It is often necessary,even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information f

[SangFroid]

 

It is often necessary,even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public

 

 

 

 

“Transparency” is the essence of the politics of the current world. With the world leading ahead towards the 21st century, we see many of the countries with democratic government; a rule elected by the coterie of people elected from the public and by the public. Public have lots of faith in these people and, as they are being elected by them, they deserve the rights to know activities and the planning of the leaders transparently. Still, in most of the cases, to accomplish the plans and statergies effectively, the political leaders should withold informations from the public because of various political and other international issues.

 

 

 

The political leaders of the current world, in most of the cases, are elected by the public. They are nominated for the welfare of the society and for a better future of all generations of the region. People nominate them with complete belief and they are the chariots of the society. They are the group of intellectuals whom publich have bestowed upon them the power to reign..They are the people who have pledged to fulfil the dreams of the public and to camouflage them about their plans and statergies, is more akin to apostate them and loose their belief.

 

 

However in most of the cases, it is crucial for a political leader to maintain secrecy and withold information from the public. Some of the plans like intrusion into other’s territory, development of nuclear weapons for self defence, competition among rival nations and similar ones need to carried out under severe secrecy. A political leader should not disclose such types of missions unless and until they are accomplished completely.If such missions are disclosed to the public beforehand , then they may never be achieved successfully and it is a sheer act of folly. Apart from it, information regarding nation’s security, defense,intelligence should hardly be disclosed to the public and should remain in utmost secrecy .We often see in history ; about many nations who lost the Second World War as their enemies knew their plans and startegeries beforhand with the help of spies.

 

 

Pondering the aforementioned facts prudently and to its fathom, it is the duty of the politician to make a wise decision whether to disclose the information or not to the public ;as per the level of secrecy it deserves. If a leader witholds almost all of the facts from the public, then such a form of government can no longer be aliased as a democratic one.Nor in such cases, there will be a warm harmony between the public and the government. But on the other hand, it is also not wise to disclose all the secret missions, plans and stategeries of the government to the public.

 

[ertda]

the content is ok this time but the structure of the essay is not so, from the introduction i was thinking of this as a partly agreement essay but you only develop one side and then finish like you have mentioned both

 

 

It is often necessary,even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Transparency” is the essence of the politics of the current world. With the world leading ahead towards the 21st century, we see many of the countries with democratic government; a rule elected by the coterie of people elected from the public and by the public (sounds weird). Public have lots of faith(quantible?) in these people and, as they are being elected by them, they deserve the rights to know activities and the planning of the leaders transparently. Still, in most of the cases, to accomplish the plans and statergies effectively, the political leaders should withold informations from the public because of various political and other international issues.

 

this is ok

 

 

 

The political leaders of the current world, in most of the cases, are elected by the public. They are nominated for the welfare of the society and for a better future of all generations of the region. People nominate them with complete belief and they are the chariots of the society. They are the group of intellectuals whom publich have bestowed upon them the power to reign..They are the people who have pledged to fulfil the dreams of the public and to camouflage them about their plans and statergies, is more akin to apostate them and loose their belief.

 

i think this is not a proper body paragraph, too general

 

However in most of the cases, it is crucial for a political leader to maintain secrecy and withold information from the public. Some of the plans like intrusion into other’s territory, development of nuclear weapons for self defence, competition among rival nations and similar ones need to carried out under severe secrecy. A political leader should not disclose such types of missions unless and until they are accomplished completely.If such missions are disclosed to the public beforehand , then they may never be achieved successfully and it is a sheer act of folly. Apart from it, information regarding nation’s security, defense,intelligence should hardly be disclosed to the public and should remain in utmost secrecy .We often see in history ; about many nations who lost the Second World War as their enemies knew their plans and startegeries beforhand with the help of spies.

 

ok

 

Pondering the aforementioned facts prudently and to its fathom, it is the duty of the politician to make a wise decision whether to disclose the information or not to the public ;as per the level of secrecy it deserves. If a leader witholds almost all of the facts from the public, then such a form of government can no longer be aliased as a democratic one.Nor in such cases, there will be a warm harmony between the public and the government. But on the other hand, it is also not wise to disclose all the secret missions, plans and stategeries of the government to the public.

ok

[Shalom Ichthys]

I also think of the allusion to national security, which is a compelling case for which to argue.

However, the other side of the coin is yet to be taken into account, and there remains much room to explore.

To name but one, when would the release of information fit the interests of general public?

Were the discretion or privy allowed, what would the repercussion to the society be?

 

The delivery is pellucid, with good command of English in a generally legible manner.

Articulation is clear, though I would suggest delving into a particular security episode to elucidate your stance.

 

Thank you!