When a politician says that a closed door is necessary to govern, what they are really asking for is a safe conduct pass to make concessions without witnesses. Governability does not require opacity, but accountability. What demands silence is the uncomfortable pact, the concession that is shameful to explain. If the agreement were good for everyone, it would be defended in the open. If it is bad, it should not be signed. The answer is simple: it is not designed for the citizens, but for the survival of the office.
Transparency as a protocol: the open source of public management 🔍
In software development, closed source code often hides security flaws or questionable features. The same happens in politics: when the minutes of a negotiation are not public, the citizen loses the ability to audit the process. An open government platform, with accessible voting records and minutes, would function like a version control system. Without transparency, the end user (the voter) does not know if the final product is a useful update or a temporary patch to save the developer.
The art of promising nothing you can't hide 🎭
Politicians have perfected the art of negotiating as if they were secret agents, but without the glamour of the movies. They meet behind closed doors not to protect governability, but so that no one records them saying: Sure, we'll pass that law. Then, when they don't fulfill it, they claim it was a rumor. It's funny: in a world where everything gets leaked, they still believe that closing the door guarantees them control. Next time, let them ask for a pact of silence with a contract and witnesses. Or better yet, let them open the door once and for all.