http://blog.transparencypolicy.net Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:15:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://blog.transparencypolicy.net/?p=71&cpage=1#comment-114 Hobbycars Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:15:02 +0000 http://blog.transparencypolicy.net/?p=71#comment-114 Agree that tancsparerny is a double-edged sword.While it has potentially negative effects on the civil service, the other issue I have with it is that it puts the focus on process over outcome.Inevitably, somebody will always fail to get the policy outcome they want, and blame an unfair process rather than the fact that they simply failed to make a sufficiently convincing argument for their proposals.If the minister had slightly more meetings with people from one side of an argument than another, is this going to be taken as evidence of unfair process?And the bigger, more complex and more important the decision, the more often there seems to be a focus on processes.This means the focus of the debate is increasingly on a set of grievances about process rather than on getting the outcome right and justifying (or not) the decision to the public.So beyond a certain point, tancsparerny serves to undermine democracy rather than promote good governance.And when the disputes over these process issues are taken to the courts (eg airport expansion) then attempts to improve tancsparerny in fact hand the issue to judges, thereby removing it from voters and elections. Agree that tancsparerny is a double-edged sword.While it has potentially negative effects on the civil service, the other issue I have with it is that it puts the focus on process over outcome.Inevitably, somebody will always fail to get the policy outcome they want, and blame an unfair process rather than the fact that they simply failed to make a sufficiently convincing argument for their proposals.If the minister had slightly more meetings with people from one side of an argument than another, is this going to be taken as evidence of unfair process?And the bigger, more complex and more important the decision, the more often there seems to be a focus on processes.This means the focus of the debate is increasingly on a set of grievances about process rather than on getting the outcome right and justifying (or not) the decision to the public.So beyond a certain point, tancsparerny serves to undermine democracy rather than promote good governance.And when the disputes over these process issues are taken to the courts (eg airport expansion) then attempts to improve tancsparerny in fact hand the issue to judges, thereby removing it from voters and elections.

]]>