Open government

Morocco's new constitution of 2011, outlined several goals the government wishes to achieve in order to guarantee the citizens right to information.[12] The world has been offering support to the government in order to enact these reforms through the Transparency and Accountability Development Policy Loan (DPL). This loan is part of a joint larger program between the European Union and the African Development Bank to offer financial and technical support to governments attempting to implement reforms.[13]

As of 2010, section 35 of Kenya's constitution ensures citizens' rights to government information. The article states "35.(1) Every citizen has the right of access to — (a) information held by the State; and (b) information held by another person and required for the exercise or protection of any right or fundamental freedom ... (3) The State shall publish and publicize any important information affecting the nation." Important government data is now freely available through the Kenya Open Data Initiative.[14]

Taiwan started its e-government program in 1998 and since then has had a series of laws and executive orders to enforce open government policies. The Freedom of Government Information Law of 2005, stated that all government information must be made public. Such information includes budgets, administrative plans, communication of government agencies, subsidies. Since then it released its open data platform, data.gov.tw. The Sunflower Movement of 2014, emphasized the value that Taiwanese citizens place on openness and transparency. A white paper published by the National Development Council with policy goals for 2020 explores ways to increase citizen participation and use open data for further government transparency.[15]

The Philippines passed the Freedom of Information Order in 2016, outlining guidelines to practice government transparency and full public disclosure.[16] In accordance with its General Appropriations Act of 2012, the Philippine government requires government agencies to display a "transparency seal" on their websites, which contains information about the agency's functions, annual reports, officials, budgets, and projects.[17]

The Right to Information (RTI) movement in India, created the RTI law in 2005 after environmental movements demanded the release of information regarding environmental deterioration due to industrialization.[18] Another catalyst for the RTI law and other similar laws in southeast Asia, may have been due to multilateral agencies offering aid and loans in exchange for more transparency or "democratic" policies.[19][20]

In October 2023 Iranian government publicly opposed measure "tritary branches of judiciary, executive, legislative transparency program" , the transparency law didn't pass after 9 months because judiciary and state didn't consent.[21][22] The government has the Iranfoia website for requests.[23]

In the Netherlands, large social unrest and the growing influence of televisions in the 1960s led to a push for more government openness. Access to information legislation was passed in 1980 and since then further emphasis has been placed on measuring the performance of government agencies.[24]

Transparency as a legal principle underpins European Union law, for example in regard to the quality of the drafting of legislation,[25] and as a principle to be exercised within government procurement procedures. European law academics argued in 2007 that a "new legal principle", transparency, might be emerging "in gestation" within EU law.[26]

The government of the Netherlands adopted an Open Government in Action (Open overheid in actie) Plan for 2016–2017, which outlines nine concrete commitments to the open government standards set by the OECD.[27]

Since 2018, in Wales, the Welsh Government has funded the training of Wikipedia skills in secondary schools, as part of the Welsh Baccalaureate and uses an open licence on all published videos and other content.

In 2009, President Obama released a memorandum on transparency and open government and started the Open Government Initiative. In his memorandum put forward his administration's goal to strengthen democracy through a transparent, participatory and collaborative government.[28] The initiative has goals of a transparent and collaborative government, in which to end secrecy in Washington, while improving effectiveness through increased communication between citizens and government officials.[29] Movements for government transparency in recent United States history started in the 1950s after World War II because federal departments and agencies had started limiting information availability as a reaction to global hostilities during the war and due to fear of Cold War spies. Agencies were given the right to deny access to information "for good cause found" or "in the public interest". These policies made it difficult for congressional committees to get access to records and documents, which then led to explorations of possible legislative solutions.[30]

Since the early 2000s, transparency has been an important part of Chile's Anti-Corruption and Probity Agenda and State Modernization Agenda. In 2008, Chile passed the Transparency Law has led to further open government reforms.[31] Chile published its open government action plan for 2016-18 as part of its membership of the Open Government Partnership (OGP).[32]

Transparency has been present in many frameworks. It holds importance in more modern discussions because of its presence in new public management.[33] For transparency to work, the idea goes beyond government involvement and must include public trust. Transparency in government has there main aspects. First, budgetary information must be viewable by the public. Second, there must be an effective way to make and enforce laws.[33] Last, non-government organizations and a form of independent media must be at the center for public use. [33] With transparency, there are also factors for data disclosure, such as timeliness, quality, and access and visibility.[34] Data disclosure is important for transparency because it increases public understanding of governmental practices and is the goal of open government. However, there are arguments for both sides of transparency that must be considered.

Transparency in government is often credited with generating government accountability, which supporters argue leads to reduction in government corruption, bribery and other malfeasance.[35] This is mentioned later and discussed as accountability with transparency. Some commentators contend that an open, transparent government allows for the dissemination of information, which in turn helps produce greater knowledge and societal progress.[35] Organizations supporting transparency policies such as the OECD and the Open Government Partnership claim that open government reforms can also lead to increased trust in government,[36][37] although there is mixed evidence to support these claims, with increased transparency sometimes leading to reduced trust in government.[38][39][40][41][42]

Public opinion can also be shifted when people have access to see the result of a certain policy. The United States government has at times forbid journalists to publish photographs of soldiers' coffins,[43] an apparent attempt to manage emotional reactions that might heighten public criticism of ongoing wars; nonetheless, many believe that emotionally charged images can be valuable information. Similarly, some opponents of the death penalty have argued that executions should be televised so the public can "see what is being done in their name and with their tax dollars."[44]

Government transparency is beneficial for efficient democracy, as information helps citizens form meaningful conclusions about upcoming legislation and vote for them in the next election.[45] According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, greater citizen participation in government is linked to government transparency.[46]

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, printed or electronic, is often a stronger guarantor of transparency than legislative checks and balances.[47][48]

The contemporary doctrine of open government finds its strongest advocates in non-governmental organizations 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 argue that standards of openness are vital to the ongoing prosperity and development of democratic societies.

Government indecision, poor performance and gridlock are among the risks of government transparency, according to some critics.[49] Political commentator David Frum wrote in 2014 that, "instead of yielding more accountability, however, these reforms [transparency reforms] have yielded more lobbying, more expense, more delay, and more indecision."[50] Jason Grumet argues that government officials cannot properly deliberate, collaborate and compromise when everything they are doing is being watched.[51] A randomized controlled trial conducted with 463 delegates of the National Assembly of Vietnam showed that increased transparency of the legislative proceedings, such as debates and query transcripts, curtailed delegates activity in the query sessions, avoiding taking part in activities that could embarrass leaders of the Vietnamese regime.[52]

Privacy is another concern. Citizens may incur "adverse consequences, retribution or negative repercussions"[1] from information provided by governments. Teresa Scassa, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, outlined three main possible privacy challenges in a 2014 article. First is the difficulty of balancing further transparency of government, while also protecting the privacy of personal information, or information about identifiable individuals that is in the hands of the government. Second is dealing with distinctions between data protection regulations between private and public sector actors because governments may access information collected by private companies which are not controlled by as stringent laws. Third is the release of "Big data", which may appear anonymized can be reconnected to specific individuals using sophisticated algorithms.[53]

Intelligence gathering, especially to identify violent threats (whether domestic or foreign), must often be done clandestinely. Frum wrote in 2014 that "the very same imperatives that drive states to collect information also require them to deny doing so. These denials matter even when they are not believed."[54]

Moral certitude undergirds much transparency advocacy, but a number of scholars question whether it is possible for us to have that certitude. They have also highlighted how transparency can support certain neoliberal imperatives.[55]

Accountability focuses on promoting transparency and allowing the public to understand the actions of their government.[56] Public officials are expected to share details about how public resources are used and what their objectives are.[34] Accountability in open government reduces corruption and increases transparency. However, it is important to note that there is transparency with and without accountability in open government. Transparency without accountability is often more difficult to monitor and there is less responsibility needed from the government. Transparency with accountability has proven to be more effective as a trustworthy relationship can be built between government agencies and people governed by them.[56] The argument with or without transparency was mentioned previously and highlights major issues such as losing governmental trust or privacy issues with accountability. Some governments have created portals in order to allow people to see critical data and improve accountability and transparency.[34] Not all data released on these portals is relevant and easily accessible meaning transparency is not always easily attainable. For example, Given the criteria for valuable information, governments should look for quality, completeness, timeliness, and usability when releasing important information that shows transparency and supports accountability.[34]