Recently, General Petraeus, the head of CIA, suddenly
resigned over an extra-marital affair. This brought about puzzlement among
folks used to having been exposed to such affairs by many well known figures
such a Berlusconi, Bill Clinton, General Eisenhower, and even Jawaharlal Nehru,
the first Prime Minister of India who is rumored to have flirted with Lady
Mountbatten, the wife of the last Viceroy Lord Mountbatten. None of these
people quit, and some, like the first person in the above list had to be pushed
out.
So, how does one know who will quit and who will not?
In my opinion, it all boils down to an equation that
calculates the Quitting Index (QI)---the higher it is, the more likely it is
that the person will quit after being caught for indiscretion.
QI= Thinness of skin X (actual behavior-expected behavior)
So, for the Berlusconis of this world, they are expected to
have affairs, so the actual behavior does not shock anyone. Clinton's behavior
was unexpected, but he is thick skinned (low thinness), so a low QI and no
quitting.
As this country has progressed, so has the tolerance for
indiscretion. Thus, the "expected behavior" in the above equation is
really a function of time and not a constant. That would explain why people
tolerated Eisenhower’s or Kennedy’s behavior. The expectation that the leaders
of this great republic be saintly is a fairly new phenomenon.
Nehru's behavior is still considered a matter of
speculation. For the above equation to work, there have to be witnesses or firm
evidence. People are generally not expected to incriminate themselves and quit,
even if their QI is high, as would have been the case with Nehru. No
“self-deportation" here.
That brings us to the General. He was caught, and the
expected behavior was that of a saint. After all, one cannot behave in a way
that would provide fodder for blackmail while being the top spy in the country.
He is also thin skinned (high level of thinness), and honorable man. Thus he
had a high QI, and FBI was attaching him.
So he quit even before an investigation was conducted.
There is no consistent logic as to why some quit and some do not. I cannot see why the General quit and Clinton did not. Both had equal risk and exposure. The background behind why one decides this way and why the other decides the opposite is extremely complex and cannot be determined by simple factors like thick skinned and thin skinned.
ReplyDeleteI also think that men in top power attract an enormous fascination and attraction from many women, which is not easy for them to ignore and resist in all situations – which normal people like me cannot even imagine. Most of these men are also isolated and often lonely – in spite of being in public life. Hence, sooner or later they do fall for some specific woman. They are humans after all. I have a tolerant view towards them - since their life situation is very different than mine. However, I have little sympathy for the likes of Berlusconi etc. who consistently exploit their position of power.