Through what
media, cultural, activist and commercial forms do people learn about
transparency issues? What are the dominant messages on transparency?
There are a number of ways through which the
public learn about transparency issues. First, transparency often appears in
the media and political discourse as a solution to crises. Scandals, exposes or
shocks, from political corruption to financial crashes, either create a demand
for greater openness or the lack of it is defined as a cause (Roberts 2012). Increased openness is also frequently offered by
governments or organisations as a symbol of their ‘difference’ from
predecessors/competitors or their commitment to certain values and ways of
working. Second, as Fenster
(2015) points out,
transparency has also ‘captured the popular imagination’ through narratives
about whistleblowing or ‘heroic leaks’ such as the MPs’ Expenses or Snowden. Third,
consequently, transparency over the last decade has entrenched itself within
political discourse as a kind of universal good that is both an instrumental
means to a number of positive outcomes (such as improved trust or
accountability) and an end in itself (Heald
2006: Meijer 2013). It is,
moreover, an idea that is universally supported across the political spectrum (Birchall 2014). The existence of mechanisms such as
Freedom of Information laws provide daily reminders in the media of the role
and value of openness.
Underneath this universal veneer,
transparency can be many things. Indeed, it is in some senses an ‘empty
signifier’ that can be ‘filled’ by very different interpretations or emphasis (Stubbs and
Snell 2014). Below are just
three examples:
· Transparency as Political Empowerment: it is a highly politicised instrument of
empowerment, embodying different democratic norms and values (Fenster
2012)
· Transparency as Policy Solution: it can be a ‘dramatically satisfying answer
to every crisis and question about the state’ (Fenster 2015).
· Transparency as Economic Improvement: it is a means of increasing efficiency and
even wealth, connected to a ‘consumer-citizen’ idea of delivery and performance
measurement.
Its dominant message is fundamentally
contested. There is a constant, highly politicised struggle to define which of
these (or many other) meanings transparency has and what it can and should do (Yu and Harlan 2012: Fenster 2015). For governments it is
often imbued with very particular, often neo-liberal, conceptions of
state-society relations. More radical conceptions see it as a weapon against exactly
these ideas (Birchall 2014). The question of what sort of transparency is created, of who and by who exposes
the complex politics underneath (Berliner
2014). Julian Assange and
David Cameron are both vocal supporters of transparency but it is unlikely they
agree on what it means and who it should effect. On a symbolic level, transparency can be a
radical weapon of empowerment, a tool of modernisation and a means of
demonstrating an organisation is more ethical, more honest or more trustworthy.
There is rarely a clear distinction on what
transparency is produced by e.g. is it through an FOI, a leak or
whistleblowing? Transparency can be seen as a continuum or spectrum with
government press releases at one end and Snowden at the other. It is most often
government that delineates what it sees as the legal ‘limits’ around openness
on the borders, for example, of FOI laws or secrecy legislation. It frames the
narrative over where transparency begins and ends.
Yet the exact limitations are constantly
moving. Disclosures through leaks, semi-authorised disclosures and ‘plants’,
innovations such as Open Data, and ‘radical’ actions like Wikileaks can all kick
start transparency and gradually shift where the border lies between ‘open’ and
‘closed’ or ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ (Posen
2013). Meaning is greatly
complicated by the closing off of certain issues, not least the transparency of
citizens through government surveillance, a rarely mentioned aspect of the
wider transparency debate that is frequently disconnected or separated (Birchall
2014).
Do people care about liberal transparency (holding power-holders to
account)? Do people care about ubiquitous transparency (where their own private
lives are open for inspection)?
What evidence can be gleaned of how the
public view transparency points to rather mixed and nuanced understanding. There
is a broad public awareness of some formal means of transparency e.g. Freedom
of Information laws and a general (if vague) support for them. In terms of
leaks and ‘radical transparency’ such as Snowden and WikiLeaks public opinion
is unclear-in certain contexts, while there exists a powerful supportive ‘folklore’
about whistleblowing, expectations and concerns over, for example, national security
can divide opinion as to the ethics and effects (Roberts
2012a: Fenster 2012). Some fascinating experiments indicate
that the public support and are reassured by the presence of transparency
mechanisms but have little desire to use them, instead preferring to rely on
other citizens to operate them and unleash the benefits (see De Fine Licht 2012
and De
Licht et al 2014).
Similarly with privacy, there is an awareness
of rights and a sense that it is an important issue-surveys register a
continual hum of concern over confidential information, data protection and
privacy. But this does not appear to
generate a general concern or ‘push’ for particular things to happen. Instead
there appears to be reactions to sudden ‘punctuated’ privacy ‘scandals’ e.g. as
seen in the UK over care of data and the security of personal health
information. In some ways, public opinion probably reflects the nuance of an
issue that does not really have an obvious or permanent solution, the basis of
which are continually challenged and outstripped by technology.
Is there a disconnect between transparency representations and
public opinion, and if so, how it should be addressed? Do we
have a healthy public debate on transparency issues? What would improve its
quality?
There are numerous disconnects over public
opinion and transparency
· Context is key: Although transparency is seen as a ‘good thing’, the battle over what
it means and its limits undoubtedly raise a series of competing and
contradictory issues. Transparency overlaps with the ethics of leaks, privacy
and national security. The view held by the public of any kind of transparency
at any one time is highly context dependent. A leaker of classified information
like Snowden may be viewed very differently than the anonymous leaker of MPs’
expenses.
· Flawed assumptions: The underlying idea of transparency, that information empowers
citizens as rational calculators, is misplaced, though politicians continue to
press it. All receivers of information have biases, heuristics and assumptions
that shape ideas and views and may interrupt the flow or change the meaning of
disclosed information. All transparency systems and instruments are shaped by
the environment in which they are created and their political context (Meijer
2013).
· Competing visions and meanings: The debate over transparency is ongoing but
may further complicate discussion rather than resolve it as different sides
pull against each other. Governments seek a de-politicised (or re-directed)
transparency focused on efficiency or improving services while activists seek
greater openness of different parts of the state (and increasingly the private
sector). The different language and aims may push discussion in divergent
directions.
Select Bibliography
Berliner,
Daniel. (2014). ‘The Political Origins of Transparency’. The Journal of Politics, 76(2): 479-491
Birchall,
C. (2014). Radical Transparency?. Cultural Studies↔ Critical Methodologies,
14(1), 77-88.
De
Fine Licht, J., Naurin, D., Esaiasson, P., & Gilljam, M. (2014). When does
transparency generate legitimacy? Experimenting on a context‐bound relationship. Governance, 27(1), 111-134.
Fenster,
M. (2015). ‘Transparency in Search of a Theory’. European Journal of Social Theory, 18(2), 150-167.
Heald,
D. (2006). ‘Transparency as an Instrumental Value’.
Meijer,
A. (2013). ‘Understanding the complex dynamics of transparency’. Public Administration Review, 73(3),
429-439
Stubbs,
Rhys and Snell, Rick, (2014) ‘Pluralism in FOI Law Reform: Comparative Analysis
of China, Mexico and India’. The
University of Tasmania Law Review Vol. 33, No.1, 2014, 141-164.
Yu,
Harlan and Robinson, David G., (2012) ‘The New Ambiguity of ‘Open Government’
(February 28, 2012). 59 UCLA L. Rev. Disc.
178
Roberts,
Alasdair S., (2012) ‘Transparency in Troubled Times’. Tenth World Conference of
the International Ombudsman Institute, November 2012; Suffolk University Law School Research Paper 12-35.
