At present, we are on the brink of seeing the potential dissolution of British parliament due to the current expenses scandal and the initial reported actions of key MPs. Many in the UK believe that this might only be the tip of the iceberg and perhaps far deeper abuses of public trust have yet to be found. Whether or not this is true, one fact is that the expense scandals and indeed the depth and breadth of the scandal may not have occurred had the expenses been publicly available for scrutinisation by the people the MPs had decided to serve.

As we have seen one direct consequence of the expenses inquiry is that many MPs have been forced to resign and one wonders whether the misappropriation of tax payers’ funds would have occurred if there hadn’t been the temptation to collude and a more transparent view of their expenses had been on view.

Several years ago, Commissioner Siim Kallaas, responsible for administrative Affairs Audit and Anti-Fraud for the European Union launched the ‘European Transparency Initiative’ in order to avoid the exact situation we are now experiencing politically in the UK. The transparency initiative was initially for the internal workings of the EU however it is now affecting lobbying groups and corporations in Europe.

According to Louise Harvey, founding partner of FDBluePrint who lobby the EU on behalf of their clients, a lack of transparency in lobbying groups and which corporations they represent will have a direct impact on the reputation of the corporations themselves. In an interview with Security Vibes, Louise makes the comment,

“Transparency is generally seen to be a good thing and there is a general feeling that if you have something to hide then why do you have something to hide?  To be transparent and open is seen to be something that enhances your own reputation.”

Today with the exponential ripple effect of the internet and social networks, companies should beware of conducting themselves in a manner not befitting of their corporate values. However as we will see in an up and coming interview with Adrian Seccombe, CISO for Eli Lilly, transparency can be orthogonal to privacy.  In a 2005 talk to Nottingham University, Commissioner Siim Kallas made three points regarding the European Transparency Initiative. Here is an expert from that talk.

1. Transparency is needed to ensure a proper functioning of the decision making process. A closed system will always produce bad policies because it is deaf and disconnected. However, a fully open system will turn decision-making institutions into talking shops, which will be long on talk and short on decisions. In the end, one has to take a decision. Therefore, procedures which ensure transparency need to be crystal clear and agreed upon before the decision process starts. Policymakers have to apply transparency, but they also need ‘space for reflection’. For example, in the preparatory stage of legislation decision-makers need to be able to discuss freely and evaluate information before submitting a proposal. Other stakeholders may provide data input, suggestions and position papers, but in the end those politically responsible have to table the proposal and defend it in Parliament. If no ‘space for reflection’ were to be left, Parliament would engage in the preparatory stage of legislation. Government would then become tantamount to a gouvernement d’assemblée which, as occurred in the Fourth French Republic, inevitably breaks down because it infringes upon the separation of powers. Therefore, one has to strike a balance on the highest possible level of transparency.

2. Transparency is needed to gain the trust of the public. Political institutions can-not perform without public confidence. Throughout history ambitious empires have tried to set up political institutions and conduct policies in spite of the public. In many cases people were promised to be provided with happiness, even against their will. ‘Model states’ were designed and ‘policies of good intentions’ developed. Intellectuals, in particular those far away, admired the so-called ‘model states’ and their leaders. But on closer inspection they were no more than a house of cards. Why? People didn’t believe it anymore, in spite of the promising statistics and the daily ‘good news’ which were spread by state-controlled media. Legitimacy is only ensured when political institutions are exposed to transparency, when people know that what they see is what they get.

3. Transparency protects policymakers against themselves. The fight against fraud and the abuse of public money should be a permanent activity of each public administration. Policymakers are just like normal people. They may not be inclined to listen to the inner voice of evil, but it is always better to install a set of tangible guarantees. Sometimes political institutions are on the slippery slope before they are aware of it. Transparency is one of the instruments to keep public administrations on the right track and to prevent human weaknesses to prevail.

For Further Information
Security Vibes Interview with Louise Harvey on Transparency in the EU
The Full 2005 Transcript on Commissioner Siim Kallas' Speech on the Need for Transparency
About FDBlueprint