Recently, FISA, Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, was criticized for its shady behaviors with its court system and was accused of running like an authoritarian government. The National Security Agency also secretly redefined the word “relevant” in order to gather the majority of phone data on millions of Americans. This kind of action is, indeed, suspicious and brings up questions on what their true intentions are in doing such things. Why are our “supreme courts” going against the democracy-promotion that our presidents had pledged upon before? The article states that this keeps our national security in balance, which isn't something the average public can handle. Such dangerous tasks should be left in the hands of “the best and the brightest.”
It is true that there are some things that can not be open to the public, despite how hypocritical it would make America seem. For example, when Edward Snowden released information about government mass surveillance programs, he was immediately criticized and charged for betraying the government, though technically democracy should not have secret information hidden from the public. Not only are we a democratic government which by definition should welcome "openness, transparency, public participation, [and] public collaboration," but our presidents have promised a democracy with "an unprecedented level of openness in Government... [to] establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration (Obama)." Though it is important to gain the voices of each and every Americans, not all decisions can be based on the majority vote made by the entire population. Our average citizens tend to follow along suit with others as long their reasoning sounds acceptable. It is definitely safer to leave some decisions to the brighter minds of America. Of course, there are a lot of bright yet corrupted minds but it would still rather be smarter to leave the balancing of our democratic government and national security to these minds than to the national population. The promise Obama made on working towards government openness was a rather silly promise that he himself should have known was not possible.
Our government is full of secrecy and there really is no question against it. There are much information that our leaders and "bright minds" find unsafe for the average Americans to handle. Even so, I still find FISA's appointment of its judges unconstitutional. They were hand-picked by one Supreme Court judge and were not even investigated by the Congress.
Article: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/07/secret-government
A fascinating article and an equally fascinating take on the issue, Sami. From conversations I've had with colleagues within the academic community, I, too, have gotten the impression that many would prefer something closer to an oligarchy, though, in truth, I'm sure those who profess such beliefs simultaneously believe themselves to be part of that upper echelon, the intelligentsia.
ReplyDeleteThough I generally agree with your sentiment that democracies should be transparent and open, I wonder if a well-functioning government does require a level of secrecy. By way of example, my thoughts turn to the actions of those within the CIA. Would I truly want to know what they do? Perhaps my ignorance leaves room for plausible deniability, or perhaps it leaves my hands clean of illicit activities? In any event, I look forward to your future posts.
For your article and commentary, I really liked the way you were able to portray what I think the article was trying to say. I also like the various occasions throughout your commentary where you take it a step further and voice your opinion. Structurally your commentary was good.
ReplyDeleteAs for the contents of the actual commentary, I agree that the government is full of secrecy. Many ordinary citizens will not be able to handle the truth, and although the US government received backlash for their actions in spying, I still believe that the government works for the greater good of the country. I look forward to your next commentary.