Wikileaks prompts questions on democracy

Since Wikileaks unveiled its large cache of US diplomatic cables, debate has raged on how much transparency is required for a good democracy. Governments and their supporters argue that diplomacy must remain confidential for the sake of the “common good”. The public have responded - through large sympathetic support for Julian Assange - that full disclosure of government behaviour, including in foreign diplomatic circles, is essential to democracy.

We have already witnessed the dangers of secret diplomacy as per the lies of Bush, Blair and Howard in regards to Saddam Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaida. Secret diplomacy dragged the West into yet another Middle Eastern war, and catapulted the dive of the American economy, precipitating a global recession.

Thus far, the Wikileaked US cables have revealed some intriguing diplomatic gossip, but nothing overly detrimental. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates concedes the latest Wikileaks release will have “modest consequences”.

Rather, Wikileaks’ disclosure of US cables, as well as its release of military files in July on the conduct of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, reinforces the need for greater transparency.

Wikileaks won appraisal in July when it divulged to the world the brutal reality that persists in Iraq and Afghanistan, a truth our governments are largely keeping secret.

What requires scrutiny is the insistence by supposedly democratic governments to perform their affairs behind closed doors. The security conscious post 9/11 world has posed a challenge to our fundamental democratic principles. By advocating greater transparency, Wikileaks is asserting those democratic principles.

While soldiers fight in the name of “freedom” and “democracy” abroad, Wikileaks reminds us that we are in a constant battle for an open democracy at home as well.