I admit I have mixed feelings about 'open government'. While on the one hand I believe the worst possible thing is for an authority not to be open to inspection by citizens, on the other I fully appreciate the need for (at least temporary) privacy to allow policy and practices to be developed (which is why I am also ambivalent with respect to the wikileaks diplomatic cable affair). Pragmatically too, making all documented communication available too soon, will just increase the amount that goes undocumented, forever. So some balance is needed, but with the following points considered :
- the digital revolution means vast amounts of communication will always be recorded and available, and this needs to be accepted - both by ensuring its proper handling, but also by developing an awareness that even if most communication is recorded, there might be a missing fraction vital for context. This fraction should be acknowledged, but also minimized (reducing its impact)
- responsibility for all government action should be discernible within a timeframe that those involved can be held accountable
- the reasons and processes behind government action should be open to analysis, in the long run, and also for shorter terms in the case of serious events needing to be understood (e.g. inquiry into going to war)
- governments must be able to conduct informal discusssions to develop policies without having to constantly temper what is said to avoid misinterpretation
- the most important (and valuable) element to a democratic society is the feedback loop between government and its electorate, whereby actions have consequences. The use of 'national security interests' etc. to keep information secret should be rarley used, and always with time limits, otherwise the mechanism itself becomes more of a threat to the national interest, than the content being suppressed.