Open government: Difference between revisions
m Correcting spelling: openess->openness |
|||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
'''Groups Advocating Public Engagement and Transparency''' |
'''Groups Advocating Public Engagement and Transparency''' |
||
* [http://www.samadamsalliance.org The Sam Adams Alliance] |
* [http://www.samadamsalliance.org The Sam Adams Alliance] |
||
* [http://wikifoia.org WikiFOIA] a wiki dedicating to using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to increase |
* [http://wikifoia.org WikiFOIA] a wiki dedicating to using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to increase openness in government. |
||
==References== |
==References== |
||
Revision as of 20:39, 21 August 2007
 |
Open government is the political doctrine which holds that the business of government and state administration should be opened at all levels to effective public scrutiny and oversight. In its broadest construction it opposes reason of state and national security considerations, which have tended to legitimize extensive state secrecy. The origins of open government arguments can be dated to the time of the European Enlightenment: to debates about the proper construction of a then nascent civil society.
History
Open government is widely seen to be a key hallmark of contemporary democratic practice and is often linked to the passing of freedom of information legislation. After the USA pased its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 1966, FOIAs or Access to Information Acts (AIA) have proliferated rapidly with Denmark and Norway passing equivalent laws in 1970, France and Holland in 1978, Australia, Canada and New Zealand in 1982, Hungary in 1992, Ireland and Thailand in 1997, South Korea in 1998, the United Kingdom in 2000, Japan and Mexico in 2002 and Germany in 2005.[1]
Scandinavian countries, however, have a claim to have adopted this agenda even before the USA passed its 1966 FOIA: Sweden dating the origins of its modern provisions to the eighteenth century and Finland continuing the presumption of openness after gaining independence in 1917, passing its Act on Publicity of Official Documents in 1951 (superseded by new legislation in 1999).[2]
In the West, the idea that government should be open to public scrutiny and susceptible to public opinion dates at least to the time of the Enlightenment when many philosophes made an attack on absolutist doctrine of state secrecy a core part of their intellectual project.[3][4] The passage of formal legislative instruments to this end can also be traced to this time with Sweden, for example, (which then included Finland as a Swedish-governed territory) enacting free press legislation as part of its constitution (Freedom of the Press Act, 1766).][5] This approach, and that of the philosophes more broadly, is strongly related to recent historiography on the eighteenth-century public sphere.
Accordingly, influenced by Enlightenment thought, the revolutions in America (1776) and France (1789), freedom of the press enshrined provisions and requirements for public budgetary accounting and freedom of the press in constitutional articles. In the nineteenth century, attempts by Metternichean statesmen to row back on these measures were vigorously opposed by a number of eminent liberal politicians and writers, Bentham, Mill and Acton prominent among the last.
Content
The contemporary doctrine of open government finds its strongest advocates in those non-governmental organisations keen to counter what they see as the inherent tendency of government to lapse, whenever possible, into secrecy. Prominent among these NGOs are bodies like Transparency International or the Open Society Institute. They advocate the implementation of norms of openness and transparency across the globe and argue that such standards are vital to the ongoing prosperity and development of democratic societies.
Advocates of open government often argue that civil society, rather than government legislation, offers the best route to more transparent administration. They point to the role of whistleblowers reporting from inside the government bureaucracy (individuals like Daniel Ellsberg or Paul van Buitenen). They argue that an independent and inquiring press (be it printed or electronic) is often a stronger guarantor of transparency than legislative checks and balances.[6][7]
A relatively new vision for the implementation of open government is coming from the municipal sector. In a similar fashion to grassroots movement, open government technology expert Tobias SK Cichon postulates[4] that the swarming pressure of small local governments implementing technological open government solutions will lead to similar adoptions by larger municipalities and eventually state, provincial and federal level changes.
Debate
Debate remains about the proper scope of any openness doctrine. Should openness laws override considerations of personal privacy or national security? To what extent can politicians be trusted to police the implementation of such legislation? How can the public ever be sure that any disclosure has been full and frank?
See also
External Links
Groups Advocating Public Engagement and Transparency
- The Sam Adams Alliance
- WikiFOIA a wiki dedicating to using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to increase openness in government.
References
- ^ Alasdair Roberts, Blacked Out: Government Secrecy in the Information Age (Cambridge, 2006)
- ^ [1]
- ^ Jurgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962, trans., Cambridge Massachusetts, 1989)
- ^ Reinhart Koselleck, Critique and Crisis (1965, trans., Cambridge Massachusetts, 1988)
- ^ [2][3]
- ^ J. Michael, The Politics of Secrecy: Confidential Government and the Public's Right to Know (London, 1990)
- ^ A.G. Theoharis, ed., A Culture of Secrecy: the Government Versus the People's Right to Know (Kansas, 1998)