Obama's "Open Government Directive" vs. WikiLeaks' "Radical Transparency" The following article by Chris Will is good at the seminar on "Politics 2.0 - How Web 2.0 changed policy and governance, held in the summer term 2010 at the Institute of Political Science, University of Tübingen, developed.
on the Internet and in the media instead of a war: a war for the confidentiality of information that has long ceased to be secret. WikiLeaks is being chased on all domains, on all continents of the world and U.S. government sources spew venom and fire when they hear the name Julian Assange only. While "transparency" and the disclosure of political processes has been some Time on many political and societal levels are discussed, has the affair Wiki Leaks and its founder Julian Assange raised the issue is now one of the central themes of the mass media. The Australian has suddenly become public enemy number one, Fox calls for his assassination by U.S. intelligence (supported by Republican politicians (!) Like Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin , an American ex-general and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff " compares Assange public (with Jon Stewart, but still!) with Osama bin Laden, the accused now probably public enemy number 2 must be) and the U.S. State Department jeopardizing an open letter Julian Assange, knowingly thousands of American citizens of life.
Brand-new, the idea is more transparent policy in the U.S. actually do not: The country had one of the early freedom of information laws (the Freedom of Information Act 1966) and the current government under President Barack Obama has an ambitious agenda on freedom of information begun, including the "Open Government Directive" (OGD).
This applies also Assange if his actions and he himself the target of his publications as "radical transparency" means. It aims to be exporting Arm of a policy begun by Obama to "a new level." But you can really Wiki-leaks as a "continuation of the Open Government Directive by other means" see?
This question will answer the text below, by the Open Government Directive is discussed in detail and then make a comparison to the scandal around the neck of radical transparency by WikiLeaks.
The Open Government Directive of Barack Obama
The aim of the OGD of Obama, which he had in the morning was initiated after his inauguration, was to counteract the culture of secrecy in Washington, DC, and the citizens of the United States to inform direct . The U.S. needed, so Obama had already said it in his campaign more than once, more democracy, openness and effectiveness in its federal and state policy. The disclosure of information and transactions by government authorities led to a government accountability towards their sovereign, the people and the media. The government should act more transparent, government organizations are thus liable.
At only eleven pages turned against Obama during the "transition" its policy, based on the three principles of transparency, participation and collaboration and set tight deadlines for implementing the regulations. The first step was transparency: Within 45 days, authorities should make public their records and after two months online. After another two months, should policy principles of the authorities to hinder the transparency would be eliminated from the regulations. A very ambitious and far-reaching policy initiative was born.
preparation and enforcement of the Directive
were also preparing the OGD already taken in accordance with the basic principles of open government to: In three phases, were involved in the course of 2009, interested citizens in the development of the directive:
phase one included a one-month Brainstorming to participate in the all citizens of the United States was called. They could make online suggestions, ideas, and set to work in comments in the further development of the hypotheses. As part of this "Open Government Dialogue" brought together more than 1,000 ideas, could vote on their development then the online users. In phase two, then the participants could discuss and vote on the collected ideas and theories, the themes and policies of transparency, they evaluated as particularly important.
phase three included the creation of a blog with the interim results of the "open dialogue" and references to the "three principles". The further processing of the results was on a platform that could be traced to the open as a wiki substantive changes and adjustments by all users.
From these three phases in the accumulated information and ideas drawn from among employees of Obama's presidential campaign and then the OGD, on about a year ago, 8 December 2009 came into force. In drawing 375 people took part who had made submissions to a total of more than 2000 articles on their wishes and ideas. The relatively low turnout is generally attributed mainly to the short response times and access thresholds by the unfamiliar technology.
evaluation of the Directive
The implementation of the OGD by the authorities and agencies of the U.S. government took place in the first quarter of 2010. In April, all authorities and agencies had published new web pages. As a particularly positive example of transparency, the new website was praised by NASA, which had opened next to a cloud computing platform for scientific information and a direct communication channel to the active astronauts. The population was requested to assess the changes themselves . To this end, the government set up on the website of the White House an "open government" a range and a large umbrella organization of American transparency initiatives introduced a rating system for the new changes.
was assessed the total implementation by all positive. There are steps were missing for a "Government 2.0", but the way was smashed and the ideas of transparency and participation are "arrived in the head". Criticism was that in the development phase, neither the administration nor experts themselves were involved in the political sciences. They could participate in "just" like any other citizens on the Internet platform.
Conclusion
The development of transparency and the corresponding Technology (Web applications) must be simultaneously and coordinated manner. Only then can the new technology, a "new democracy" to grow. Without technologies to aggregate and evaluate the data, the risk of an "information overload" immanent. When done, the coordinated development, the policy does, however, for citizens never before existing opportunities for free and independent information and participation. About the new media, they can give the government fast and direct feedback about whether current policies relevant to their needs and are an effective way to be planned and executed. The openness of policies can and should a new "cultural authorities are working" to create, which subjects the effective governance new standards and the influence of individuals increased to political decisions, while reducing the opportunity for interest groups and industry to take the secret to the political processes influence. More open government action can change significantly in the medium to long term, the hierarchies of political decision making.
vs. Open Government. WikiLeaks - motivations and goals
remains open with the open approach of the government action, which limits the transparency are set and should be set. In a TV interview with CNN, Obama himself once the limit set there, where national security or the safety of citizens of the United States could be at risk. The position of governments is that the decision about what information can be, with governments or their security forces must remain.
Julian Assange is to WikiLeaks and its principle of "radical transparency" of the permanent confidentiality principle in its absolute nature of the question. With the release of the documents in the Foreign Ministry and a large number of secret dispatches, which move the events surrounding the war in Afghanistan in a new light, Assange is in question, whether secret government action can apply any kind in a world of digital information distribution than desirable. For him and his supporters is WikiLeaks lived open government. Their argument: Actual disclosure of governance can not and should not be censored and controlled by governments themselves. It must return the decision-making authority over the information to the democratic sovereign, ie the people.
track So WikiLeaks and the OGD, although the two a form of transparency of political processes, but the approaches are so different that a comparison must be practically limp. In relevant recent blog posts like both are mixed, but the motivation is yet another: WikiLeaks will participate absolute disclosure of all political (and military, diplomatic, etc.) processes, the OGD will allow the citizens to prepare policy processes more directly than beforehand and determine certain information open, covered by the previously more official secrecy.
The objectives pursued by the two are different: while the open government approach will improve governance and accountable do is identify the target of Wikileaks, past misconduct by governments and their executive bodies. The privacy, the protection of trade secrets or public Safety play, if at all, only a minor role. Open Government or other approaches to Open Data are here united in their boundary-setting. follow
So while both initiatives is a form of transparency, but it would go too far to suppose that the same basic idea behind both. You may want to WikiLeaks as you might to discredit his rejection by Obama administration with regard to open government would be a misrepresentation of the policy of the American government.
course, in the context of this publication only a superficial examination of the issue possible. But it seems clear that at the prominence of this theme, the focus on the scandalous lies and lost sight of the nuances of the political philosophy behind WikiLeaks. With respect to these and similar points, there are large deficits in public debate. You should also in terms of good political reporting, but are discussed further.
Chris Wohlwill
