Open government

David L. Hudson, Jr., ed., Open Government: An American Tradition Faces National Security, Privacy, and Other Challenges (Philadelphia: Chelsea House, 2005)

Richard A. Chapman and Michael Hunt, Open Government in a Theoretical and Practical Context (England: Ashgate, 2006)

Reading the foreword and the introduction of David L. Hudson’s Open Government offers high expectations about the content of the book. The book is structure in a way that present a point and a counterpoint about specific issues related to open government. Alan Marzilli states in the foreword that “[p]erhaps more important is that listening to the other side sometimes helps one to see an opponent’s arguments in a more human way.” (p. 6) In the introduction is stated that the book examines four specific issues on open government: 1) should cameras in be permitted in courtrooms?, 2) whether FOIA’s privacy exemptions balance open government and privacy, 3) whether the press should have the right of access to the battlefield, and 4) whether the government is properly balancing open access and security during the “Age of Terror.” (p. 15) I’m interested in the last three issues.
These high expectations came to an end when I started reading the rest of the book. Basically the points and counterpoints are developed by using specific examples, sometimes just one example, that gave me the impression were used to just accommodate the authors’ personal opinions. These discussions are not accompanied by reference to past literature about the corresponding issue. In sum, by reading the book I just concluded that there are cases that demonstrate both opposing aspects about open government. Nothing new.
What I liked about the book is that is easy to read, and that within each essay it includes questions for the reader that can help to develop a more in-depth discussion.

Chapman and Hunt’s Open Government in a Theoretical and Practical Context, in the other hand, offers a broad and useful discussion of the concept of open government and its implications. In chapter 1, Michael Hunt and Richard A. Chapman discuss the concepts of open government and freedom of information. They point out that the discussion about secrecy and access to information is centered. They indicate: “The debate has therefore focused on the appropriate balance between these two sets of demands with the government slowly conceding ground in the face of increasing public awareness of both the limitations of closed government and the benefits to be derived from greater knowledge about the way that decisions are taken in government. What has not been discussed in this debate is the meaning of secrecy, its purpose in government or the related issue of privacy.” (p. 1) Hunt and Chapman argue that open government and freedom of information are not necessarily the same. In one hand, openness is limited in terms that offers what the government wants to make available, while freedom of information reflects a right of members of the public to access whatever information they wish.
Geoffrey Hunt makes an analysis of freedom of information, public accountability and whistleblowing using the Principle of Complementary (Chapter 5). This theory means the following: in a relationship between authority A and client C, A should provide account when C asks for it. If A do not comply, then C has the right to hold A accountable. Applying this theory to government, Hunt indicates that “freedom of information embodies the idea that since democratic government is accountable to citizens it has a moral duty to provide information about its activities to citizens on demand unless there is a good reason for not doing so.” (p. 44)Robert Behrens’ essay “Openness: A Perspective from the Committee on Standards in Public Life” called my attention for the use of quantitative and qualitative methods for the committees’ reports. The committee prepared a survey and conducted focus groups to study the public attitudes to openness. The focus groups, 15 in total, were used to attend the lack of research from the Commission regarding public standards of conduct in public life. These focus groups were then complemented with a survey conducted to a sample of 1,097 adults aged 18 or over. This study shows the advantages of triangulation on research.