Transparency in Democracy (3)

When one says that “the state is present for the people,” it means that the government exists not as a distant authority but as an active protector, provider, and servant of its citizens. It embodies the idea that public institutions must ensure justice, welfare, and dignity for every individual—especially the vulnerable—through fair laws, accessible services, and responsible leadership. A state that is present listens to its citizens, not merely during elections but in their daily struggles, ensuring that policies are shaped by empathy rather than arrogance, and by service rather than self-interest. In essence, it is the moral commitment of power to stand by its people—not above them—especially in moments of crisis, inequality, and uncertainty.

Now let's look at the case in Indonesia. When the state claims to “be present for the people” by taking over the Whoosh debt, it’s almost poetic—if you enjoy tragic poetry. Suddenly, “presence” sounds less like compassion and more like an uninvited guest rummaging through your wallet, insisting it’s for your own good. The logic goes something like this: the people didn’t ask for the debt, didn’t benefit much from it, but—surprise!—they get to pay for it anyway, all in the name of national pride. It’s the kind of economic romance where the taxpayer is forever the devoted lover footing the bill for a dinner they weren’t even invited to. And while the government proudly declares, “The state is here!”, the people can only whisper, “Yes, but could you please go away—at least until payday?”

In the end, it all feels uncannily like the closing scene of Predator: Badlands: the dust settles, the chaos simmers, and suddenly Ibu Dek walks in—calm, composed, and absolutely unfazed—while everyone else is left wondering how on earth she ended up footing the bill for a battle she never even joined. And nobody knows whether the sequel continues or not.

What Is Transparency? by Richard W. Oliver (2004, McGraw-Hill) is a short, managerial-oriented book that argues transparency is the defining competitive and ethical imperative of modern organisations. Oliver frames transparency as the systemic availability of clear, timely and accessible information that allows stakeholders—customers, employees and citizens—to evaluate performance and intentions. The book emphasises that openness is not merely disclosure but a shift in organisational culture toward visibility, accountability and trust.

Oliver explains that his understanding of transparency grew out of years spent observing how genuine openness operates within real institutions, and he admits that the most valuable lessons came from leaders who were willing to reveal uncomfortable truths, share data without theatrics, and let clarity speak louder than corporate posturing. He notes that the ideas shaping the book were not produced in isolation but emerged from conversations with colleagues, debates with industry practitioners, and encounters with organisations whose success depended on their refusal to hide behind jargon or managerial fog. He ultimately suggests that transparency is not an abstract doctrine but a discipline he learned from people who consistently chose honesty over convenience and visibility over protective silence.

Oliver argues that transparency has become unavoidable because modern institutions have faced “enough scandals to go around,” meaning that repeated corporate, political and financial failures have eroded public trust to such an extent that secrecy is no longer a defensible operating model. He suggests that every major sector has, at one point or another, tried to conceal damaging information, and the cumulative effect of these scandals has convinced the public that only genuine openness can restore credibility. He then introduces what he calls “the new transparency,” a world in which information circulates so rapidly and so widely that organisations can no longer rely on image-management alone, because “seeing is believing” in an age where stakeholders expect direct access to facts rather than carefully curated narratives. He also highlights the growing tension between the individual right to privacy and the public’s right to know, explaining that the digital era blurs the boundaries between personal data and public accountability, forcing institutions to negotiate difficult ethical questions about what must be disclosed and what deserves protection. He closes this section by defining stakeholders broadly as anyone affected by an organisation’s actions, and he argues that these stakeholders increasingly demand timeliness, accuracy and clarity, because they want evidence, not promises, and they expect every decision to be visible enough for them to evaluate its integrity.

Oliver explains that transparency in the modern age is shaped by a constant, multi-directional gaze in which organisations, citizens, regulators and the media are all observing one another with unprecedented intensity. He notes that the digital environment has transformed surveillance and scrutiny into everyday phenomena, making it impossible for institutions to assume that their actions will remain unseen or unrecorded. He stresses that people are no longer passive recipients of information but active monitors who track what organisations do, when they do it, where they do it and why they choose particular courses of action. He emphasises that this expanded field of observation is driven by rising expectations of accountability, as stakeholders want to understand motivations, detect inconsistencies and evaluate whether words align with behaviour. Oliver ultimately suggests that the question is no longer whether someone is watching, but whether institutions are prepared to operate responsibly in a world where visibility is the norm rather than the exception.

Oliver said that Transparency is the new watchword in every walk of life: economic, social, and cultural. Some might argue that trans- parency is a Western concept. However, it is clear that individuals and organisations worldwide, regardless of their race, creed, or nationality, are embracing transparency.

Oliver treats government transparency as one of the fundamental domains in which openness matters deeply. He defines transparency more broadly as “active disclosure”—not just the passive possibility that someone could peek, but a deliberate release of information so that observers can see what is going on.

For governments, this means that transparency is not simply about holding doors open, but about making key actions, decisions, and processes visible in a way that the public can understand and potentially act on. Oliver emphasises that observers are only meaningful if there is something to observe and a method to observe it—so transparency demands more than just raw data; it demands that information be accessible and intelligible.

Moreover, Oliver points out a tension inherent in government transparency: there is a balance between the public’s right to know and the need for confidentiality. Governments cannot (or sometimes should not) expose every single internal deliberation — yet, to maintain legitimacy, a government must disclose enough so that citizens and stakeholders can trust that decisions are made in a candid, accountable way.

He also underscores the role of “watchdogs”—civil society, media, whistle-blowers—in interpreting and using disclosed information. Transparency, for Oliver, is not just about showing but about watching: if no one is watching, disclosure risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive.

Finally, Oliver argues that government transparency is not just a moral or democratic ideal: it has practical value. Open governments generate greater trust, improve accountability, and may even be more efficient—because by revealing their processes, governments invite feedback, pressure, and engagement, which, in turn, can help them correct course or improve policies.

Governmental transparency is a principle that extends right from the local town council through to the federal government in every nation globally. Furthermore, it constitutes a vital issue for both global governments and various quasi-governmental bodies, such as the United Nations (UN), the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank. There are also numerous large and powerful regional organisations whose reputation is distinctly affected by their degree of transparency, notably including the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the defunct North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the European Union (EU), and dozens of other trade groups.

Crises never seem to abate around the world, and indeed, it is highly probable they never will. Dictators, rogue regimes, and civil wars appear to be an almost inevitable component of human history. However, as global communication has dramatically improved, and international news coverage has expanded considerably through satellite television and the Internet, the demand for transparency is often communicated more quickly and becomes more widespread. Much of the increased economic prosperity seen in countries such as South Korea, Thailand, Chile, and the Czech Republic is fundamentally attributable to the establishment of an open, democratic system where the actions of the government can be clearly scrutinised by the public.

Transparency International, which is a global organisation solely dedicated to curbing corruption across international transactions, formally defines transparency as "a principle that allows those affected by administrative decisions, business transactions or charitable work to know not only the basic facts and figures but also the mechanisms and processes." It asserts that "It is the duty of civil servants, managers and trustees to act visibly, predictably and understandably."

Major organisations, such as the IMF, frequently condition aid and loans upon recipients meeting specific levels of transparency, even though the IMF itself occasionally faces criticism for its own perceived lack of openness. The IMF’s established guidelines for governmental transparency fundamentally focus on four critical aspects: the clarity of roles and responsibilities; the public availability of all relevant information; open procedures for budget preparation, execution, and reporting; and firm assurances of integrity.

The large, bureaucratic organisations, such as the UN and the IMF, are the ones most frequently criticised for insufficient transparency. Although they do not receive donations directly from individual citizens, their continued survival depends heavily on sustained funding from national governments. When a perceived lack of transparency is present, this frequently leads to disputes over funding and reporting, as clearly illustrated by the rift between the United States and the United Nations over the last several years. Furthermore, the secrecy surrounding the key decisions made by the IMF and the World Bank is a significant issue that has often surfaced in antiglobalisation protests across the globe. For these organisations to maintain genuine credibility and earn universal respect, their actions must be rendered just as transparent as the actions they unequivocally demand of the governments receiving their donations.

Besides Government Transparency, Oliver also mentioned Commercial Transparency. Oliver describes commercial transparency as the obligation of companies to reveal the essential information that allows customers, investors, regulators, and partners to understand how a business actually operates. While governmental transparency is tied to democratic legitimacy, commercial transparency is primarily tied to trust in markets, fair competition, and consumer protection.

Oliver argues that commercial transparency revolves around several pillars: clarity in pricing, openness about risks, honesty in product claims, visibility into supply chains, and accountability in corporate governance. A transparent company shows stakeholders not only what it sells, but how and why decisions are made, especially those affecting safety, ethics, or financial health. In Oliver’s model of “active disclosure,” firms must not wait until they are cornered by scandal; they must volunteer information before crises arise.

The key difference from government transparency lies in purpose and pressure. Governments disclose information because they are custodians of public power, but companies disclose information because markets punish opacity. A government must be transparent to protect the public’s democratic rights, whereas firms must be transparent to maintain credibility, avoid litigation, attract investors, and ensure long-term survival. In other words, governments owe transparency to citizens; corporations owe transparency to stakeholders whose choices directly determine corporate fortunes.

Oliver, therefore, positions commercial transparency as a discipline shaped by competition, reputation, and the threat of market backlash. If government transparency fails, you get political instability; if commercial transparency fails, you get market failure, fraud, and collapsing trust in entire industries.

Oliver explains that individuals who owe their allegiance to a particular function — such as accountants, athletes, actors, lawyers, journalists, teachers, and doctors — are considered professionals. By the very nature of the term “professional,” there is an expectation that the services they provide are transparent both in terms of motivation and action. Many professionals have even taken oaths to serve the public interest, which heightens the sense of betrayal when a lack of transparency is revealed. Equally, the skill, or occasionally the lack thereof, with which professionals perform their duties is of critical importance. Consequently, it is unsurprising that an increasing number of public professions, particularly doctors and lawyers, are now being assessed and graded, with the results made accessible in the press and on the Internet. This trend underscores the growing societal demand for accountability and openness in professional services.

Many charities manage budgets larger than the gross national product of small countries and exert significant influence in the regions where they operate. Their actions can literally determine life or death. Nonprofits are often evaluated — by the media or watchdogs — on how efficiently they use donor funds and on their record of achievements. If records are opaque and donations cannot be properly accounted for, the organisation risks both financial instability and loss of trust with local leaders.

Transparency is especially vital for credibility, from small NGOs like Greenpeace to global giants such as the Red Cross. Organisations relying on donor contributions are scrutinised more closely than almost any other entity. People “vote with their wallets” daily, but charitable giving is often more emotional; confidence and comfort guide their decisions. Any hint of opacity or scandal can sharply reduce donations, and rebuilding trust can take years.

Religious institutions often face challenges in transparency, frequently defending themselves by claiming their actions are matters between themselves and God. However, like any organisation serving defined stakeholders, a lack of transparency can quickly dry up donations and erode the steadfast support of parishioners. For organised religion to function and thrive, it must clearly account for both its financial and spiritual “balance sheets.”

Beyond finances, the deeper issue is spiritual trust. Opacity can severely weaken followers’ confidence in religious institutions and clergy. While many assume that the secular world naturally lacks transparency, trust, and openness are fundamental to organised religion. Therefore, any revelation of non-transparency by clergy or denominations raises serious concerns for individual believers.

The viral social experiment, wherein an individual telephoned nearly thirty different churches to request a simple tin of baby milk for their child, only to receive immediate and unreserved assistance upon contacting a single mosque, has rightfully ignited a comprehensive public debate. These reports, which quickly gained traction on digital platforms, serve as a stark demonstration of institutional compassion, or the perceived lack thereof, within religious organisations when faced with an immediate, basic human need.

This incident, fundamentally centred on empathy and charitable action, also crucially involves the wider principle of transparency. While the primary criticism focuses on the churches' apparent lack of compassion or bureaucratic rigidity, the resultant refusals expose a significant issue regarding transparency of operational mechanisms and funding priorities. An institution that genuinely embodies its charitable mission should possess clear and immediate processes for emergency aid. The act of turning away a caller, or merely redirecting them to external social services, suggests a non-transparent—or at least an obscured—allocation of resources, implying that funds intended for community outreach are potentially disproportionately focused on internal maintenance or administrative overhead rather than being readily accessible for spontaneous, critical need.

Therefore, the mosque’s swift and unconditional response, which became the counter-example, embodies a form of procedural transparency: its actions were visibly, predictably, and understandably aligned with its charitable commitment. Conversely, the widespread failure of the churches to provide direct, immediate assistance triggers valid questions about their transparency of commitment—whether their stated values of benevolence align with their tangible actions—and their financial accountability regarding the public donations they receive for charitable purposes. The scrutiny that followed this social experiment effectively became a public demand for greater institutional clarity on how and where their communal funds are actually deployed in times of genuine distress.

The twentieth century saw the gradual accumulation of government benefits for individuals, whereas the twenty-first century may witness their reduction or elimination. This shift has increased reliance on personal investments. Americans responded by investing billions of dollars into Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and other vehicles.

Approximately half of American families now own stocks, either directly or via mutual funds. For markets to function effectively, transparency is essential. As investment moved from professional managers to average citizens handling their own retirement funds, public demands for higher levels of transparency grew sharply, reflecting the need for the system to be fully open and accountable.

In Oliver’s framework, opacity refers to a condition in which information, processes, or actions are not visible, unclear, or deliberately concealed from observers. It is essentially the opposite of transparency: when decisions, motivations, or data cannot be understood, scrutinised, or accessed by the public, stakeholders, or watchdogs, opacity prevails.

Oliver emphasises that opacity generates mistrust and risk. In government, opaque processes can lead citizens to doubt policies or decisions. In nonprofit organisations, lack of clarity in financial reporting can discourage donors from contributing. In professional and religious contexts, opacity can undermine the confidence of clients, congregations, or the public who rely on the ethical or technical integrity of the institution.

Importantly, opacity is not just about hiding information; it also includes situations where observers cannot comprehend or evaluate what is happening, whether due to complexity, specialised jargon, or intentional non-disclosure. For Oliver, opacity stands as a major barrier to legitimacy, accountability, and trust across all domains — from governance and commerce to professions, charities, and religious institutions.

The pervasive and devastating consequences of opacity are readily apparent through a series of seismic historical events in recent decades. It began with the Watergate cover-up, an infamous conspiracy that, once exposed, ultimately resulted in the downfall of a sitting President and the disintegration of his entire administration, demonstrating the fragility of power when accountability is absent. This was swiftly followed by the monumental savings and loan scandals, which highlighted the severe lack of regulation and internal transparency within the financial sector, ultimately necessitating a gargantuan government bailout financed by U.S. taxpayers. The deliberate deception continued with the tobacco industry’s calculated failure to disclose the known harmful and addictive properties of nicotine, a conscious act of opacity that prioritised profit over vast public health concerns. Furthermore, the integrity of global sports governance was tarnished by revelations that members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) shamelessly engaged in outright bribes and questionable under-the-table deals in the selection of host cities, betraying the very ideals of fair competition. Concurrently, the corporate world suffered deep wounds from massive accounting scandals at giants such as Enron, WorldCom, and Xerox, where systematic lack of transparency destroyed investor confidence, wiping out billions of pounds in market value and abruptly rendering tens of thousands of employees redundant. Most tragically, the systemic cover-ups within the Catholic Church concerning known paedophiles allowed perpetrators to continue working in positions of trust with vulnerable children, illustrating an institutional opacity that protected wrongdoers at the expense of victims, resulting in immeasurable moral and emotional damage.

According to Oliver, those who suffer most from opacity are the observers and stakeholders who depend on information to make informed decisions or to maintain trust. When transparency is lacking, citizens, clients, donors, and followers are left uncertain and unable to evaluate whether actions are fair, competent, or ethical. In government, opaque processes make citizens vulnerable to poor or unaccountable policies. In nonprofits, donors may contribute less or withdraw support altogether. In professional and religious contexts, clients or congregations lose confidence in the competence, integrity, or moral guidance of those they rely upon. Essentially, Oliver sees opacity as a force that disempowers those who rely on the organisation’s honesty and openness, leaving them exposed to risk, misunderstanding, and potential harm.

[Part 4]
[Part 2]

Bahasa