Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Why Transparency Needs Deliberative Democracy

By Matt Leighninger - posted Tuesday, 1 February 2011

All over the world, governments are beginning to provide more information to citizens. To some critics, the pace of this transparency movement seems too slow, but it is a trend with significant momentum. Transparency advocates inside and outside government claim that making more information publicly available is an empowering act that will help rebuild trust between citizens and government. Increasingly, when people talk about public engagement and citizen participation, what they really mean is transparency.

The problem is that while transparency is one element of a productive citizen-government relationship, it is only part of the picture. And if it is not conducted as part of a more comprehensive set of participation initiatives or reforms, transparency may create new tensions and controversies, further erode citizen trust in government, and destroy the careers of many public managers.

The central problem in most democracies is not a lack of information. The main challenge is that citizen expectations and capacities have undergone a sea change in the last twenty years, and our public institutions have not yet adjusted to the shift. Because of rising levels of education, increased access to the Internet, and different attitudes toward authority, 21st Century citizens are better able to disrupt policymaking processes, and better able to find the information, allies, and resources they need to make an impact on issues they care about.


All over the world, we are experiencing the most immediate result of these changes: a small cadre of people – sometimes referred to as “expert citizens” or more derisively as “the usual suspects” – who regularly make themselves heard at public meetings and in the blogosphere. In case after case, on issues ranging from land use decisions to school closings to the use of vaccines, these active citizens are able to wield an outsized influence on public decisions. Public officials are constantly being surprised by the timing and ferocity of the challenges they receive, and constantly wondering whether the views of these active citizens are truly representative of the broader electorate.

For some time, smart and experienced local leaders have been dealing with these challenges, and trying to tap the new capacities of ordinary people, by organizing large-scale “deliberative democracy” initiatives. Typically, these projects involve large, diverse numbers of people (“going beyond the usual suspects” is a common phrase), and create environments where citizens compare notes on their experiences, learn more about the issues, and talk through what they think government should do. Some of these efforts also build in opportunities for action planning, so that citizens can decide how they want to contribute to solving public problems (in addition to making recommendations for government).

Transparency can enrich deliberative democracy, but not replace it. We need larger numbers of people to be involved in public discussions, and we need those people talking with each other, not just to government. Without initiatives and structures that will produce that sort of participation, transparency will simply give more information to journalists and active citizens who are trying to expose government misconduct and misjudgment, champion tax revolts and other anti-government measures, and oppose decisions and policies they don’t like.

It is of course beneficial to expose the errors and transgressions of public officials – there is truth to the favorite quote of transparency advocates, Louis Brandeis’ 1914 pronouncement that “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” But while transparency makes government cleaner, it won’t necessarily make it better. By itself, transparency doesn’t change the arms-length relationship between citizens and government: it just gives more ammunition to those who are inclined to throw stones.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

Matt Leighniner is participating in a Sydney Ideas forum at the University of Sydney on Thursday, February 3

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

1 post so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Matt Leighninger the Executive Director of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium in Washington?

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 1 comment
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy