Transparency. Accountability. Secrecy. Conspiracy.
The first two are the promises that political parties like to make during an election. The second two are the way that political parties tend to act when the election is over, in the eyes of many people.
This past week, fellow columnist Jack Knox wrote an op-ed about governments becoming increasingly more secretive. In an effort to control "the message" and manage "the spin", government officials at all levels are being told not to speak out in public; to not even talk to reporters without first vetting their comments through the ministries' public relations people.
Better yet, let the minister be the spokesperson. That way, whatever the news is, it will have the official government spin. Shortages in concrete? That is because of the booming economy created by the Olympics. Shortages in skilled labour? That is because of the booming economy created by the Olympics. Shortages of jobs? Well, the Olympics will take care of that.
This incessant need to control the media message is nothing new. It has been a historic battle throughout all of human history. You can just imagine some PR-flack for a Pharaoh pointing out that, "yes, a few lives have been lost during construction, but the pyramids are good for the economy!"
Allowing people to see their government in action or to read about the decisions that are made on their behalf is one of the most fundamental tenets of democracy. It is so important that it is enshrined into our constitutions. The American Bill of Rights includes provisions for a free and unfettered press. Government must not just be done but it must be seen to be done.
What caught my attention about Knox's column, though, wasn't the subject or the big picture so much as the timing. That same day, the news wires were buzzing with reports that comments made by Jim Judd, former head of CSIS, were part of "WikiLeaks" latest data dump.
The veil was being lifted. We were finally going to read transcripts of what was being said in the hallways of power. We were finally being offered true transparency and accountability.
Needless to say, the knee-jerk response by many politicians was to deny or condemn the actions of WikiLeaks. One Italian politician went so far as to describe it as a "diplomatic 9/11"! Sarah Palin, in her usual bumbling fashion, described the release of the cables as "treasonous" which is interesting in that the founder of WikiLeaks is not American.
But hyperbole aside, this sort of mass dumping of the "secrets of government" onto the web is exactly what a transparent, open, and accountable government should be encouraging. It allows the public to see what our elected and un-elected officials are doing. Sometimes it will also point out the foibles of our elected officials, but that can not be helped.
Indeed, the fact that what you say may wind up in print is why your mother always said "if you can't say anything nice, it is better to say nothing at all." She knew that someone, somewhere, might be listening and at some point, you might be held to account for what you have said. Words matter. They should be used with care.
As to Judd's actual comments, describing Canadians as "anti-American" is such a trite comment. Sophomoric even. I haven't met anyone that is truly "anti-American" - that is, opposed to the people or even the structure of the United States. It is the idealized "American" that we like to make fun of - the loud bore that is ignorant of anything that isn't contained in the lower 48. George Bush, for example.
Of slightly more concern is Judd's assertion that the courts are preventing CSIS from doing its job. What he is really saying is that CSIS can not operate within the rule of law. That it needs to employ techniques, such as entrapment, in order to ferret out possible terrorists. The notion that we need to break our own laws to catch terrorists is something that properly deserves a public debate.
Hopefully, that is what happens as a consequence of the WikiLeak documents - we, as a nation, have a debate about the extent to which we are willing to go in the pursuit of supposed safety. Far better to have the debate out in public than to have it behind closed doors where most of us would not be heard. Better to have the debate and come to a consensus than to allow a few bureaucrats to decide what is right and wrong. Especially as they will not be held to account.
Transparency is important for a functional democracy. Sure, there are times when secrecy might make sense but they should be the exception, not the rule.
