Governments have no right to privacy
I have come to realize that governments are typically viewed as benevolent parental overseers rather than the public servants and safety nets they ought to be. This is endemic in our language: “Democrats are in power”, “the ruling party” and so on.
This perversion runs so deep that we have largely abdicated the collective responsibility we share in the health and purpose of the state. The state is now an actor in its own right, not dissimilar to monarchs of old who ruled by power of divine providence.
We tacitly know that governments spy on one another, that they, composed of humans like us, engage in petty jealousies and subterfuges. And that they take poor decisions born of unsound judgment and emotion. Much as a recalcitrant child does. However, the latter has a strong and deliberate consequence awaiting each such mistake; and increasingly the former is excused her corruptions.
The publishing of internal memoranda of a government is a necessary act of returning power to the people’s hands. While each WikiLeaks disclosure may not itself constitute major revelations, it is essential that they exist on the public record and that the government be even a little embarrassed. It will at the very least, make them think twice next time.
A government should never be able to keep from its people, the truth of its actions and intentions. Not for the sake of security, nor defence and especially not out of some perverse claim of sovereign privacy. People have forgotten who the parent and who the child is in this relationship. Worse, they have reversed it with grotesque claims like “they must have a good reason for keeping secrets”, and “we must trust that they know best how to protect us.”
We must never abdicate the civic responsibility of monitoring and scrutinizing the state. We must demand that our public servants act responsibly and transparently. If the tide against this demand is too great, then we must turn to the fourth estate. Even if this entails high levels of national embarrassment, the retarding of diplomatic relations and even internal progress. It is after all what brought down the Soviet autarchy.
Somewhere along the way people have confused their government with their nation, and use their pride in one to defend the grotesque machinations of the other; the integrity of one to shield the privacy of the other’s occult dealings; and have conflated the scrutiny of public processes with an attack on national sovereignty.
Whether you believe that governments are a force for good or not, it is inescapable that they are a concentration of power not available to any individual. A vigil must be kept on this kind of power. Even in times of crisis—especially in such times. WikiLeaks must be defended with the same fervour as called for by the highest ideals of journalistic enterprise. Whether or not they meet the standards of journalistic excellence—especially as they probably do not.
Each disclosure must be protected and lauded, whether it holds great merit or is simply a moderate embarrassment to the state with little material consequence. Because each disclosure is an act of liberty.
Freedom only matters when most people disagree with what you do.
