1. The Nature of Democratic Power Demands Maximum Transparency
In a transparent democracy, elected officials are entrusted with authority by the people. This authority includes decisions over war and peace, life and death, economics, public safety, and civil rights. For such a sacred trust to be legitimately conferred, votersy must have complete and equal access to all material information that affects a candidate’s fitness to serve.
To conceal potentially disqualifying health or addiction issues under the veil of “privacy” is to subvert the electorate’s right to make an informed choice. This is not just imprudent—it’s undemocratic.
2. Office Seekers Are Not Private Citizens
There is a fundamental difference between a private citizen and a candidate for office. The former has a right to privacy; the latter voluntarily enters a contract with the public, where transparency becomes a condition of entry.
This contract must include:
A full public health test, including cognitive, neurological, and physical assessments.
A substance use screening, covering both recent and habitual usage patterns.
Public disclosure of results, without redactions, sanitized summaries, or politically massaged reports.
If teachers, pilots, soldiers, and commercial drivers must meet clear medical and drug standards to ensure the public’s safety, how much more so should those who seek to govern?
3. No Elitist Exceptions in a Real Democracy
To argue that the public cannot handle a candidate’s medical truth is to infantilize the electorate. To say that disclosure may “stigmatize” is to prioritize personal reputation over democratic legitimacy.
Health issues that do not affect performance will be judged fairly. Those that do should be known. Truth cannot harm democracy—only its concealment can.
4. Proposed Standard
A democratic reform bill should include:
Mandatory health and substance tests for all candidates seeking public office, regardless of level (municipal, state, federal).
Independent public agencies (not political appointees) to administer and publish results.
Annual re-testing for incumbents seeking re-election or holding executive office.
This would set a global gold standard for integrity in democratic elections.
Closing Thought
A democracy that shields its most powerful aspirants from scrutiny—while surveilling and judging ordinary citizens—is not a democracy at all. It is a hypocrisy.
If you want the people’s vote, you must submit to the people’s test.
