German political transparency. Stained glass

New demands for more open government

IF THE new architecture of political Berlin were anything to go by, Germany would be a champion of open government. Glass is the construction material of choice, in ministries, in the chancellery and, above all, in the great cupola above the Reichstag. But appearances deceive. When it comes to transparency, Germany is well behind its neighbours' standards. Now parliament is at last considering a freedom of information bill. And pressure for transparency may rise after revelations that many members of parliament are paid on the side by big German companies.

German bureaucracy is still culturally wedded to official secrecy, going back to a time when officials were accountable only to the sovereign and nobody thought government agencies really worked for citizens. Germany is the only large member of the European Union that has no federal-level freedom of information act (some German states have acts of their own). When the centre-left government came to power in 1998, it duly promised to do something.

Last month, it introduced a freedom of information bill - though even this was opposed by Otto Schily, the interior minister, who thinks it might benefit not just citizens, but also such suspect groups as the Church of Scientology. The bill would bring Germany closer to international standards. Anyone, not just somebody with a legal interest, could request information from any public entity, and be entitled to an answer within a month (or two months in complex cases).

Naturally, there are exceptions - some of which, critics say, are not clearly enough defined. Information may be withheld if it could have an adverse effect on defence, public security or tax collection. Government contractors may veto disclosure of information on public procurement, ostensibly to protect trade secrets, although some critics say it is to limit competition. In America most freedom of information requests are filed by businesses wanting to know about previous public contracts.

The cause of transparency could be boosted by the cash-for-MPs scandal. This began when a prominent left-wing Christian Democrat was forced to resign from all party posts after it emerged that he was on the payroll of a utility giant, RWE. In revenge, his friends revealed that Laurenz Meyer, the party's secretary-general, was also paid by RWE. Mr Meyer quit just before Christmas. The next reports about moonlighting involved Social Democrats. Now, hardly a week passes without a federal or state MP admitting to being paid by a company. Recently a prominent Christian Democrat in the European Parliament, Elmar Brok, had to defend himself for working for Bertelsmann, a media giant.

Nobody suggests that anybody is doing anything illegal. Federal MPs, for instance, are allowed to work on the side to boost their incomes (around €7,000, or $9,000, a month), so long as they tell the parliament's president. But only job titles and employers are published in parliamentary directories. This lack of transparency is now backfiring, as the voters learn how much is going to their MPs for so little apparent work. A debate has begun about how much more information to make public, allowing voters to decide if their MPs suffer from too great a conflict of interest. Some politicians are also arguing for full disclosure of the pay of bosses, and even - perhaps jokingly - of top editors.

Resistance to fuller disclosure will be fierce. Yet the notion that too much transparency can be dangerous is belied by the experience of other countries. It is also increasingly untenable as access to information becomes easier, thanks to the internet. Increased transparency could help with other German problems too: growing political apathy, the deteriorating quality of public services and corruption. In a country with such lousy weather, sunlight tends to be the best disinfectant.

There are increasing demands for more open government in Germany.

• Primary Source