Dear Editor,
Can I borrow a cup of transparency?
According to Google, “transparency” is the open, honest, and accessible sharing of information, acting as a foundation for trust, accountability, and ethical behavior in business, governance, and personal relationships. According to the Oxford dictionary, “transparency” is the quality of allowing light to pass through so that objects behind can be distinctly seen.
There has been a lot written, especially locally, about transparency and the need for it. It seems that regardless of the situation, the public groups involved, or the nature of the perceived problem, more transparency is always the solution. The first problem, as I see it, is that transparency is not a measurable item, like a cup of sugar, an hour of time or 10 cubic yards of gravel. If you can’t measure it how can you be sure if you need more of it?
The second problem I have with the idea of transparency is that it is something that you see through so you can see something else. If you can’t actually see it, how would you recognize it if it was there? Conversely, if you can’t see it, how would you know if it wasn’t there?
Then there is also a problem with the potential of having too much information. There are two new-ish terms related to the concept of having so much information that the practical decision-making process slows to a crawl: “information overload” or “infobesity”. If the search for transparency is to gain access to more information, who is going to process the fresh material?
There are times I feel that transparency is just a catchphrase for people who are inclined to complain about things they want to control from the outside without making the commitment to work from the inside. The users of the word are believers the same way Maple Leaf fans believe this is going to be “their” year.
Isn’t the bigger problem that collectively we struggle to have faith in the people we elect to represent us. Local, provincial, federal election winners often seem to leave a lot to be desired. How can we get to a point where people can accept the winners for what they are, the victorious? Is the problem the quality of people we elect to office or is it that as a society we have turned into a cluster of insatiable malcontents?
While you are mulling these ideas over, can I borrow that cup of transparency?
Tom McCann, Clarendon
