Memogate: Freedom of Information
These
two memos, both the Republican and Democratic, have become a major sticking
point in terms of American domestic politics. However, the irony is that the
content of the Republican memo is not all that relevant, but the decision on
whether or not to release it is the core of the political debate. At the core
of this debate is government transparency. There are several sides to this
argument about whether or not the first memo should have been released, which
is the Republican memo. However, this memo did get released. There was much
controversy surrounding this decision, however I believe it is largely
pointless since the document has already been released. I feel the real question at this exact moment
is whether or not the government should release the second memo, which is the
Democratic one. I feel in terms of political equality and putting the country
ahead of political partisanship, I would like to see the second document
released.
When
confronting these issues of government transparency and freedom of information,
a major role is oftentimes played by the news media through their abilities to
conduct investigative reporting and the networks willingness to give the public
a largely unfiltered view of the controversy. This has allowed the public in a sense to hold
its own(court). However, in this courtroom, officials get to respond to
allegations and attempt to prove their innocence. But they are not appealing to
a judge and jury, nor are they required to use the same formalities. These
interviews do help with transparency and allow the public to see their representatives
being questioned about potentially unethical decisions.
However,
I feel that this issue stems from a larger question of political transparency
in our democratic form of government. I feel that this is a modern
transformation of an issue that is always plagued, not only our democracy, but
any democracy as to how much information shall be given to the public. If the representatives are truly there to
represent their constituency back home, then shouldn't everything be public
knowledge. Of course, there are obvious and sensible reasons why certain things
relating to national security cannot be given public access. However, most
matters of government do not contain national security issues, but still take place
in closed door meetings. This is contrary to the fundamental ideas of democracy. If we are going to make claims in our
Constitution about a government by the people, then we need to allow the people
to inform themselves about just what is going on within their own government. Whether
or not people want to read all the government documents is irrelevant. This would
not only improve accountability between representatives and the people they are
supposed to represent, but also give them more time to spend governing and less
time worrying about who is being truthful. This country was formed under the idea of
freedom and democracy. If we are not free to interpret the information on how
our government officials are conducting themselves, then we cannot make
properly informed decisions when it is time for an election. If elections
simply become not about what a representative has done, but entirely dependent
on ad campaigns, then our entire election process is called into question. At
that point, the most important thing to getting elected is not your
qualifications, but how much money you have to run a campaign. Overall, I think
it is important to us to understand that this issue of the memo goes a whole
lot deeper than the memo itself. In many ways, it is fundamental to our ability
to be a democracy. Fortunately, we've seen this issue before and have
successfully navigated our way around it. While I do oftentimes feel that a
lack of political transparency is a problem in United States, I feel that our
news media has become a major safeguard against politicians who feel that
partisan politics are more important than transparency.
No comments:
Post a Comment