The French government at the time commented that “A transparent society is also a totalitarian society” for some people, this phrase sounds like a mockery of democracy. However, it loses its offensive side if read carefully. France was talking about society and was probably thinking of George Orwell’s novel “1984”. In any case, the opposite is true in a democracy. Since in it all power emanates from the people (from the state), the citizens are the real sovereigns. Consequently, the first principle is that since politicians act on behalf of the people, they owe them the truth and nothing but the truth.
There is no doubt that the transparency requirement does not have the same status as the true principles of liberal democracy, such as the rule of law, fundamental rights, the separation of powers and free elections. However, if transparency does not have the same priority, a priori constraints are not ruled out. Transparency is not an end in itself, but rather serves the true end in itself, the triumvirate of democracy, rule of law, and community well-being.
The Political Constitution of the Republic guarantees Guatemalans the right to elect and be elected, as well as the right to run for public office; however, article 113 specifies three requirements whose evaluation criteria may fall into the field of subjectivity.
Specifically, said constitutional article states that for the granting of jobs or public positions “no more than reasons based on merits of capacity, suitability and honesty will be taken into account.”
Law specialists, political scientists and various analysts consider that this article should be applied more rigorously to guarantee that citizens have a better electoral offer to choose from, although they recognize that the requirements included in 113 are among the most difficult to define.
Given the upcoming elections with great concern, we see many politicians with various accusations and judicial processes and even so they received credentials to be able to participate, some even leading a Municipality to bankruptcy and have the nerve to continue making promises that they never fulfilled and They know they can’t deliver. Can we say, therefore, that pre-election speeches “are not always entirely rational”? So, the people, who are co-responsible for transparency, should force politicians to be transparent? And if the price of that “transparency” is a bag of green beans, a bag of school supplies, buildings… it makes them accomplices.
Transparency in politics is important so that our civil rights can be exercised effectively, it also helps fight nepotism and is essential in the fight against corruption. But the million dollar question: How much transparency does democracy demand and how much discretion does it admit?
Citizens, who have veins of moral philosophers, are not moralists who only lament the bad things that happen in the world. In addition to the obligation we have towards transparency, we do not forget that democratic politics continues to be political and that big politics is like a game of chess: Many moves are thought of, but it does not reveal its own strategy. An understanding of democracy that wants to pull the political teeth out of politics is absurdly irrelevant.
For a democracy worthy of its name, candidates are required to comply with suitability and honor. The people, as co-responsible for that transparency, must take care of that dignified democracy with triple honesty and transparency: with character, effectiveness, and with arguments, because citizens are the “real sovereigns.”