The Pros and Cons of Transparency

Newsbreak is reporting that the JBC has decided against an open voting process, in which the public would gain access to information as to who voted yes or no for each nominee.

While my knee-jerk reaction to this news was to bemoan - as the article seems to - another loss in the campaign for a more transparent and accountable government. However, as with any argument over substantive issues, it is more prudent to give proper attention to the other side of the argument.

The problem cited with open voting by the dissenters stems from the theory that allowing others to see who voted what for whom would increase the pressure on members of the JBC. I interpret this to mean an adherence to the principle that secret voting makes it easier to vote with one's conscience as opposed to voting according to what would be acceptable to one's friends or social circle etc.

Secret voting does have its benefits - however, it should be noted that the entire thrust of secret voting is to assure that otherwise hesitant people would vote their conscience; this means, it seems to me, that it would be a system best adopted in a body where there was a substantial danger that people would NOT vote as their consciences dictated. Whether or not that is the case with the JBC I am in no position to know, but I would assume not.

Another problem with secret voting is that while it ups the chances that people will vote their conscience, it prevents anyone from knwoing if they actually DID, since only the JBC (or its individual members) would know who voted yes or no to a particular nominee.

With regard to the pressure that could be exerted if the JBC adapted open voting, three points could be made. First, unsavory elements who want to influence the proceedings will apply pressure anyway, regardless of whether the voting is open or closed; second, should a JBC member feel particularly pressured, or believes that a vote he casts might be seen as suspect, he should be allowed to inhibit himself from proceedings, similar to judges in the court - a group of people not strangers to the weighing of transparency and external pressure; third, if allegations of bias or external pressure do arise, and the truth was that the member voted against that supposed interest, open voting would allow him to show this through the record of the voting.

So, in the end, I think the JBC decision here was not ideal; which was, of course, my first reaction in the first place - but its always good when I can arrive at the same conclusion via rational argument. (Because retractions are embarrassing as hell...)