EXCLUSIVE: Just how important is transparency in restoring trust in politics?

Friday, December 11, 2009

What the public needs is structured, open delivery of information voluntarily provided in a searchable, reusable format, writes Dr Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society

In the wake of the MPs' expenses scandal much has been made of the cleansing value of sunlight and transparency in public affairs. Freedom of Information (FoI) campaigners are rightly lauded for the tenacity of their efforts to uncover a political scandal involving the entire political class. But just how vital will greater transparency of information be in the future battle to help rebuild public trust in politics and government?

FoI enhances accountability because it facilitates better scrutiny of decision-making. It provides an important restraint on bad behaviour among public officials: online publication of MPs' expense claims would almost certainly have curtailed if not eradicated their egregious conduct. Transparency is also an important matter of principle: the public's inherent 'right to know'. If government truly does serve the public then we surely have a right to access one of, if not the most valuable national asset of all: information. And if information is the basis of knowledge then transparency might also buttress engagement in the political process. Polls consistently show that public confidence in national services such as the NHS is noticeably lower than in local service provision, such as an individual hospital or GP. Personal knowledge and experience of services accounts for this difference in perception. The Hansard Society's annual Audit of Political Engagement has consistently found that the two greatest barriers to political engagement and participation are a lack of knowledge and understanding. The dispersal of information and knowledge might therefore help foster a more engaged citizenry and healthier democracy.

Since 2005, when FoI was enacted, over 10,000 public bodies have been subject to its transparency and accountability requirements: everything from government departments, to schools and hospitals, to quangos and lesser known bodies such as the National Potato Council. But there is no evidence in the intervening years that public trust has been improved by having access to information provided by these bodies. In reality the proportion of the population that utilises FoI is small. There is nothing particularly British about this: public trust in government and politics is low across almost all western democracies including in those countries that introduced FoI laws before the UK.

Public distrust is rooted in a complex nexus of factors that extend well beyond a lack of transparency and information. In truth, some of our most trusted and trusting relationships are actually predicated not on openness but rather privacy and secrecy: that between a lawyer and client; a patient and GP, a priest and confessor; and within the family unit. And if transparency merely leads to a mountain of unsorted information, devoid of background explanation and policy analysis, then it is more likely to lead to confusion, uncertainty and distrust. Raw information itself can be a very blunt instrument and may tell us only part of any story, as for example with school league tables or hospital star ratings. Once information is placed in the public domain it can also be easily misused thereby augmenting distrust through misinformation and deception.

Where MPs and government generally are concerned, distrust is also rooted in a profound sense of disappointment that our elected representatives have sullied the concept of public service by putting self-interest ahead of the public interest. And the fact that MPs in all parties are involved merely reinforces the public perception that politicians and political parties really are 'all the same'.

FoI and transparency are therefore an important antidote in the battle against unaccountable government, fraudulent or merely wasteful use of public funds, corrupt public officials, and a poorly informed electorate. And although transparency of information on its own is not enough to restore public confidence and trust, paradoxically, its absence may lead to outcomes that further corrode it. And therein lies its importance in the future for it may at least help stem the decline in trust and perhaps play a significant role in the recovery process.

It was the extraordinary efforts to circumvent FoI – as MPs pursued an exemption from its purview – that was their ultimate undoing. A commitment to true transparency and accountability requires more than just the introduction of legislation. It requires a fundamental change in political attitude and culture. Undoubtedly this is easy to suggest and rather harder to achieve. Officials' fear of giving frank advice for fear it will be subject to FoI requests is a legitimate one. But their fears do not trump our right to know and the benefits that accompany such accountability.

There is an important balance to be struck. Part of the solution lies in harnessing web based technology to better facilitate government transparency and here there may be lessons to be learnt from the Obama administration's experience with the new www.recovery.gov and www.data.gov sites. Rather than a raw information dump following an FoI request, what the public needs is structured, open provision of information voluntarily provided in a searchable, reusable format with data extrapolated alongside the intellectual and policy rationale that underpins decision-making. Such efforts to change the culture through a more meaningful and wholehearted commitment to transparency and accountability would at least signal an end to politics conducted on the basis of 'Business as Usual'. And thus it might helpfully impact on levels of public trust in the future.

Dr Ruth Fox is director, parliament & government programme, Hansard Society