The transformative potential of transparency
Dr Matthew Fluck
Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Westminster
International
politics appears to be defined by its opacity – by mutual uncertainty between
states and the absence of mechanisms for democratic scrutiny. This seems to point
to the transformative potential of transparency. Ever since the ‘Perpetual
Peace’ essays of Kant and Bentham, scholars and practitioners have looked to
transparency as means of creating a fairer and more peaceful world politics.[i]
With the technical ability to share information on an unprecedented scale, it
now seems that such hopes might become a reality. A plethora of international
organisations, governments, and NGOs appear to be working towards this goal.
This
suggests the importance of two related questions. First, given the range of
actors pursuing it, should we think of ‘transparency’ as a single concept?
Second, to what extent can it actually live up to its transformative promise?
What is transparency?
Regarding
the first question, it is possible to identify at least three conceptions of
transparency implicit in the work of scholars, practitioners, and activists. In
the first, ‘transparency-as-disclosure’, the public gains access to information
held by institutions whilst keeping its rights to privacy and secrecy. Its
power relative to these institutions thereby increases.[ii]
In a second, related conception –
‘transparency-as-information’ – information is shared between formally
equal actors, facilitating the efficient or stable operation of the system in
which they interact. This conception is apparent in rationalist accounts of the
states system or economics.[iii] These first two conceptions are unified by a
common assumption that knowledge can be understood in terms of the transmission
of information. A third conception – transparency-as-publicity – involves a
different epistemology and understanding of political interaction. In this
case, transparency involves participants’ mutual openness about reasons and
motivations in a continual process of rational communication.[iv]
Whilst it is much less intuitive than the other two conceptions, this
understanding is implicit in some cases of activism, for which the goal is less
access to data and more the creation of a more responsive and open form of
politics.
Can transparency live up to its transformative promise?
Regarding
the second question, there is reason for caution once transparency is viewed in
historical context. Transparency was once what, following Theodor Adorno, we might
term an ‘emphatic concept’ – it was not simply descriptive, but reflects the
desire for a revolutionary political change. In Bentham’s day, the ideal of
transparency confronted a form of politics – including international politics –
grounded in personalised power. Most individuals were simply not considered worthy
of knowledge concerning ‘matters of state’. The pursuit of transparency was therefore
the pursuit of revolutionary change.
The
persistent secrecy of international politics tends to distract from the fact
that it generally now occurs on a fundamentally different basis – between bureaucratic
states and institutions relying on the creation and circulation of vast amounts
of data. In theory, within states, all citizens are potentially recipients of
this information. In some spheres of activity – e.g. that of consumers in the
free market – universal access appears desirable. Even top secret data is
accessed by thousands of individuals with the appropriate qualifications and
clearance. In a context where channelling data to the right quarters is vital
to sub-systems of governance, it is less clear that transparency – at least
understood as information or disclosure – can fulfil the role of emphatic
concept. Rather than pointing to a new politics, it might reflect acceptance of
our pre-designated roles as items and recipients of data. This is apparent in the
international sphere, where transparency offers easy consolation in the absence
of more substantive forms of empowerment.
Of course,
transparency is useful in dealing
with specific problems involving corruption or oppression. However, in the
forms in which it is generally understood – transparency-as-disclosure and
transparency-as-information – its pursuit is unlikely to generate the
responsive, peaceful international politics with which it is often associated.
The best hope of reviving a more radical conception might lie in identifying those
dimensions of current calls which still play an emphatic role. It is here that
the concept of transparency-as-publicity identified above might be useful. This
understanding suggests that transparency does not simply involve access to data
but, more importantly, forms of political interaction which have yet to be
achieved.
[i] Bentham, J (1838-1843) ‘A Plan for an Universal and
Perpetual Peace’. In: Bowring J (ed) The
Works of Jeremy Bentham Volume 2. Edinburgh: William Tait, 546-556; Kant, I
(1970a) ‘Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch’. In: Reiss, H (ed) Kant’s Political Writings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 93-130.
[ii] Buchanan, A and Keohane, RO (2006) ‘The Legitimacy of
Global Governance Institutions’. Ethics
& International Affairs, 20(4): 405-37.
[iii] Fearon, JD (1995) ‘Rationalist Explanations for War’.
International Organization, 49(3):
379-414; International Monetary Fund (2012)
“Fiscal Transparency, Accountability, and
Risk.” http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2012/080712.pdf
[iv] Linklater, A (1998) The Transformation of Political Community. Cambridge: Polity.
No comments:
Post a Comment