Some people believe it is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. Others believe that the public has a right to be fully informed.

Lessons learnt from the mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic show that information played a major role. Spread of information was more rife than the virus itself. The prompt discusses two sides of a coin, political leaders withholding versus spreading information. From my point of view, I am more aligned with the second position for two reasons. However, I do concede that the public cannot have access to all information, especially in instances of natural security. To start off, the spread of misinformation during the covid-19 pandemic has been detrimental to national governments all across the world. Which could have been resolved in the first place if political leaders fully informed the masses. For example, highlighting an early mistake made by the Chinese government, their stance on withholding medical information about the virus soon became deadly in a flash. China and the World Health Organization (WHO) failed to act quickly and more forcefully at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, putting a spotlight on China’s lack of transparency early during the outbreak and the global health body’s decision to wait until January 30, 2020, to declare an international emergency. When the world governments did realise the primacy of covid, this epidemic has already transitioned into a pandemic. Not only weren’t governments ready, but they were simultaneously tackling the various issues that came with the pandemic too. One to be specific, misinformation. It spread like wildfire. The lesson learnt here matters, as the choice of the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) to hold back this vital information cost everyone an ever increasing death toll and the worst economic crisis since World War II. The public should have access to most government knowledge because, if it doesn't, the fundamental purpose of government (to serve the people’s will) is severely undermined. For example, in the Western liberal democracies such as those in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, the entire purpose of the government is to enact people’s will. If people lack the knowledge necessary to comment on their will and make informed decisions, then the entire function of government ceases to exist. This phenomenon can be clearly demonstrated in governments that, while ostensibly for the people’s will, withhold information to the detriment of the people. Take the Soviet Union for example, a country founded on principles of serving the public, especially those in lower classes. However, in practice, the Communist government kept the public in the dark, and at its collapse in the early 1990s the government was highly dysfunctional. That begs the question as to why a government should serve its function and the people at large. The main reason is simply survival. Governments that carry out the public will tend to survive longer. However, under certain circumstances, it is beneficial for leaders to conceal sensitive information for the public, because such information, if exposed, will cast potentially negative influences on the society as a whole. For instance, information relevant with national defense or military deployment, belongs to such a category. If we publicize such secrets to the public merely for the purpose of serving the principle of information transparency, it is likely that terrorists or potential enemies of the nation might utilize such messages to demolish facilities or slaughter innocents. This is the situation which we are definitely unwilling to see. In this sense, contemplation of national security endows leaders with responsibility to withdraw from sharing secrets without reservation. In summary, despite the fact that political officials might hide information for the sake of national security or other reasons, we shouldn't advocate such a policy as a general guideline, considering dire consequences mentioned above as this view is more complex than meets the eye. Conversely, it is necessary to guarantee the public to learn comprehensive information, in order to accelerate society equality and consolidate national cohesion.