I am a firm believer that the best form of government is one that is strong, centralized, and not afraid to expand its power in order to ensure national security for its citizens. Proponents often point to the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union, or the reign of Mao Ze Dong—for the most part, many see an involved government to be an authoritarian one. However, I argue that it is not whether or not a government handles ‘too much’ of a person’s individual freedoms, but rather whether or not they are doing so with full, complete transparency. Simply put, the largest factor as to whether or not a form of government maintains its status as a democracy is not whether or not a government is too involved, but rather whether or not they are transparent in their involvement. In fact, I argue that it is the deciding factor.
A cornerstone of democracy is a governing body’s ability to hold their officials accountable. Once a politician has failed to follow through on the demands of their supporters, such supporters should be able to vote a new official into office. Voting is the easiest—and supposedly—most effective means of ensuring that there is a representative that speaks for their constituents. Of course, this is the most obvious effect of heightened transparency within the government; through the power of the press, citizens have been able to cultivate stronger political efficacy and overall higher interest in politics. Look to the student protests in the wake of Vietnam, or the 1960s African American civil rights movement. Overall, increasing the availability of federal data to the public can foster a citizen’s greater obligation to hold their politicians accountable as well as their own public efficacy. By increasing the availability of federal data, there is a greater possibility for healthy skepticism and trust.
In addition, federal decision makers need quality information to assess whether federal programs are working as intended.