The Resolution

After careful review of the four blog posts and resources, I have reached my conclusion regarding government transparency. I remain in full support of government opacity. This decision does not mean that I am for a government that keeps everything secret. The research I have done shows that the solid evidence clearly indicates the US government and the public are not ready for transparency. The public frequently would misinterpret the information, or become disenchanted with our current governmental situation. If transparency leads to an overthrow of the US government, then clearly it is not in the best interest of national security to allow transparency. Furthermore, the government is not prepared to fully expose itself. There are many clerical errors that occur that could send the public into a state of chaos.

Government transparency sounds great on paper or in passing, but I did not end up siding with the pro side of this argument simply because there is no solid evidence of government transparency being relatively successful. China is attempting to get there (and making an admirable effort), but there is no way of knowing how the public will react to the information they are now able to find. Although it was not brought up on this blog, the events that transpired due to the Wikileaks scandal was a small glimpse into how the public would take this newfound transparency. Basically, we are not ready to process that sort of information correctly. Until the context of every slice of information in the government is given and understood, I cannot advocate transparency.

Why Is Demanding More a Bad Thing? - Pro

Intelligence vs. Cost

In “Why Transparency Is Good (or Bad) For a Government?”, Pulidini argues for an open government. First, she states that transparency will expedite the passing of new legislature. Next, she contends that transparency can lead to better informed constituencies. Finally, she argues that it can improve relationships between the government and its citizens. Although Pulidini does acknowledge the inevitable financial cost of government transparency, she proves that the positives heavily outweigh the negatives.

Pulidindi, Julia. "Why Transparency Is Good (or Bad) For a Government?" CitiesSpeak. 17 
                  May 2010. Web. 08 Mar. 2012. <http://citiesspeak.org/2010/05/17/why-
                  transparency-is-good-or-bad-for-governments/>.

Pulidini’s arguments are valid ones. Many government officials are concerned that an increase in transparency will lead to the public demanding more information. But why is that inherently a bad thing? Why is it wrong for the public to want to know what is going on? When the public  is well informed about future decisions, it will be more qualified come voting season to make the proper choice. In addition, the citizens of the United States will learn to trust their government and improve communication when the street goes both ways. An effective government should trust its people if said government wants people to trust in it. With an increase in transparency, it is likely that we will quickly see an improvement in communication and trust between the people of the nation and their government.

How FOIA Backfired - Con

            In "Why Some Ministers and Officials Think Freedom of Information Was a Mistake", Andrew Sparrow pulls quotes from various government officials to prove that the Freedom of Information Act was a grave mistake on behalf of government transparency. First, he claims that the new transparency policies will lead to the public abusing the power. Next, he states that many officials were disappointed by the anticlimactic outcome of the new transparency. Finally, he argues that the public can not make use of the information without the personal knowledge government officials have.


Sparrow, Andrew. "Why Some Ministers and Officials Think Freedom of Information 
                 Was a Mistake." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 22 June 0056. 
                 Web. 23 Feb. 2012 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/jun/   
                  24/freedom-of-information>.


As reference, please watch this short video with Obama speaking about FOIA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72g7qmeP1dE

In his article, quotes from different officials prove the inherent downsides to government transparency. Even if the government fulfills the promise of total transparency, the public may be harmed in the process. The laypeople of America may want access to every nook and cranny of the complex American government, but it has been proven that it just exists as a window of opportunity to attack the government. These flaws may not be good for the government, but when every crack is exposed to the public, they could lose faith in the government and stop supporting it, leading to anarchy. Although it would be nice to be able to know everything about our government, it's been shown that the public is not prepared to handle the overload of information and that transparency would cause more harm than good.

Transparency Leads to Necessary Improvement - Pro

In “China Paper Says Government Must Meet Public Demand for ‘Openness’”, Renmin Ribao asserts that, in Beijing, transparency could potentially be very good for their government. First, he states that the government is improving by responding to the public’s need for transparency. Next, he acknowledges that, if used properly, it can be very beneficial. Finally, he sheds light on the possibilities that could occur when transparency is incorrectly applied.

Ribao, Renmin. "China paper says government must meet public demand for 'openness'."
           BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific20 08 2011. n.pag. Web. 8 Feb 2011 
           <http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/scholastic/>.

Although China does not operate under the same paradigm as the US government, the principles Ribao describes are fundamentally applicable to the United States Government. Ribao thoroughly fleshes out all the different sorts of loopholes that a government may create to counteract total transparency. Nevertheless, when executed correctly, transparency not only informs the tax-paying public about the location of their funds, but it also leads to improvement. If the people are well-informed about their home-land, they will know how to fix the problems, not just mask the symptoms, so to speak. Case in point: transparency leads to necessary governmental and societal reform.


Check out this video that details exactly how government transparency is currently being applied in China:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USGHM52L6As

Con: Transparency Is Not Necessarily Wise

In “In Praise of Opacity”, Marc DeGirolami analyzes and refutes the assumption that transparency is inherently a good thing. First, he denies the connection between virtue and honesty in a government setting. Next, he outlines the difference between governmental and personal transparency. Finally, he discusses what is truly required of a wise government, and why total transparency is completely unnecessary. 

DeGirolami, Marc. "In Praise of Opacity." PrawfsBlawg. May 7, 2010 Friday 11:19 AM EST   
          1058 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2012/02/09.

This article is the best starting off point for this blog process. If I am to best analyze the controversial topic of governmental transparency, I must first define the subject from both sides of the issue. This article shines a spotlight on how transparency has become synonymous with virtue. And how incorrect it truly is. Transparency of the government may not be in the best interest of the public. I think that it is plausible to think that the public people might become skeptical and critical of the government as a result. It should be noted, though, that it does underestimate the filter of the masses. Perhaps full governmental disclosure will cause the public to become knowledgable about legislature and war news. Perhaps that disclosure will cause the public to withdraw support from the government and descend into chaos. That said, I believe that full transparency will not solve all problems within the government (as it would be increasingly easier to take things out of context), but it could very well reduce the cynical views of the United States government.

http://www.indiatalkies.com/2011/08/china-issues-judicial-rule-government-transparency.html

In the Beginning...

My interest in censorship began with last year’s debate resolution regarding the legality of Wikileaks. After a month of arguing the pros and cons of total governmental transparency, I felt qualified to make my decision regarding my feelings on the matter. But, as we all know, the world is forever changing (as is the law). By choosing this topic, I will have the opportunity to re-research the controversial topic: where is the line? What do we, as citizens of the United States, deserve to know? And when is it okay to leave the people in the dark?