Our world today has been driven by a number of modern day’ desirables of an economic, political and social nature, amongst which have been globalisation, liberalisation, democratic practices and good governance. I want to reflect on one of the basic principles of good governance, and this is transparency. I will not explain the connections (or lack of it) between these trends and neither will I even attempt to dwell on the other principles of good governance or how they relate to transparency, except where that relationship is implied. In passing, the principles of good governance are participation; rule of law; effectiveness and efficiency; responsiveness; equity; accountability; consensus orientation; strategic vision; and transparency. As stated, I only wish to explore a few issues on transparency whilst not discounting any relationship that may exists between it and any of the other principles.
As a principle, transparency requires that governments must cultivate a legacy and acceptance of free flow of information that allows citizens to at least have the knowledge of the works, dealings and operations of the bureaucracy. This is in part premised on the understanding that the operations and work of government is funded and supported by the citizens ‘hard earned tax pulas and there is a necessity to always alley any public perceptions (real or imagined) about wastefulness or illegal spending of public funds. The public officials (elected and appointed) must operate in an open and transparent manner and allow free flow of information to appraise and update the citizens on government activities. Some of these requirements are provisions of legal and statutory provisions and become a functional necessity rather than optional or discretional judgements by public officials.
It is however common cause that the same laws and statutes sometimes exempt certain bureaus/agencies from actually operating transparently and instead conceal what would be “a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures” of these agencies’ operations. This would then act as the legal concealment of any possible detection or knowledge by the public that public funds could actually be used wastefully or illegally. This is made even more ‘un-transparent’ when budgets of such bureaus are secret and their accounting processes differ from the normal accounting routes expected of most public agencies. What is the import of this scenario and what recourse do citizens, acting individually and/or collectively, have in the event they suspect wastefulness or illegal dealings by these state bureaus?
The first concern is that when budgets or expenditures of any public bureaus are a secret, it means they are not accessible to citizens and therefore transparency is compromised, especially so because the public would never get an opportunity to prove perceived wastefulness or expenditure on illegal operations. Secondly, it is also implied that anytime public accounts contain concealed details of statements of receipts, expenditures, and balances of transactions, they are by all accounts “fraudulent documents’ especially if some of the concealed financial transactions were illegal and fraudulent (with or without public knowledge). That the public may or will never get to know the extent of wastefulness or illegality of these agencies’ operations does and should not make their financial statement any legal. Transparency then loses its meaning and intended good will if this situation obtains.
Ordinarily we can argue that citizens as individuals or the collective do have the legal right to pursue any such real or perceived lack of transparency in the courts of law, but this is not a guaranteed option for redress. The legal routes are always fraught with technicalities including whether citizens as individuals or the collective of some sort, firstly, have standing to bring matters of this nature to courts or whether their personal injury is only a generalised one (even if this is shared by thousands of others). This is a key issue of transparency because it then tends to relegate the interest of the citizens, as the sovereign, to that of these protected public bureaus. If as citizens we cannot ask the rudimentary questions about the statement of accounts of public expenditures, then we lose our sovereignty and empower public bureaus to act willy-nilly, even when they choose to waste public funds or use it on matters that maybe illegal. Put differently, one William Douglas once said, when this situation pertains…”The public cannot intelligently know how to exercise the franchise unless it has a basic knowledge concerning at least the generality of the accounts under every head of government …..”Its consequences are grave because it relegates to secrecy vast operations of government and keeps the public from knowing what secret plans ….” are in place concerning the nation or any other matter of a secret nature.
The argument is that open government is a prerequisite for democratic and good governance practices and most systems that lack a good measure of transparency are ultimately bound to fail.
It is therefore desirable that we continually assess the extent to which our bureaus are transparent and whether government cherishes the entrenched free flow of information to win and cultivate public confidence. This is critical because there is some truth in arguing that …” a popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. As the saying goes we must accept that transparency is a critical part of our today’s governance pursuits and, ‘knowledge will forever govern ignorance…” and it should be the pleasure of any government to lead an informed nation; are we any closer to one of Vision 2016’s pillars? As a nation how transparent have we being, are our public bureaus transparent enough to instil public confidence that they are not wasteful and are acting legally in their operations, at all times? Just like you, I am wondering……
