Cyclically, the issue of transparency is brought to the center of political debate. This time it was recovered by Hugo Soares, parliamentary leader of the PSD, when arguing that the declaration of income and interests must no longer be publicly accessible. This position, which earned him severe opposition criticismis symptomatic of a greater evil. There is no quality democratic representation without transparency.
Those who exercise power on behalf of others must accept scrutiny. To relativize its importance is to contribute to the erosion of institutions and democracy itself. In this regard, several recent cases serve as examples.
The first is that of relationship between the main client of the company associated with the prime minister’s family and PSD financing; the second concerns the Political Accounts and Financing Entity who, five years later, continues to ask for explanations about money with no known origin in the accounts of the main parties; the third and last is that of decision which made the identity of those who finance parties and campaigns inaccessible to the public. All of these cases represent symptoms of the fragility and importance of scrutiny mechanisms. But most importantly, they represent a step backwards in transparency.
The relationship between transparency, trust and institutional integrity is well documented. At the institutional level, the OECD demonstrates that transparency only produces effects when accompanied by effective scrutiny and accountability mechanisms. This supported in data which point to the public’s sensitivity to the perception of openness, integrity and accountability of institutions.
Academics like Stiglitz or Larry Diamond argue that the right to information is a condition for informed public debate and that the quality of democracy depends on the ability of citizens to effectively control political power. When this control weakens, it is democracy itself that erodes.
The erosion of public trust in institutions is not the result of an isolated case, but of continuous signs of opacity – these are more worrying in a context in which populist, radical and openly anti-democratic forces are growing in Europe, exploiting distrust in representative institutions.
The responsibility of the parties is, therefore, even greater. To say nothing is to contribute to disbelief. Not accepting scrutiny is fueling doubt. And accepting the generalization of ignorance about who finances, influences, or conditions the exercise of representation is to give ammunition to those who want to weaken democracy from within.
With the already announced legislative initiatives to amend the Law on Financing of Political Parties and Electoral Campaigns, it is now in the hands of parties with parliamentary seats to make a decision. They now have the opportunity to reverse the decision, subject themselves to the scrutiny and debate that characterize representative democracies or contribute to less information, more opacity and ignorance.
Transparency is uncomfortable for those who wield power. This is precisely why it is indispensable.
Leave a Reply