It seems impossible to have a discussion on governance without including the word transparency. And despite the fact that the dictionary definition of transparent includes "readily understood" it is not evident that we collectively share a common understanding of the word.
There is a volunteer not-for-profit group called Transparency International with branches around the world. Its stated purpose is to inform businesses, government and the general public of the effects of corruption and to prevent corrupt business practices.
They are attempting to shed light on practices which have been hidden away. Is it possible then for an outside group to create transparency? Or can they only tear a hole in a veil of secrecy?
Another dictionary definition is "clear enough to see through". Perhaps groups like Transparency International are the window washers of the world. A noble cause but if you clean an opaque window it does not become transparent.
Wikipedia (the online open encyclopaedia) adds this to our understanding of transparency.
Transparency, as used in the humanities, implies openness, communication, and accountability.
In government, politics, ethics, business, management, law, economics, sociology, etc, transparency is the opposite of privacy; an activity is transparent if all information about it is open and freely available.
Is transparency the opposite of privacy? If so it implies that if there is a need or a demand for privacy there cannot be transparency. Is it possible to protect privacy while maintaining an open, transparent system?
While complete transparency demands that all interested people have access to all information is it possible to delegate the access to a trusted group? In some regards this is the role of an auditor in regards to business financial information. We allow the individual business privacy and do not demand they open their books and processes to the public and to the competition. But to protect interested parties we delegate the responsibility to auditors who provide a safeguard.
Transparency is not the opposite of privacy but rather of secrecy. There are reasons to enforce privacy and confidentiality. It is less easy to defend secrecy.
Answers.com provides, in part, the following definition of secret.
Kept hidden from knowledge or view; concealed.
And provides this further information:
SYNONYMS: stealthy, covert, clandestine, furtive, surreptitious, underhand.
If we are willing to accept a social need for privacy and confidentiality how do we differentiate between those attributes and secrecy?
The difference between privacy or confidentiality and secrecy is in the intent.
Is a one way mirror transparent? On one side of the glass you can look through and see everything that transpires. But on the other side you see only your reflection. Are the actions of the person on the mirrored side of the glass transparent? Are we, on the window side, satisfied to be able to see what happens even if we cannot affect the outcome? If all the information is available but there is no mechanism for feedback is it possible to say the information window is transparent?
The discomfort we feel on looking without the other person's knowledge leads to the conclusion that there must be a willingness to disclose as well as a desire to see. Transparency must be voluntary.
Transparency as a governance issue must meld these ideas. The processes and activities must be easy to understand and information readily available to all who have an interest. There can be no hidden corners, no dark secrets. And the only way to ensure transparency is to allow feedback. It is not enough for an organization to say "we have an open, transparent process" if the interested parties say "we don't understand" and no one replies.
In the words of a former president of CGA Ontario, Ron Francis: "Words are like clothing. They can be used to conceal or reveal."
Words, even powerful words like transparency, honesty and trust, can be used to hide the truth as readily as shed light. In a process of governance, in which everyone plays a role, we must be vigilant that the actions are aligned with the words. We must satisfy ourselves individually that the organization, business, government body or political power is truly transparent. And if it is not we must demand to know why.
