment that will suit them best. There is no need to face the pain of addiction alone, and no need to endure treatment that is not compatible with your lifestyle.
The public’s opinion of elected government leaders who struggle with addiction is similar to their opinion of anyone who struggles with addiction, but more heightened. Unlike other members of the community, elected officials are responsible for the well-being of the voting public they represent and are therefore held to a higher level of accountability when it comes to sobriety, clear-headedness and good decision making. Many consider addiction to be a character flaw that is unforgiveable of a public official.
The concerns that are raised about an elected official who struggles with addiction are numerous. Elected officials are role models for young people and those aspiring to be in public office, and when their addiction is known to the public, it sends a message that being addicted is acceptable behavior. Frequently, addicted public officials will do anything to keep their addiction a secret and become very dishonest, even to the point of leading a double life. Addiction also promotes distraction and an inability to prioritize, which are associated with bad leadership. Logistically speaking, if an elected official is addicted to something illegal, it means they are connected to criminal activity, which is very counterproductive to good political motives.
Removing addicted elected officials from public office is certainly the most extreme way of keeping addiction out of public office, but there is debate over whether or not it is the most effective way. The public must consider that addiction is classified as a disease, and diseases are eradicated through treatment, not punishment. Though keeping an elected official in office can certainly be considered a risk, consider the success that other professions have seen when the addicted professional receives treatment while keeping their position. For example, in the case of addiction problems in the oil industry, oil companies are choosing to rehabilitate hard-working, talented employees rather than just firing them to minimize losses.
There are many factors that contribute to addictive behavior, ranging from genetics to psychology to environment. It has been noted that high profile individuals, such as government officials, are more prone to addictive behavior than other groups of people. This is due to the stresses of high profile positions and the neurological make-up of bold, successful people.
The performance pressure put on high profile individuals can be astronomical. The higher the position is, the heavier the weight on the individual’s shoulders can be. Certain personality types are better equipped to deal with stress than others, but many working professionals reach their limit with stress and do not know how to cope past a certain point. This is often when individuals turn to drugs or alcohol to alleviate stress. Substance abuse as a maladaptive coping mechanism is very common through out all types of addiction, but hits this particular group of people very hard. When the substance abuse turns to dependency, the addict can seldom find their way out of addiction without professional intervention.
When approaching addiction as a neurological disease, we find that the brain actually rewires itself to initially enjoy a substance and eventually depend on the substance when it is overused. Neuroscientists have discovered a link between risk taking personalities and addictive behavior, proving that certain chemical make-ups are more prone to the neurological disease of addiction. High profile persons fall into the category of risk takers, which can be observed in the choices they make that keep them in a position of power. Dopamine is the brain chemical associated with pleasure, and risk taking persons have largely been found to have inhibited dopamine production in their brains, causing them to seek more extreme pleasures and stimulations, such as risky financial ventures or experimentation with substances. This does not change the fact that substance addiction is agreeably the unhealthy expression of this neurological quality.
People don’t often associate public office with addiction, but it happens more often than the public realizes. With the widespread media attention that Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has received, the voting public is becoming more aware that past and present government leaders are just as capable of misusing substances as anyone else.
The fact of the matter is, elected officials are simply people, and people of all demographics struggle with addiction. In fact, studies have shown that people in positions of power can be even more prone to addiction than other groups of people.
This is not necessarily a recent phenomenon. Political figures such as former Washington D.C. Mayor Marion Barry, who was charged with cocaine and marijuana possession in the early 1990’s, have been making headlines for decades. It is suspected that similar stories could have been found through out history and are only falling under scrutiny now that we have a global media.
Often, a person will have addictive tendencies before they enter public office, and may have even struggled with addiction privately in the past. But serving as a government leader can be stressful and taxing, which are the circumstances that spawn addiction binges, and suddenly their problem is the business of their entire populous.
Regardless of whether or not a person who struggles with addiction should remain in public office, it is certain that they should have access to high quality addiction treatment in order to regain their lives.