Physical disability as political weakness is superficial

Every country has a head of state or leader regardless of what political system it follows. He/she is expected to represent the interests of the nation. Apart from that, people look up to their leaders for motivation, growth and success. We believe that our leader along with his/her troops of politicians will work towards our general welfare.

In the midst of all this, the public tends to form a perception about their head of state. We perceive him/her to be strong in mind, body and character. Unless they fulfil these three criteria, they are unfit to become leader of the masses. We all perceive that a person who has weak mind and body cannot lead a country. Even in earlier times, kings and princes were required to be in sound health as they were responsible for leading armies into wars. Although strength of character has gained more importance than being an able-bodied leader in modern times, physical disability is still seen as a liabilty for a head of state in the eyes of the general public.

Such perception is superficial. I feel that we make a mistake in perceiving such disabilities as political weaknesses. Consequently, it leads to concealing the disability from the general public. After all, no head of state would want its people to see him/her leading the country while sitting on a wheelchair, having difficulty in reading and writing, speaking with a lisp or stammer or living on painkillers all day.

I pity the disabled leaders who try to conceal their illness. Invaders and rulers like Alexander, the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte suffered from epilepsy, yet only those who were very close to them knew about it. If their troops had known that the man who was leading them had seizures and convulsions all of a suuden regularly, they would have thought them to be mad rather than a respected leader. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the President who helped America through the The Great Depression and the World War II, was diagnosed with Gullian-Barre Syndrome, similar to Polio. Colloquially speaking, he was crippled. For 24 years including 13 years during which he served as the US President, he used metal casting to support his legs while standing and delivering speeches to the public. He was never photographed such that his disability appeared so obvious. The head of state who helped his country through difficult times was himself going through so much pains and was constantly at war against his body, tells so much about his will power. I am sure that people around him would have thought had he not concealed it, people of America would not have voted him to power. It proves that the thought of hiding a disability develops among those in close relation to the disabled leader who perceive it as a political liability.

A few years back a movie was released named ‘The King’s Speech’ featuring the famous Colin Firth. He portrayed the character of George V of the British Monarch who couldn’t deliver public speeches properly because he stammered. It was shown in the movie that his wife insisted him to take speech-coorecting lessons in secret before he was coronated as the King of United Kingdom and save the royal family the embarrasment in front of the world.

As said earlier, nowadays the strength of character holds more importance than the physical infirmity of a leader. Yet, there is still need for the leaders to look physically powerful in front of the public to assure them that their country’s responsibilty is in the hands of a reliable and an able-bodied person. The paparazzi goes gaga when it sees Russian President Vladimir Putin horse riding bare-chested at Siberian countryside or US President Barack Obama attending a basketball or baseball match for leisure purposes. When leaders try to portray their powerful image in this way, it naturally fuels the wrong perception associated with political disabilities in minds of the public.

Click here for government certifications