Help
Sign In
bae systems
August 2007 
On The Limits of Transparency
Posted on Jul 1st, 2007
by 
TimP
TimP
If I have a political philosophy, it is one of radical democracy, popular accountability and a moderate consensual socialism. Part of that mix is transparency - that things done are generally done openly. But what are the limits to the right to know and the duty to tell.
I am not impressed by the Kantian philosophy of rights and duties. It is arrogantly assumed by many on the centre-left that, to be 'one of us', you have to be a Kantian or a Rawlsian (since Marxism got ditched unceremoniously over a decade ago). Nonsense! The whole Enlightenment approach has always struck me as an after-the-fact attempt to rationalise what should not need to be rationalised - but even an existentialist like me has to draw some boundaries or else accept the label of nihilist.
The classic-contemporary formulation of liberal demands in this area is that of Vaclav Havel - that we 'live in truth'. But the ideology of truth is like the ideology of faith or of beauty, the privileging of just one virtue' over many others. Life is always more complicated than that. Somewhere along the line, there has to be judgement, an existential judgement, about what is best in any situation. Rigid assessments of rights and duties and the politics of the absolute generally result in bad decisions, wrong paths taken and perhaps (in politics) bodies laid out in neat rows by the side of the street.
I looked at transparency in the very particular area of 'net sexuality' in my posting on May 26th [Sexual Honesty and Web 2.0]. Similarly, I take it as axiomatic that a liberal society is based on law. Both legal considerations and the trust required in trade require that rules on commercial disclosure and confidentiality are accepted as necessary and equally binding.
On the other hand, baring one's soul in public because of some petty crisis is generally boring unless there is a narrative that interests or it is part of the deal between a group of like-minded people: too much emotion, expressed in bad poetry and cliche, may be cheaper than hiring a psychotherapist but few people out there will get to the end of the posting.
On four occasions this week, I have come up against case studies on responsibility in the matter of accountability. They have all reinforced the importance of private judgement in the areas of personal development, intellectual freedom, commerce and public policy. Each reminds me that life is a case-by-case matter operating within a general moral framework and is not an exercise in legalism or about allegiance to moral absolutes.
The Experiment
It will not be difficult to deduce from my postings that I am interested in inner space more than outer space and that I have an open mind about what the mind is and what it is capable of. I experiment (with a critical eye) in issues of faith, of virtual reality and of magic. This is just my way.
One area of new interest is 'lucid dreaming'. I have in mind a 'thought experiment' involving dreams and virtual reality that depends on those involved being aware of the experiment but not of the actual persons involved in the experiment. The likelihood of success is minimal. The project probably marginally insane. The whole matter is a shared lie to investigate the truth. When it is over, the truth may or may not emerge but the lies will remain. The nature of the lies, though, is no lie and that is a first boundary - that, like the practice of commerce, experiments in relationships should be based on the expectation that the rules exist on the assumption that there must be lies for the system to work.
This, in itself, is worrying to the liberal imagination but, just as half-truths are necessary in politics and business for both to function, so are half-truths in human relationships. It is not the lie that is the problem, it is the motivation behind the lie and the purpose of the project in which the lie takes place. This is part of the lesson behind Esther Perel's book referred to on April 15th [Better Than Sex - Good Works].
Back to Terror
I wrote on terror and insurgency last week [Jean-Paul Sartre & Insurgency] but it was historic and general comment. In the last few days, we have had two near-misses in London and one strike at Glasgow airport by car bombers. My profession as political analyst involves providing reports to clients on events like this to assess various forms of risk and make general predictions. Needless to say, alongside notes on the Blair-Brown transition, the implications of the car bombing was written up and circulated to a smalll group of people who would see the context of what I wrote.
But my analysis also included details of the ideology behind much contemporary terrorist thinking and this ideology contains the seeds of its own transmission in its own description. To describe that ideology on the internet (though it is freely available elsewhere on the web) would be to do what the theorists of contemporary terror want - to give the ideas critical mass through repetition. Since I strongly disapprove of social censorship because its net effects are far worse than any benefit, I made the judgement that I would self-censor - that is, to restrict the description of the ideology to educated persons with a background knowledge of the issues.
This is another boundary. Expert knowledge taken out of context can be dangerous (another example might be the healthcare panics caused by snippets of medical research). It is reasonable to enter it into society through intermediaries who must take responsibility for ensuring context at the next stage. A self-denying ordinance on some facts and theory is not censorship. It is the equivalent in society of not blurting out a statement that hurts feelings and creates resentment but waiting until the quiet moment to tell a truth that may still hurt but which then changes behaviour. You might say that it is etiquette and is something that would be understood by readers of Jane Austen.
The Deal
The third was a pure case of commercial confidentiality - a potentially exciting development involving multiple actors who are all having to act on trust. Choosing what may be said and what may not be said involves no lies but it certainly involves half-truths and things not said that must be said later - but that is the very heart of commercial and political negotiation and the very reason for the injunction 'caveat emptor'.
Sensitive souls, especially those for whom Truth is an absolute value, hate this sort of thing. It is why academics and intellectuals so often make bad businessmen and worse politicians. But it has to be admitted that, as a game between equal players that is played within rules, it is enormous fun. These games are at the heart of innovation in business and of adaptability in politics.
The moral dimension kicks in when excessive inequality or monopoly skew the game entirely in favour of the rich, the powerful or the psychopathic. Even a degree of inequality within the game is useful in educating participants in the arts of negotiation. This is only another argument for personal judgement being given greater authority within shared general principles rather than for the ever-expanding extension of rules into every part of the game of life. Less prescriptive law certainly means more risk and pain but it also means more personal development, flexibility and innovation and a lot more fun.
Public Policy
This leads to a case that is irritating the British establishment a great deal but contains another lesson in the boundaries of transparency. There is a long and complicated dispute on 'corruption' which has crystallised into a direct clash between the US Department of Justice and the sovereign rights of the United Kingdom and, indeed, of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. There is no point in going into the detail - clients have received no less than four briefing notes on the matter in the last three weeks. The ultimate issue of principle is whether a US Department of State has the right to demand of a company domiciled overseas but trading in the US not merely to abide by US regulation in the US but in its dealings outside the US. Can a US Department of State demand that documents related to a 'deal' between free sovereign nations (basically, state secrets) be forced into the open to meet US legal requirements?
When non-Americans talk about US imperialism, they do not only mean the usual Left-wing stuff about oil and markets and airbases, they also mean the attempt by over-eager American regulators to impose the US' legal and moral standards across the world in a way that we all know is designed to create or restore competitive advantage to US business. This drive for material advantage is generally cloaked in the sort of moral progressive language that trips so easily off the tongue of any East Coast Democrat and grates on many European nerves. The current struggle in this particular case, set alongside new extradition treaties, information sharing in the 'war on terror' and so many other examples of extraterritoriality, is a direct and deliberate assault in the name of liberal values (but actually for national advantage) on another set of values - that of national sovereign rights.
The transparency issue is whether the United Kingdom should be forced to reveal details of a deal struck many years ago entered into (rightly or wrongly) on the basis of commercial confidentiality. This brings up a discussion of more boundaries - those of retrospectivity and of domain. If a deal was legal at the time and undertaken on certain understandings, it should be respected on those terms. If it was concluded between two sovereign parties, it is for one of those parties to breach the agreement and then take the consequences in law and not for a third party to force them to do so - unless we all now agree that the original sovereign parties are no longer sovereign! Some of us Brits will not take kindly to our Government conceding still more after the final removal of the latest Washington puppet.
But the public policy issue is more profound than this. If reform in any country is forced through by third parties from outside - whether by regulation or armed force (which appears to be the current American way) - then resistance will build. The process neuters the moral authority of domestic liberal reformers. It places idealistic legalism and rule by moral absolutes without any existential base ahead of the political struggle for reform within countries and well ahead of representative sovereign democracy. It makes allies into dependents. It moves radical thinking away from indigenous reform into strategies of national independence. Above all, it disgraces local elites - whether Blair or Karzai, such men are increasingly seen as puppets by their own people. One of them has already fallen from power.
Concluding Thoughts
So, in all these areas,information cannot simply be presented as Truth which we all have a right to access willy-nilly. Some information (in the personal development and commercial cases) must remain mysterious or there is no game to play and without the game, life is no longer worth living. Some information, taken out of context, can be destructive because it is foolish to assume that all men and women are equal when it comes to assessing the meaning or value of information.
And some information is none of your business - it comes from matters entered into in good faith with someone else. In these cases, you will be interfering in my freedom to meet some end that you have dictated as universal but which is only that of some interest group that nobbled the rulemakers before I could get to them.
Access: Public
This is a most pertinent debate, Tim, as to the limits of Transparency and I did give a lot of thought to this particular case or a good example of it which unfolded in our TV screens over the most recent weeks. So, I am contributing my own personal views on this to your blog - surely they are controversial! The point appears to me to be that we run in a society and within the world place societies, which are run by well organised structures; these can be rigid, or fluid in their organisational management, they can even incorporate fast paced change, but by their very nature and for their ability to ensure continuity, a certain amount of rigidity as to structure, systems and methodologies remains as the easiest and most cost effective - also HR management effective - way to run. Some of these structures and methods employed immediately imply a lack of transparency (I am aware I am oversimplifying and talking on a single-dimensional level only, but this could of course be taken further and across many levels). The point is, do we really live in the ‘perfect' world where we can all live in dwellings or work in organisations and government departments with crystal clear walls so every one of our actions is 100% transparent and ‘accountable'? In a ‘perfect' world yes, and I also personally believe it is right to endeavour to use of personal and corporate social responsibility and to ever incorporate such principles in both organisational structure, system design and metholodogies employed. Yet, as we live in a ‘less than perfect' world and that is the bare reality of it, one often has to find the best way - though I am aware this ‘best way' could be open to debate - to run our businesses. All I know personally, is that whilst attempting to exercise a responsible role, both on a personal and social level, this is not always practical in that it would not, at times, achieve the purpose required. The degree of transparency is sometimes easier to implement on a personal level or within small social or corporate groups. When dealing with larger, cross-border organisations, multi-level organisational structures and building a more complex picture, than these principles become more difficult to put into practice. So, without going into the morality of it, which I am sure would also be debatable, which is the best solution to these dilemmas? I am sure that the half-truths you mention are not a new discovery and they have been going on for as long as we have organised ourselves into societies, organisations, governments and corporations, etc. The essence, I feel, is that you opened a very good debate which will remain a debate as no real answers are necessarily appropriate as solution models.
I was a little bit surprise with recent focus on a particular case on the news recently. Being originally from a Southern European country, I am used to our ways there actually knowing about such deals and although there may be critical comments in the press and expressed in individual discussions, there is an underlying understanding that half-truths and large commissions do go on, so non of this is such a closed door secret as it is in Britain. Is this ethical? With greater awareness of our personal and social responsibilities and our presence on the planet Earth as its inhabitants, it is important, I feel to develop the awareness both by part of the individuals, the corporations and the governments or other groups involved, that there really is a connectedeness that binds us all and it is a good policy to find the most positive practices to develop greater levels of equanimity and sustainability - for the one and for all. I personally think that there is such great wealth in the world, that whole populations could benefit more of this economic power and that families and corporations holding the reins of such vast amounts of wealth should be encouraged and counselled to contribute to enterprises toward decreasing world poverty and disempowerment caused by lack of access to wealth by the many. This is part of the work that I am involved in in CSR and sustainability and I personally feel strongly about it, but not in a rigid way, I believe that as you say, forcing anything causes resistance and so, our best efforts I think are best guided in guiding and working with others on finding the best solutions, together, with a positive input and effort by all parties concerned.
I am interested in what you said about the ‘motivation'. I wondered what the motivation really was for the particular case I am thinking about to come so forcefully onto the news, especially as the case is surely by no means unique or rare, but many others must surely go on presently even as I write. I question the motivation behind the focus on a past case and the meaningfulness of diverting our efforts and resources back, if any action is meaningful, then it should be focusing more on what is happening right under our noses.
There are other aspects on transparency and accountability that I have thought about recently, especially as they refer to off-shoring (capital, rather than systems and human resources). I am not even going to talk about this one, but quick-spin and fast cash measures may serve the interests of politicians, though not serving the long interests of the nation as a whole, as capital holders ‘who matter' have the ability to go elsewhere - and there are plenty of thriving markets elsewhere and others will rise as a result of these measures. But I also feel that there are more sustainable economic bargaining tools we could have used to provide more sustained transparency and accountability.
I am sure many will feel like burning at the stake for what I have just mentioned, but then it would not be the first time…
Thank you. I think you make some good points there. My more implicit message was that, indeed, the motives for particular forms of CSR and regulation are far from pure and largely designed for special interest and political advantage - and that there are better ways of doing these things that are based on a realistic assessment of the public interest (globally) and differing levels of national economic development. The current moralising surrounding corruption is a classic 'false flag' operation and should be treated with caution. But then I am a hyper-realist in these matters …
The problem is that the market and unequal power relations run not only on unequal resourcing, including intelligence, when players enter the game at birth, but on unequal subsequent access to information throughout life. Of course I am old-fashioned enough to believe that you best deal with this through redistribution, welfare and improved educational opportunity (essentially moderate socialism) but, for liberals or progressives who try to square liberty with fairness but not equality and cannot get their heads around these ideas, all this may be a bridge too far in terms of collectivism. They try to impose equal information, ostensibly to take power from the few to, they believe, the many.
In fact, because of other inequalities, all they do, in practice, is transfer power from the traditionally based few to the rising new class of few - in short, from those using old technologies to those using new technologies. Of course, to progressives, this is 'modernisation' and is a good in itself and it may promote some degree of innovation. But it also entrenches the next generation of the few and it creates a new elite that is expert at the regulatory structures which then keep out the next generation of innovators following behind. In other words, like Soviet planners reborn, we have a nouveau-apparatchiki (to mix languages) at $2,000 per hour.
The construction of rules designed to remove one set of alleged abuses thus merely entrenches a new elite with effective command over the manipulation of rules designed largely for their benefit. And so the gangster-innovator is displaced by the lawyer and accountant, whose cost of service means that only those with pre-existing resources of capital can play the game.
By a paradox, this alleged transformational liberation of the enterprising individual able to work on a level playing playing field turns out to be quite the opposite - much as the Soviets promised to liberate the working class and ended up enslaving them. Just as organised workers in the West came to be the doughtiest fighters against communism so, in the end, the pauperised middle classes are going to become the toughest critics of late-capitalism (when they wake up to what is happening).
Under top-down regulatory capitalism, innovation begins to get strangled at birth because innovators cease to have the initial capital base to cover the increasing 'costs of compliance' with standards imposed by the articulate liberal whose class interest as academic, activist, lawyer and professional is often hidden, even to themselves. There is little animal more self-deluding (other than the communist) than the progressive liberal.
But there are two other factors of concern - the first is that much regulation is about minimising risk and risk is essential to innovation and social change, and the second is that a culture of transparency results in the worst side of collectivism - cultural sclerosis - emerging by the back door.
Instead of law being imposed by representative democracy and all of us sharing in its demand for compliance after a reasonable period of political struggle, the new regulation creates a broader-based culture in which the state uses intermediaries to police us. The resulting cultural conformity has the odd effect of splitting us into two classes - those that must conform to survive and those excluded and so with no incentive to conform. If anything explains the bifurcation of our society into a regulated frightened conformist bourgeoisie on one hand and a feral marginalised resentful mass, nationally and globally, it is this culture of regulation by those who are comfortable in the leather chairs of the Reform Club or in Manhattan First District.
In the long run, this becomes a parody of the Soviet system, with the conformist Party (the regulatory middle classes) dictating cultural norms within their own sphere. The tensions that will sweep them away start to grow and grow while they go into denial. This is similar to the 'denial' that allowed a terror resistance to emerge because we could not give up our imperialistic exploitation of non-Western resources. Periodically, the 'Party' will try repression, putting a celebrity on trial or declaring a war on terror, but in the end it gives up, becomes sclerotic and it gets swept away. It is just a matter of time.
The answer (to deal with your substantive point) is surely to have a framework of values and standards [the classic 'principles-based approach' of the British establishment and most non-Western societies] but with room for the use of judgement and discretion. Similarly, an emphasis on accountability [an American virtue] rather than transparency and on checks and balances within institutions rather than a culture of absolute open-ness would help construct an innovative, liberal AND relatively egalitarian society. As things stand, we get token transparency, sclerosis, widening wealth disparities and bad things moved sideways to fester instead of faced head-on.