3. Democracy and Transparency

parliamentary system (the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth countries), or a hybrid, semi-presidential system (France).

Even in a representative democracy with a parliament we find different opinions for the role of the parliament. The traditional view is the unitary, self-correcting democracy, in which there is sovereignty in the sense of omnipotence and legislative monopoly of the parliament. Later, more modern types of pluralist democracy were developed. This pluralist approach to democracy is more focused on rights and certain standards of legality and is designed to prevent misuse of power by public bodies, but also by other quasi-public or private bodies which possess a certain degree of power. The controlling bodies, including the judiciary, do not just apply the legislative will but articulate principles which should guide the exercise of administrative action and interpret legislation in the light of these principles. Different forms of pluralism have been developed: traditional pluralism, market-oriented pluralism, and another forms of pluralism which are often called the third way. Pluralism has different forms, but, in all of them, principles and especially the principles of good governance play an important role. The good governance concept will influence the concept of democracy, for instance on the issue of a good balance between the majority and the minority in a democracy.

Transparency and participation are two key words in the different types of wellfunctioning democracy, be it direct or representative. Both ideas are directly linked to the citizens and the opportunities they should have for being well-informed and for influencing the activities of the government.

3. Democracy and Transparency

The term ‘transparency’ has different meanings. Often, a general distinction between a broad and a narrow notion is made. In the broad notion, transparency implies openness, communication, and accountability. Of course, there is a link between transparency and accountability and one can say that this is a means of holding public officials accountable and of fighting corruption. The transparency principle has to be distinguished from the accountability principle.

The narrow notion of transparency is more closely related to the essential meaning in the context of a ‘transparent’ object, which is one that can be seen through. It means openness in relation to the work of the government. In that context, transparency includes open meetings, financial disclosure statements, freedom of information legislation, budgetary review, audits, and the like. This openness is necessary in the two forms of democracy discussed above.

In general, we can distinguish three types of transparency: transparency of meetings, transparency of the administrative actions, and transparency of access to public information. When government meetings are open to the press and the public, when budgets and financial statements may be reviewed by anyone, when laws, rules, and decisions are open to discussion, they are seen as transparent and there is less opportunity for the authorities to abuse the system in their own interest.

In government, politics, ethics, business, management, law, economics, sociology, transparency is posed as the opposite of privacy. An activity is transparent if all information about it is open and freely available. Thus, when courts of law admit the public, when fluctuating prices in financial markets are published in newspapers, those processes are transparent. When military authorities classify their plans as secret, transparency is absent. This can be seen as positive or negative: positive, because it can increase