Noun: a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially: one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government.
In the above definition, it is clear that a politician is a person like us, who is qualified to perform his duties for the government and the people. A person who is involved in politics; religiously practicing his duties leaves us with no right to question his personal life as long as it is not affecting the country and its people. But isn't it that every now and then the rumors about their personal lives begin to swirl around? Journalism, which was once about revealing the truth and facts, is disappearing today with de-escalation in integrity and respect for privacy too. Sometimes they go too far just to assimilate news and publicity in their share. They should publish the news that is relevant with politics and not "just another gossip".
Media has its pros and cons, one major con being broadcasting news about popular personalities that even they are not certain about and sabotaging their hard-earned status in the society. Unfortunately some of us blindly believe in the news that is given away without getting the facts clear. It is really upsetting that there are people with puny brains and mentality who judge people by their status instead of their work performance. All of us have our role models to look up to and admire. They do everything to please us by giving their best. Therefore, it isn't much of them to ask for some respect and privacy in return. Taking their privacy away from them just to create an another so-called faux pas isn't ethical in any world and do we really need to know everything?
And so the question arises why cannot the people debate or discuss about the affairs of a politician who is liable for the development and growth of the country?
The simple answer to this question is that we do not know under what circumstances the concerned person has made the choice and secondly, if the repercussions of his choices do not affect his work then it should not affect the public as well. The personal life of a person is much more complicated than his professional life. And, if we expect a public figure to follow the stereotype dogma, then aren't we implying that the sole purpose of his job is to please us? Just because his job keeps him in the catbird seat it does not stand for a reason to interfere in his personal life and deriving wrong conclusions about him.
"So far, about morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after." - Ernest Hemingway
Is there a master blueprint somewhere which has the details of how life should proceed every second on earth for each of us? There is no concrete evidence or proof of this (Source, the Speaking Tree). Human relation is not science that there would be rigid principles as to what is moral and what is not. The major problem for politicians and their families is that journalists or the onlookers are always scrutinizing the happenings in their lives. Thus, any private action is compelled to become very public. We need to stop and think before drawing out conclusions based on their personal lives, otherwise a day would come when we would realize that none of them is good enough to meet our expectations.
It is very true that a politician should not be morally corrupt but that does not mean that he lives an ascetic life. We, as voters of the country, are entitled to know about the coherence of the politicians and not about any ineffectual personal stories of their lives. After all, personal life is called so for a reason. And we must understand that a politician is no God.