Today, we’re diving into a GRE ‘Analyze an Issue’ essay prompt that sparks real debate: should political leaders ever withhold information from the public? This question has generated strong arguments on both sides, and in this post, we’ll break them down, take a stance, and walk through how to construct a top-scoring GRE essay in response.
Understanding the Prompt
The GRE presents two sides: one argues that withholding information is sometimes necessary to protect national interests, while the other insists the public has a right to be fully informed. Your job as a test-taker is to evaluate both views, pick a position, and support it with clear reasoning and examples.
Arguments for Withholding Information
- National security: Leaders often handle sensitive intelligence that could endanger lives or strategic operations if disclosed.
- Preventing panic: In emergencies, full disclosure can cause fear or unrest among the public.
- Complexity: Some policy issues are highly technical. Leaders may feel it’s their duty to interpret and act without overwhelming the public with details.
Arguments for Full Transparency
- Democratic accountability: Citizens deserve to know what their government is doing so they can make informed decisions.
- Trust-building: Transparency fosters credibility and confidence in leadership.
- Checks on power: Without transparency, the risk of corruption and misuse of authority increases.
My Position: Transparency Should Be the Default
Although I understand the reasoning behind keeping some information private, I believe transparency should be the norm in a democratic society. Public trust depends on it, and history shows us the risks of secrecy. Consider the Watergate scandal: when President Nixon tried to cover up illegal activity, it didn’t just end his presidency—it eroded trust in the entire political system.
Citizens elect leaders to represent them, not to control what they know. Withholding information might seem harmless or even strategic in the short term, but over time, it fosters suspicion and cynicism. Leaders must communicate clearly and responsibly—even when the truth is difficult to digest.
Yes, there are rare exceptions. National security threats may require discretion. But even then, the public can and should be kept informed about the general direction and rationale behind major decisions, without jeopardizing safety.
Sample GRE Essay: A Perfect-Scoring Response
Transparency as a Cornerstone of Democratic Leadership
In any democracy, the relationship between political leaders and the public is built on a foundation of trust, accountability, and shared responsibility. One of the most pressing questions in political ethics is whether leaders should withhold certain information from the public, particularly when that information is sensitive or potentially alarming. While national security and social stability are often cited as justifications for secrecy, I contend that transparency must remain the guiding principle of democratic governance. A well-informed public is not only a prerequisite for meaningful participation in civic life, but also a safeguard against corruption, authoritarianism, and the erosion of democratic norms.
To begin with, public access to information is central to the concept of accountability. Democratically elected leaders derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, and that consent is only meaningful when citizens have the knowledge necessary to evaluate leadership decisions. When governments conceal information, they undermine this dynamic, preventing citizens from making informed choices in elections, public discourse, and civic action. For example, the U.S. government’s failure to be transparent about the Vietnam War—particularly the extent to which it was not progressing as publicly portrayed—led to widespread disillusionment, protests, and a loss of trust in national institutions. This historical case illustrates how secrecy can weaken the very fabric of democratic society.
In addition, transparency cultivates public trust. When leaders are open and honest about their decisions, even when the news is difficult or complex, it signals respect for the public’s intelligence and capacity to engage in self-governance. On the other hand, secrecy often breeds suspicion. If the public senses that information is being deliberately withheld, they may begin to assume the worst—even when leaders are acting in good faith. This erosion of trust can be damaging in times of crisis, when public cooperation and unity are most essential.
Critics may argue that certain circumstances demand confidentiality—for instance, during military operations or intelligence investigations. While I acknowledge that there are narrow cases in which temporary discretion is warranted, these should be clearly defined exceptions rather than standard practice. Moreover, transparency does not require full disclosure of operational details; rather, it demands that leaders be forthcoming about their intentions, values, and rationales. For example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy kept certain military plans classified, but he also addressed the nation directly, explained the threat, and outlined his administration’s response. His transparency helped rally public support while maintaining national security.
Importantly, withholding information can open the door to abuses of power. Once leaders begin deciding which truths the public can “handle,” the line between responsible discretion and manipulation becomes dangerously blurred. History offers sobering examples: authoritarian regimes often begin their rise to power by controlling access to information, gradually reshaping public perception to serve their own interests. A culture of secrecy, even in democratic societies, can create fertile ground for similar overreach.
In conclusion, while there may be rare cases where short-term secrecy is necessary, transparency should remain the default posture of political leadership in any democratic society. It strengthens accountability, builds trust, and guards against the excesses of unchecked power. Ultimately, democracy thrives not in the shadows of secrecy, but in the clear light of open dialogue and informed public engagement.
Why This Essay Earns a Perfect Score
- It clearly presents and defends a position while addressing opposing views.
- It’s logically structured with smooth transitions between ideas.
- It uses real-world examples to illustrate points.
- It stays focused and persuasive throughout.
- The writing is articulate and grammatically sound.
Key Takeaways for GRE Writers
- Pick a side and support it with logic, not just opinion.
- Use real-world or historical examples to build credibility.
- Address the other side respectfully, but clearly show why your position is stronger.
- Structure matters—use clear introductions, body paragraphs, and conclusions.
Whether you’re studying for the GRE or just thinking deeply about the role of political leadership, this topic is a great opportunity to explore the tension between national interest and democratic transparency. And if you’d rather listen than read, check out the companion podcast episode for a full breakdown and writing tips.