Why does ‘formal transparency’ often still seem so opaque?
Many public organisations have been ‘formally transparent’ for centuries, yet the more detail they publish about their proceedings, the less we seem to understand about what they do. Are there new ways to fix this broken process?
This looks like just the kind of issue that the panel in the video seem well equipped to address.
This panel was session was held on April 29th, 2010 after the announcement of the formation of something called a Transparency Caucus in Congress.
The panel was moderated by Daniel Schuman, the Policy Counsel of an organisation called the Sunlight Foundation.
The other members of the panel were:
- Scott Amey from the Project on Government Oversight
- Jerry Brito from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University
- Patrice McDermott of OpenTheGovernment.org participated
The Sunlight Foundation has formed a body called ‘The Advisory Committee on Transparency’, which will support the mission of the Transparency Caucus.
There was also a public question and answer session at the same gathering:
Transparency, especially in government-related dealings (and public companies for that matter) is always crucial as it involves the welfare not only of the state but also its people, not just those directly involve with the company or government department. I personally think this is an integrity issue, with bureaucratic proceedings notwithstanding. Here’s a helpful article regarding the topic at hand:
http://www.awarenessintoaction.com/whitepapers/Kathryn-Pavlovsky-Principal-Deloitte-environmental-risks-social-responsibility.html
It says:
“Companies need to create a central point of responsibility for aligning and coordinating internal and external reporting supported by the appropriate infrastructure. These include technologies or systems that reduce the manual nature of reporting associated with environmental matters that could result in “multiple versions of the truth” that are at risk of discovery if the company receives an action against them. Indeed, leading companies are placing responsibility for all risks related to “sustainability” under the same umbrella, since these also suffer from the same communication disconnects as environmental risks.”
I agree, Rob. Lack of transparency in government leads to frightening consequences, as in the case of the Iraq War, where the government used up 9 to 23 billion dollars and no one knew where it went. In that particular scenario, lack of transparency sure did affect the people of the United States.
It is really sad to say/write Meg, but war is a tragedy for people and a business for many companies at the same time. Sad but true.
Wouldn’t expect 100% transparency from US government about war in Iraq. Actually, wouldn’t expect 100% transparency from any country involved in any war nowadays.
I completely agree Greg. War is a different animal when we talk about transparency. But if that can’t be touched (at least in the near future), maybe we can turn our focus on policies and programs that have a direct effect and significance to the people. I think that’s a good start, for any country for that matter.
True Rob, got to start somewhere. Question is – would there be enough will to do so?
Besides, transparency does have significance to people – at least does for me, so would like to know what my government is up to, what they plan to do and how they spend people’s taxes.
I think many politicians start to forget about that – they are in their positions for their people, not other way round.
This is a great video of a panel, members of which speak clearly of the issue of governmental transparency and accountability. In the beginning of the video, Jerry Brito mentions the Internet as a tool for (I quote loosely) reducing the cost of accessing information and making it easier for everyone to gain access to information. The problem is, most bits information that’s currently available on the Net about the government differ wildly, and are often inaccurate or simply unavailable.
Is there a body that actively collates all (important) information about a government’s actions, a body which is officially sanctioned by the government itself and whose data can be backed up by independent bodies? Jerry mentioned something about cloud sourcing the task of collating data for a specific governmental body.
I found not specific authority or body empowered too look into government’s actions and disclose everything transparently. However, I just saw an official website that claims on part of Obama being open to all:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/
“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.”
Agree, quite long but well worth watching whole. As for Jerry Brito’s statement, internet is full of inaccurate information, so wouldn’t count on that source to check government’s transparency.
Of course, there are official .gov websites, but how can you be sure they put all the stuff on them? Especially the ones with a bit of negative side to them?
I just found an astonishing report based on Oxfam’s survery of US grants and aids to varios other governments.
http://one.org/blog/2010/06/10/dear-us-government-lets-start-practicing-the-transparency-we-preach/
Oxfam US concluding “What they told us is that even the recipient governments don’t know what programs the US is funding, so it’s tough for any of them to plan for the future.”
So, when the recipients don’t know the program the donor is funding for, what is US government telling US public about those fundings?
I reckon nothing, Krish. It could be labeled as broad as supporting or aiding foreign poverty alleviation schemes, which, frankly, does not really solve such issues. This article should help me explain my point further:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100928-294682/Aquino-US-trip-yielded-28B
“In Manila, however, a militant group wondered whether the pledge of US money shut Mr. Aquino up when it came to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which allows US troops to stay in the Philippines for military exercises.”
So much for transparency, no?
Ideally, an independent organization should be the one promoting and monitoring transparency in government. Not to demean any government’s initiative to do so, but having an independent body helps ensure objectivity and impartiality in such matters. It’s noteworthy though to learn about any government’s initiative for transparency. Then again, such initiatives are not enough.
Although, one should not be satisfied with independent organizations monitoring transparencies., as they to can be marred with issues and controversies, much like Transparency International:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/22/seeingthroughtransparencyin
No perfect solution I imagine Rob. This kind of situations did happen in the past, are happening now and will happen in the future as well. The less the better, but mix of money and politics is really hard to manage for many people/organisations.
@Rob, unless “independent” body is really “independent”, it can’t be impartial. Since people working those bodies are also influenced by their governments, the transparency can’t be 100% transparent; it will remain opaque
However, it’s better to watch through an opaque film than through a black curtain.