Much has been said about the vetting of politicians and people who hold public office. Of course, the lines always need to be drawn, but where does one stop?

A very pertinent example is President Marie Louise Colerio Preca. Some commentators have hit out at instances from her private life that they believe people should have picked up on. But who has the right to dangle the moral compass at who?

We all have issues in our lives that we look back on and perhaps feel some regret, but a separation must be made. Private life is private life, and public life is something else entirely. In the rest of Europe, unless someone has committed a crime, then things are allowed to flow as they are. A person is judged on their capabilities and what they can bring to a job or post, not by what they have done in their family life. That’s just the way it goes. Of course, they are subject to public and media scrutiny, just as French Premier Francois Hollande was in the revelations that he had dumped his partner. But did anyone bat an eyelid about his capabilities to run the country? No they did not. Business went on as usual and the French President remained the French President. People might have passed their private judgment about what they think of him, but that is exactly where it stopped.

This argument can be stretched further and further. Morality is a strange thing, but it is rooted within the individual. What is acceptable for one person, might not be acceptable for another. But again, we must draw the line. What does a person’s private life have to do with how they perform in their public role? If a person might have had a stormy existence within the four walls of their own home, how does it affect, for example, how they might work to eradicate poverty?

The issue that we need to focus on is whether people are fit to perform the role they are informed in, and not their personal histories. As sordid as some people’s histories are (say Winston Churchill for example), they are judged on deeds in public office, and not what they have done in their private life. Does Britain love Churchill any less for being and alcoholic and stimulant addict? Does the United States love John F Kennedy any less, despite his affairs and his addiction to prescription drugs? No, they do not. They judge them for having been a driving force in the victory of right over wrong in WWII and in Kennedy’s case, for making the right calls in the Cuba missile crisis. And so, it should be with Marie Louise Coleiro Preca.

She should be judged – as President – on her deeds as the leader of the Republic of Malta, no more and no less. As we did with George Abela, we will look back on her tenure in five years time and make judgment from there. We will be evaluating a presidency, and not someone’s private life.  And that’s the way it should be.