The intent of the analogy is obvious. It is to differentiate between those who have a stake in an enterprise, and the power of election, and those who actually have professional responsibilities in running the enterprise. Public officials do not work for the electorate, per se. They are responsible to it for performance, but not under its supervision. Therefore, there is no need for the public to know all of the details of government business, even at the level that would be appropriate for management. Your examples of local practice are based on confusion of the two roles.
A boss who is constantly subjecting his employees to scrutiny, rather than reposing confidence in them and asking only for reasonable accountability, is a bad boss, and most employees will eventually leave his employ. The same holds true with government. The best people will not put up with living in a fish bowl.
Corruption is not prevented by "transparency", because there is no way to gain sufficient compliance to prevent back room deals. "Transparency" is an illusion....... |
