Discussions about the need for openness often presume that it is an objective in its own right. However, it is probably better to view it as a means to other ends. Transparency is not always desirable, and therefore does not have the status of an end in itself. In some cases, it may actually be harmful.
The casting of ballots is an example of transparency's harmfulness. The introduction of secret ballots in Australia, and then in other countries, was designed to ensure that voters could vote freely, and without pressure from their bosses. Secrecy was needed to promote the values of fairness and freedom of expression at the polling booth. The point of this illustration is that it shows that transparency is not desirable when it conflicts with more
basic objectives.
In many cases, transparency is desirable because it is a guard against corruption. It promotes accountability and trust in the electoral process. It also applies to donations to political parties and candidates, see also Desirability of Disclosure of Political Donations, Disclosure Regulations and Campaign Expenditure Disclosures.
Improper rewards to donors are much less likely if political contributions have to be declared to the authorities and published.
A controversial openness issue is the personal lives of politicians and their families. To what extent should their tastes, finances, and sexual proclivities be respected as private? See Freedom of Speech.
Draft Only
