1
FOI: hard to resist and hard to escape
Freedom of Information (FOI) laws are difficult to resist in opposition but hard to escape from once in power. A commitment to an FOI law sends out strong messages of radicalism, change and empowerment that new governments find difficult to resist. However, when politicians regret their promises, as they often quickly do, the same symbolism makes the reforms difficult to escape from.
To make the picture more complex, FOI laws bring little external advantage and generate internal unhappiness. One of the central paradoxes of FOI laws is that they are symbolically resonant but useless in electoral terms: politicians gain âcredibilityâ but not votes. Within government, FOI laws reach across the whole of government, running against the natural tendency of bureaucracy to be secretive (Weber 1991). Such laws carry the potential to delve deep into bureaucraciesâ work, triggering investigation of official decisions and procedures by those hostile to them. So how and why do governments pass them?
FOI laws are, it is argued, frequently passed out of naivety or inattention by inexperienced and new governments responding to reformist impulses from within or without or seeking to create a new âopenâ approach after a scandal (Berliner 2014, Darch and Underwood 2010). Politicians have many motives for introducing FOI, from the simple politics of wrong footing or neutralising opponents to the longerterm, calculating intention of securing access to information when they are out of power (Berliner 2014). Context is also key, as laws are frequently passed amid wider change or as a response to a particular problem. As well as calculation and context there are a series of symbolic pressures. Politicians can, at least in the short term, earn a form of âmoral capitalâ from supporting openness (Birchall 2014; Michener 2009).
However, the conventional wisdom is that politicians rapidly fall out of love with transparency and the potential for exposure, uncertainty and unpleasant surprises it brings (Berliner 2014). Opening up equates to a loss of control and a potential empowerment of enemies and critics. So once in office, actors seek to stall, delay and water down commitments: the classic trajectory of FOI reform is one of survival through dilution.
Symbolism versus resistance
The story of FOI is of a clash between the power of symbolism and the resistance of institutions, between abstract ideals and concrete structures. The radical, modernising and democratic symbolism of FOI helps put it onto the agenda, sometimes gradually and sometimes quickly (Fenster 2012b). The move towards FOI, particularly in the countries studied in this book, is also shaped by long-term social and political changes, as the case for secrecy gradually erodes amid institutional reform, changing societal attitudes and technological advances. Pressure builds as parties and leaders commit themselves, especially when a commitment to FOI plays into the radical self-image of reformists and modernisers.
Governments quickly regret their promise once in office. However, dropping outright a promised policy that speaks of âfreedomâ, âinformationâ or a ârightâ is problematic. The symbolism, radicalism and âmoralâ angle of FOI, and even its resonant name, make it difficult to get rid of it quietly. The same values it embodies make the accusation of betrayal easy and somewhat dangerous. Buoyed by an alliance of institutional and extra-institutional âopinion formersâ, the symbolic power frequently cuts off any line of retreat. What happens instead is that FOI proposals are stalled, blocked and channelled away as different factions seek to submerge the radical ideals in detail and manoeuvres behind closed doors while others, inside and out, fight for it to stay in its original form. What then emerges on the statute book, after lengthy internal battles, is a compromise.
Symbolic politics and laws
FOI laws fit with a wide range of policies and democratic activities that are laden with symbolic value, irrespective of their practical significance. Edelman (1985) likened political activity to a âpassing parade of abstract symbolsâ replete with âeasy objects upon which to displace ⌠strong anxieties and hopesâ (5). Even voting, the most basic of democratic actions, is a âritual actâ intended to âexpress discontents and enthusiasmâ (3), and most democratic institutions are âlargely symbolic and expressive in functionâ (19).
While some symbolic activities serve as hermeneutic short cuts, others âevoke emotionsâ more remote from reality (Edelman 1985, 5). Cobb and Elder (1973) created a broad typology of symbolic items, from the âbroadly applicableâ and âsali-entâ objects, such as flags, down to more focused political norms or institutions. All symbols are either a âthreat or reassuranceâ (Edelman 1985, 7, 11). Symbolic actions frequently âcall forth a larger and more complex set of ideas than the basic meaning of the actionâ (Hart 1995, 386). They are âprimarily a vehicle for conveying a broader messageâ that âhighlight a symbolic purposeâ. Such actions frequently run into difficulties when the ideal moves to policy substance, particularly as the symbolism is frequently âdecodedâ or challenged by the media (386). Such symbolic acts and policies can drive new agendas and âchallenge authority relationshipsâ as seen, for example, with the global spread of the human rights agenda (Brysk 1995, 561).
Edelman (1985) highlights laws as peculiarly symbolic objects that are often created through a mix of âsymbolic effect and rational reflectionâ (41). They âsuggest vigorous activityâ and can cover ânoisy attacks on triviaâ and represent âprolonged, repeated, well publicised attention to a significant problem which may never be solvedâ (37â39). The names of laws themselves âare important symbolsâ with âsubtle and potentâ effects on interpretation (206). Stolz (2007) similarly argues that legislation âin reality carries both instrumental (tangible) and expressive (symbolism)â aspects (311). Certain issues appear particularly conducive to symbolic laws, especially those that send out signals to an audience about their behaviour or concern the âpublic designation of moralityâ (Gusfield 1967, 177). These include criminal justice issues, the war on drugs (Stolz 2007), domestic violence (Stolz 1999) and alcohol consumption (Gusfield 1967).
The importance of such symbolic laws lies not just in their enforcement or âmanifest significanceâ but also in âwhat the action connotes for the audience that views itâ (Gusfield 1967, 177; Gusfield 1968). Symbolic legislation sends signals, acting as a âpublic affirmation of social idealsâ or a âstatement of what is acceptableâ, a âgesture important in itselfâ rather than a fixed end (Gusfield 1967, 177). It acts as a âframing and signalling deviceâ around a âcluster of messages intended to change attitudesâ based on ânarrative structuring and interpretive resonanceâ (Brysk 1995, 562). The idea of signalling âeffectsâ originates in economics, and refers to a process whereby informational asymmetry is resolved by one party âsignallingâ information to induce trust or credibility (Spence 1973; Spence 2002). The signals of symbolic laws can be educative, aimed at âsimplifying complexityâ, or may serve to communicate a âmoralâ message (Stoltz 2007, 312). Even the passage of such legislation âpersuades listenersâ, acts as an âaffirmation of a moral normâ and gives certain ideas âlegitimacy and public dominanceâ (Gusfield 1967, 177â178). Taken together, the act of creating and passing such laws constitutes a âmoral passage, a transition of behaviour from one moral status to anotherâ (177).
The difficulty is that symbolic laws are fragile. Cobb and Elder (1973) argued that symbolic policies are often built around a ârather shallow symbolic consensusâ that may be easily exposed and frayed, and that they conflict with the âstark realitiesâ of power (87). Underneath the clear signal such laws can be quietly ârepealed in effect by administrative policy, budgetary starvation or other little publicised meansâ (37). Matland associated symbolic policy with âa lack of implementationâ. Such policies frequently have âsubstantial exposure at the adoption phaseâ but âultimatelyâ have âlittle substantive effectâ and are âalmost alwaysâ a âsubstantive failureâ (1995, 168). In part, this is because they are, owing to their symbolism, âconflictualâ with âactors intensely involvedâ (169). The âvictory or defeatâ of symbolic policies is âconsequently symbolic of the status and power of the cultures opposing each other ⌠Legal affirmation or rejection is thus important in what it symbolizes as well or instead of what it controlsâ (Gusfield 1967, 179). The âsignificance of prohibition in America lay less in its enforcement than in the fact it occurredâ (179).
Hart (1995) later expanded on the power and dangers in symbolic policy and signals, looking at the promise of the first Clinton administration to cut presidential staff, a âone sentenceâ policy in the campaign intended to symbolise the new administrationâs restraint and commitment to âreduceâ government (385). The media doggedly pursued the detail of the policy, and the administration found itself bogged down in a series of debates over who constituted âstaffâ and how ânumbersâ were calculated. This eventually resulted, rather damagingly, in a loss of staff working on drugs policy and the environment (390â391). The case highlighted a series of problems with laws as symbolic devices. First, âsymbolism is simple but the substance was complexâ, and the reformers had âlittle grasp of the substantive problemsâ (397â398). Second, as consequence, the mediaâs âdecodingâ of the policy led to, sequentially, âquestions, doubts, cynicism and, eventually, disbeliefâ (397). While reformers believed that the symbolism would âspeak for itselfâ, it was âweak and riddled with detail and complexityâ (398). It was exactly this âdetail and numbersâ that then âgenerated a hostile reception from the media and congressâ (402).
The radical roots of FOI: the most subversive idea of all?
Conceptually FOI is âsimple but revolutionaryâ (Wald 1984, 655). Transparency has long been championed by radicals, reformers and outsiders, and the possibility and call for greater openness punctuate history, frequently being tied to freedom of expression and the free press (Ackerman and Sandoval-Ballesteros 2006). Although âisolated in time and spaceâ these ideas can be traced across a lineage of very different thinkers and actors (Darch and Underwood 2010, 65). Castells (2013) sees âfree communicationâ as the âmost subversive practice of allâ because it âchallenges the power relations embedded in institutions and societyâ (x).
The modern drive towards transparency has its origins in two revolutionary processes, one philosophical and one technological (Darch and Underwood 2010, 127). Though FOI may arguably have far older roots in ancient China, its modern form stems from the European Renaissance (Darch and Underwood 2010). Popper (2002) argues that the âunparalleled epistemological optimismâ of the Renaissance drove the impulse âto discern truth and acquire knowledgeâ through perception and âintellectual intuitionâ (6). Thus a veiled or distorted âtruthâ would be revealed, driven by a âdoctrine that truth is manifestâ (8). This âideal of emancipation modelled on lucid self-consciousnessâ or âabsolute self-transparencyâ was then completed by the Enlightenment (Vattimo 1992). Popper points out how its logical opposite co-existed with it and gave it strength: âthe conspiracy theory of ignoranceâ stemming from Plato, holding that man was âblocked from knowingâ by âsinâ, âprejudiceâ or âpowers conspiring to keep us in ignoranceâ (2002, 9).
The doctrine drove thinkers from Bacon to Descartes, as well as modern science and technology. Popper wholeheartedly disagreed with the premise, labelling it a âmythâ for the âsimple truth is that the truth is hard to come by and easily lostâ (2002, 10). Nevertheless, it was an example of âa bad idea inspiring many good onesâ, as what he labels a âfalse epistemologyâ became âthe major inspiration of a moral and intellectual revolution without parallel in historyâ, providing the force behind the scientific revolution, the fight against censorship and educative reform (10â11). The idea evolved in parallel with nascent conceptions of a âfree societyâ, âopen discussionâ and the âpublic sphereâ (Vattimo 1992, 18).
The new philosophy was powered mechanically by the âlong revolutionâ launched by the invention of the printing press in the 1400s (Eisenstein 2005, 335). Such a change in communication technology was inherently revolutionary:
any new technology of communication, such as the printing press, has challenged authority because the seeds of revolt existing in individuals can grow and blossom ⌠breaking the barriers to social mobilisation and alternative projects of social organisation. (Castells 2013,...