NEXT to doctors and nurses, one of the most sleep-deprived persons are probably those who are in politics, even as politics is also a leading cause of sleep deprivation. A 2018 study reported by the New York Post revealed that one in seven American adults, which translates to about 34 million people, lose sleep over the hyper-partisanship that pervades American politics. This figure exceeds those who are sleep-deprived due to insomnia.
While there is no comparable study on the Philippines, it is logical to infer that a similar situation is probable. Anecdotal stories abound of Filipinos who populate cyberspace, extending their hours until past bedtime to read and react to disturbing political posts. Many lose sleep when their preferred politicians are bashed, and lose some more when they are the ones that get bashed.
More than ordinary netizens, it is also the politicians who are often prone to sleep-deprivation, from the time of their political campaigns, to the marathon sessions they have to attend which go past midnight to approve major pieces of legislation. The nature of their work is an endless procession of meetings, parties and face-to-face interactions with their constituents, that many of them have to spend their sleeping hours in transit to their next destinations.
According to the joint statement of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society released in 2015, it is recommended that adults should get at least seven hours of sleep to maintain their optimal healthy condition. Well-known politicians have defied this and have taken pride in their ability to keep going like that bunny running on Eveready battery even with very little sleep. Political figures like Bill Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, the late Winston Churchill and current US President Donald Trump are said to only have from four to five hours of sleep. Others have learned to adapt and change their sleeping habits. Angela Merkel, according to reports, can sleep like a camel. Former president Fidel Ramos is reported to take several short naps in a day.
Actually, there are work-related risks in sleep-deprived politicians. Psychological researches reveal that sleep deprivation can render individuals rigid and less flexible to adapt to changing plans, and tend to have a diminished ability to handle surprises and the unexpected. Sleep deprivation is also found to have negative effects on motivation.
But it was also found that sleep deprivation, when projected to political decision-making, doesn’t have to be entirely bad when the context is in groups, such as in negotiations, or during late night sessions of deliberative bodies such as Congress. Frings, et. al., in a 2008 study, described a process which they called “group monitoring” where group members who are aware of the sleep deprivation of their colleagues make the necessary compensation. However, the drawback of this process is when the collective is not building a consensus, but is instead negotiating from adversarial positions, where the alert party can take advantage of their sleep-deprived counterparts. It is here that the popular adage of “natutulog sa pansitan” can find empirical grounding, when political leaders and representatives miss out on salient points of a law, or an agreement, and thereby fail to represent the interests of their constituencies. To associate the pejorative with sleep implies that even in the vernacular, sleep deprivation is seen to have damaging effects on political representation.
A recent 2016 study conducted in the US revealed that sleep-deprived individuals tend to rely more on the advice of others in making decisions when compared to well-rested ones. However, the study revealed that intense sleep deprivation can also lead to the person losing the ability to discern good quality advice, and ends up taking mediocre advice. The implications of this study, when projected on the behavior of politicians, can have dangerous consequences.
Airline pilots, and air traffic controllers, and others whose jobs require alertness, are now ordered by law to follow a well-defined sleeping regimen. More and more, doctors and medical professionals are now being urged to strictly follow well-paced sleeping habits.
As to whether it is now time to also regulate sleep among political decision-makers is a valid question. Certainly, considering that sleep deprivation may impair not only the ability to make rational decisions, but also the efficacy and efficiency of political representation, avoiding situations where political leaders are forced to work beyond their normal sleeping hours may now be an ideal work standard.
However, there is an argument that is grounded on what is labeled as survival bias, where there are politicians who are adept in surviving, defeating and even adapting to sleep deprivation. These kinds of politicians who are likely to maintain their performance and functionality despite sleep deprivation are seen as the ones who are more likely to survive in the world of politics, as compared to those who could not function well without adequate sleep, and would continue to depend on their allies, subordinates and advisers to compensate for their inability to keep up with the demands of their jobs.
The Filipino electorate has long been unforgiving of politicians who appear to be sleeping on their jobs, even if the sleep is simply figurative. “Noynoying” was coined in derision to criticize Noynoy Aquino’s much-talked-about late nights playing video games. Franklin Drilon is pilloried because of his catnaps at the Senate. “Natutulog sa pansitan” is an accusation that can make a politician lose a re-election bid.
And when President Duterte took several power naps, and failed to attend six meetings during the recent Asean summit in Singapore, the political opposition and critics of the President lost no time in making it an issue. His defenders are diverting the issue by calling it petty, and focusing not on what the President missed because he slept, but on what he has accomplished despite it.
Perhaps, the question that needs to be asked is not whether the President slept, but the very nature of that sleep. If it is to prevent the President from being sleep-deprived to enable him to rest so that he can perform his duties in an alert capacity, then the only thing that can be criticized is his timing, and to recognize that there is some diplomatic fall-out.
But when the President later on justified his absence in the breakfast meeting hosted by Australia as a matter of preference and choice — that he doesn’t eat breakfast and he doesn’t like buffet food — then the issue gets muddled. In doing so, it now appears it is no longer a power nap needed to rest a tired body, but a choice to avoid attending a meeting.
The presidency is undoubtedly a 24/7 job. A sleeping president is still president nonetheless. It is when catnapping and missing out on important meetings become a habit, or a convenient ruse, that we should be concerned.
No comments:
Post a Comment