Secrecy and Democratic Decisions - Essay Example

Transparency in a democracy is the foundation of accountability. Democracy dictates that the people are the ones in power and the government is merely their representative. Thus, the government and its official, acting in representation of the people puts into action the will of the people. In this framework, secrecy should not play as a factor that detaches the government from the population. But there are some aspects that cannot be made readily available to the public especially for policy and security reasons. “While openness in government is considered essential to democratic operations and deliberations, secrecy can protect Americans from security threats, privacy invasion, and economic harm” (Ginsberg et al. 2). The government stands in a balancing act to ensure that transparency exists without prejudicing foreign relations and national security. People are not irrational and admissible secrecy is reasonably acceptable. However, it is the abuses committed by government executives that justify the emergence of whistleblowers who have information that reveal the gravity and extent that they violate public trust. WikiLeaks has become in recent years the leading authority in massive revelations of government secrets. Julian Assange, its founder, has become a known worldwide figure who appeared on TIME magazine’s cover back in 2011 (Zifcak 123). The website allows and encourages whistleblowers from all around the world to send secret files without fearing that their identity could be revealed. It is an internet phenomenon whose popularity and infamy could be traced to the ‘Apache video‘ which showed a United States helicopter opening fire to a group of civilians. The incident killed two journalists and injured two children. What made matters worse was the radio transmission which revealed that the crew inside the helicopter seemed indifferent that children had been shot. Shortly thereafter, WikiLeaks was at it again when they released voluminous documents that revealed top secret US foreign and military actions. The documents show communications from hundreds of embassies which contains, among others, that certain Arab leaders called for an attack on Iran and a direction on US officers to spy on United Nations including Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. The Afghan and Iraqi war logs also exposed the true numbers of mortality in the War on Terror, showing the vast discrepancy of actual figures and those released to the media. The US government was indignant, saying that this would devastate the country’s foreign policy including its relations with its close allies (Zifcak 125-127). Diplomats now have the nagging fear that their private communications may find its way to the internet. This requires the need to be cautious in their correspondences which could hamper their candidness. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remarks that WikiLeaks is an attack on U.S. foreign policy and the international community as a whole. It affects the alliances forged with other countries including their consultations to the point that global security and economic attainments are encroached upon (Ginsberg et al. 7). This debate both has pros and cons where the interests of the people are the real items at stake. On the one hand is the concern of the government which is tasked with the delicate and difficult position of ensuring that foreign relations are kept in check. While on the other is the right of the people to information and the basis of the decisions of the government which ultimately affects them. In this debate, Mark Chinen in his article Secrecy and Democratic Decisions discusses protective democracy. Democracy and secrecy has a certain level of connection where the question remains on the moral obligation of the people to follow the rule of law and adhere to the decisions of their government officials. “Secrecy is useful to a society, but it also seems to threaten that very legitimacy” (Chinen 3). The argument for protective secrecy argues that though it is useful in a democracy, there must be assent as to what information can be withheld and what should be made public. This, in a sense, has some level of coercion but it also comes with the notion that the executive department is given decision-making powers delegated by the people. The elected officials serve as the agents for the welfare of their constituents. The problems come not because information is withheld but on what are those facts being withheld and how information is obstructed deliberately. For example, in the invasion of Iraq following the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration justified the war by giving two reasons. First, Saddam Hussein is a grave threat to the United States and the world because they are manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. Second, he harbors terrorists and support their activities. Hussein has been caught and killed following years of hiding but the turmoil in Iraq and its transition to democracy continues. Further, none of the assertions made to justify the attack were found to be true. This untruthfulness gives rise to a dilemma where the people will feel deceived by their own government and rightfully so (Chinen 6-7). These policies damage the legitimacy of a government whom the people have trusted with their votes. It follows that to be able to take part actively in a democratic society, citizens must necessarily be aware of the facts on the basis of which governmental decisions are made, of the competing arguments relevant to the adoption of these decisions, and of the reasons proposed as their justification. Policy considerations should be made explicit. They should be open to inspection and criticism. (Zifcak 130). This openness is the driving force of transparency that is an important principle of a democracy. The ability of any citizen to question the decisions of the government is the key feature of democracy which distinguishes it from other forms of government. Certain systems of transparency ensure that the public have access to information. The government should also be contained and this can be achieved through the active participation of an informed citizenry. In this regard, freedom of information is important since it exposes the abuses that can come with power through publicity. This significantly enables alleviating corruption and ensuring that those who commit them are brought to justice. But there is also a need for some policies to have an air of confidentiality for its effective implementation. A balance should be reached which embraces four concepts according to Zifcak. First, openness; second, justifiable secrecy; third, secrecy for “personal dignity, autonomy and safety”; and fourth, confidentiality measures (130-132). There are three mechanisms for citizens under the democratic theory to ensure oversight. These are election, the availability of public deliberation and public opinion (Sagar 405). In the alternative, On Combating the Abuse of State Secrecy proposes transparency as the first alternative, mediation as the second, and retrospection as the third. Transparency, as similarly discussed earlier, is achieved when the tenets of the freedom of information is available to the people in general. Mediation is a mechanism of the first alternative through overseers but this can be open to bias. Finally, retrospection is accountability as enforced when an offense has been committed and can eliminate the bias of mediation. These mechanisms are not without their limitations but they offer a wider range to administer accountability (Sagar 407-414). Democracy has the inherent necessity to have government secrets which it cannot reveal publicly for its own protection and the effective enforcement of some government policies. This is indispensable but it can also be open to abuse. Historically, the Founding Fathers kept some records private of their meetings in Philadelphia prior to the release of the Constitution (Ginsberg et al. 6). It is not in the government’s secrecy itself that creates anxiety to the people and threatens democracy but the abuses committed when officials go over and beyond what is necessary. Information is a key in allowing the people to have access to the acts of government. Checks and balances is the main issue that concerns the public in terms of where their representatives direct the country. Evidently, it is in the officers’ expertise that the public entrusts them with decision-making. But this also comes with the inherent responsibility that though secrecy invariably exists, the matters for its ultimate goals must be justified. Officials, as representatives, must not overreach their functions to the detriment of the ones who are justly in power in a democracy, the people. Works Cited Chinen, Mark A. “Secrecy and Democratic Decisions.” Quinnipiac L. Rev. 27.1 (2009): 1---53. Web. 19 Nov. 2014. Ginsberg, Wendy. et al. “Government Transparency and Secrecy: An Examination of Meaning and Its Use in the Executive Branch.” Congressional Research Service (2012). Web. 19 Nov. 2014. Sagar, Rahul. “On Combating the Abuse of State Secrecy.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 15.4 (2007): 404---427. Web. 19 Nov. 2014. Zifcak, Spencer. “The Emergence of WikiLeaks: Openness, Secrecy and Democracy.” More or Less Democracy and New Media (2012): 123---143. Web. 19 Nov. 2014. Read More