WikiLeaks - a force to undermine democracy?
Some people seem to encourage the justice in exposing the secrets and challenging the authority of our establishment - but isn't this a threat to democracy?
The people that do encourage this must believe that a utopia could exist where governments tell the people everything that goes on and the concept of behind the scenes negotiations and deals is eradicated. I don't think this is actually possible, and that secrecy is a charachteristic of any kind of state - democracy or disctatorship.
There is a risk that such exposes will undermine public confidence and lead to something like anarchy or at least a state where the authority of government officials is very low and their ability to carry out efficient operations would be severley damaged. The stuff about the Saudis encouraging the USA to bomb Iran behind closed doors just plays into Ahmadinejad's hands and his wish to make Iran go nuclear. Also, what implications will this have on the Saudi government's ability to run their country effectivley?
On the stuff about foul play in Iraq/Afganistan some months back - mistakes happen and prejudists exist among soldiers (no offense to the brilliance of the majority of soldiers, but some of them are from the lower ranks of society). Perhaps this has exposed the Coalition's peoples to the realities of war and will make them less supportive of their governments' future plans to continue or initiate/intervene in another conflict one day (who knows it might be one that is a matter of immediate national security).
What makes matters worse is that the technology exists to make this possible without anonymity, so the supply of this is likely to increase and or remain healthy whatever happens to Assange and WikiLeaks.
I think this is just an example of how the media in general has got too big for its boots. It already has, I think, sufficient if not excessive power to influence government but its ability to infiltrae the most private and confidential matters of government responsibility is a bit too far.
Probably nothing we can do about it though, what do you guys think?
Edit: An article for those interested, "Missing the point of WikiLeaks" from the Economist - http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/12/after_secrets
The people that do encourage this must believe that a utopia could exist where governments tell the people everything that goes on and the concept of behind the scenes negotiations and deals is eradicated. I don't think this is actually possible, and that secrecy is a charachteristic of any kind of state - democracy or disctatorship.
There is a risk that such exposes will undermine public confidence and lead to something like anarchy or at least a state where the authority of government officials is very low and their ability to carry out efficient operations would be severley damaged. The stuff about the Saudis encouraging the USA to bomb Iran behind closed doors just plays into Ahmadinejad's hands and his wish to make Iran go nuclear. Also, what implications will this have on the Saudi government's ability to run their country effectivley?
On the stuff about foul play in Iraq/Afganistan some months back - mistakes happen and prejudists exist among soldiers (no offense to the brilliance of the majority of soldiers, but some of them are from the lower ranks of society). Perhaps this has exposed the Coalition's peoples to the realities of war and will make them less supportive of their governments' future plans to continue or initiate/intervene in another conflict one day (who knows it might be one that is a matter of immediate national security).
What makes matters worse is that the technology exists to make this possible without anonymity, so the supply of this is likely to increase and or remain healthy whatever happens to Assange and WikiLeaks.
I think this is just an example of how the media in general has got too big for its boots. It already has, I think, sufficient if not excessive power to influence government but its ability to infiltrae the most private and confidential matters of government responsibility is a bit too far.
Probably nothing we can do about it though, what do you guys think?
Edit: An article for those interested, "Missing the point of WikiLeaks" from the Economist - http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/12/after_secrets
(edited 13 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by TheRevolution
It's not really a democracy though it is, not when it seems people who have the most money get into power.
There is a risk that such exposes will undermine public confidence and lead to something like anarchy or at least a state where the authority of government officials is very low and their ability to carry out efficient operations would be severley damaged. The stuff about the Saudis encouraging the USA to bomb Iran behind closed doors just plays into Ahmadinejad's hands and his wish to make Iran go nuclear. Also, what implications will this have on the Saudi government's ability to run their country effectivley?
The Saudi government didn't say this. The Saudi royalty said this...it most likely won't have any implications on their government.
What makes matters worse is that the technology exists to make this possible without anonymity, so the supply of this is likely to increase and or remain healthy whatever happens to Assange and WikiLeaks.
How is it worse? I'm in favour of it...
I think this is just an example of how the media in general has got too big for its boots. It already has, I think, sufficient if not excessive power to influence government but its ability to infiltrae the most private and confidential matters of government responsibility is a bit too far.
So let's clamp down on the press? Governments are for the people and they should answer to the people as well...free press keeps governments in check or it's supposed to.
I think the backlash Wikileaks received especially from the media really puts into question the "free" part of their title and whether they really do have an agenda.
It's strange that in essence media outlets are meant to be investigative in their nature, keeping governments in check and exposing anything that could be of interest to the public, but that's right, investigating FIFA and losing the World Cup for a generation is far more important.
It's strange that in essence media outlets are meant to be investigative in their nature, keeping governments in check and exposing anything that could be of interest to the public, but that's right, investigating FIFA and losing the World Cup for a generation is far more important.
Original post by TheRevolution
We want the truth! Not lies!
Original post by bigmo7
It's not really a democracy though it is, not when it seems people who have the most money get into power.
I think you know this point is a tad irrelevent and untrue to say the least. WikiLeaks is nothing to do with combating social inequality and even if this were true it would still be democracy.
The Saudi government didn't say this. The Saudi royalty said this...it most likely won't have any implications on their government.
Ok, I was misinformed then. However the way it plays into Iran's hands is still valid. Also, doesn't the Saudi Royalty possess some sovreighnty?
How is it worse? I'm in favour of it...
Well it makes the problem of undermining our democracy worse but i know you don't accept that (on invalid grounds, though). It is certainly dangerous that it is too easy to access classified info. Would it be clever to inform the public that soemone who has a hostage is going to be shot by the police? If this happened then the operation would fail but by your logic it is an infringement on freedom of info/press.
So let's clamp down on the press? Governments are for the people and they should answer to the people as well...free press keeps governments in check or it's supposed to.
I think you know this point is a tad irrelevent and untrue to say the least. WikiLeaks is nothing to do with combating social inequality and even if this were true it would still be democracy.
The Saudi government didn't say this. The Saudi royalty said this...it most likely won't have any implications on their government.
Ok, I was misinformed then. However the way it plays into Iran's hands is still valid. Also, doesn't the Saudi Royalty possess some sovreighnty?
How is it worse? I'm in favour of it...
Well it makes the problem of undermining our democracy worse but i know you don't accept that (on invalid grounds, though). It is certainly dangerous that it is too easy to access classified info. Would it be clever to inform the public that soemone who has a hostage is going to be shot by the police? If this happened then the operation would fail but by your logic it is an infringement on freedom of info/press.
So let's clamp down on the press? Governments are for the people and they should answer to the people as well...free press keeps governments in check or it's supposed to.
I never said clamp down on the press itself, but rather to keep the checks on its access safeguarded. The press checks the gov't yes but the press also needs some checks to its access to prevent it getting too dangerous and forcing a collapse of gov't efficiency.
Haters gonna hate.
Original post by Hylean
It's a force to undermine corrupt governments, which have nothing to do with democracy.
What you call "corruption" is what I call the healthy level of privacy that exists in any stable democracy.
Where exactly would you draw the line between what the press can and can't know?
There was an article in the Telegraph, where an MP wrote about the "hypothetical threat" of the Wikileaks, and came up with some HYPOTHETICAL examples. What many seem to have forgotten, is the fact that trully dangerous information hasn't been released (yet).
All that has been opened to the public eye so far has been information which highlighted the corruption of governments, or simply the poor characters of the world leaders. All wikileaks have done so far, is embarrass (rightfully so) those individuals. Not cause global conflicts.
Wikileaks, based on information released so far, should be protected (freedom of speech anyone?), under the argument of citizen participation in a democracy. People have the right to know that the US army shot two journalists from a helicopter and then tried to cover this up.
We need to trust the government(s), but how can we, when they have undermined that trust?
All that has been opened to the public eye so far has been information which highlighted the corruption of governments, or simply the poor characters of the world leaders. All wikileaks have done so far, is embarrass (rightfully so) those individuals. Not cause global conflicts.
Wikileaks, based on information released so far, should be protected (freedom of speech anyone?), under the argument of citizen participation in a democracy. People have the right to know that the US army shot two journalists from a helicopter and then tried to cover this up.
We need to trust the government(s), but how can we, when they have undermined that trust?
We have just witnessed one of the greatest triumphs of human enlightenment in recent history.
Julian Assange is a hero of our time.
Julian Assange is a hero of our time.
Original post by TheRevolution
I never said clamp down on the press itself, but rather to keep the checks on its access safeguarded. The press checks the gov't yes but the press also needs some checks to its access to prevent it getting too dangerous and forcing a collapse of gov't efficiency.
Since when has a government been efficient?
I think you know this point is a tad irrelevent and untrue to say the least. WikiLeaks is nothing to do with combating social inequality and even if this were true it would still be democracy.
How is it untrue? And if it was true which imo it is then it's not a democracy...
Ok, I was misinformed then. However the way it plays into Iran's hands is still valid. Also, doesn't the Saudi Royalty possess some sovreighnty?
No it doesn't, if anything it plays into the hands of the Israeli's...
Well it makes the problem of undermining our democracy worse but i know you don't accept that (on invalid grounds, though). It is certainly dangerous that it is too easy to access classified info. Would it be clever to inform the public that soemone who has a hostage is going to be shot by the police? If this happened then the operation would fail but by your logic it is an infringement on freedom of info/press.
Something like 2 million people had access to this data, if you want someone to blame then blame the American government for allowing this to happen. The point you made doesn't make sense. Rephrase it....if the hostage taker is shot then what's the problem?
Original post by bigmo7
Something like 2 million people had access to this data, if you want someone to blame then blame the American government for allowing this to happen. The point you made doesn't make sense. Rephrase it....if the hostage taker is shot then what's the problem?
Something like 2 million people had access to this data, if you want someone to blame then blame the American government for allowing this to happen. The point you made doesn't make sense. Rephrase it....if the hostage taker is shot then what's the problem?
Situation: there is a hostage situation and the police plan to snipe the hostage frrom a nearby building.
Would you say that the public have a right to know about this before the op happens? if so do u realise that it is likley to result in the hostages death?
If you say this is irrelevent I correct you. Imagine if the US new NK were planning to send nukes to NYork the following day. Obama decides to invade secretly w/out a public announcement and he manages to relieve the NKs of control of the weapons. He is clearly putting American lives at risk and the invasion of a country w/ out consulting the ppl might sound unacceptable to you. If WikiLeaks had access to Obama's discussions before the invasion and released it America wold have been nuked. Obviously there are things the media has no business in being able to access otherwise they are interfering with the gov'ts job.
Original post by TheRevolution
What you call "corruption" is what I call the healthy level of privacy that exists in any stable democracy.
Where exactly would you draw the line between what the press can and can't know?
Where exactly would you draw the line between what the press can and can't know?
Who ever said I was referring to them keeping things quiet as "corruption"? People don't need to know everything, but in a true democracy, they have the right to, if they want. I don't need to read The Bible, but it shouldn't be kept from me either.
Wikileaks gives governments the transparency we as voters want. It allows us to see what they really think, what they're really doing, etc. If used properly, it means the governments will have no secrets, yes, but they shouldn't need secrets either. If they've got nothing to hide, they've nothing to fear. Thus, Wikileaks will help keep corruption and double dealing down.
Governments shouldn't have secrets. The politicians are allowed secrets, but not the Governments.
Original post by jumpingjesusholycow
We have just witnessed one of the greatest triumphs of human enlightenment in recent history.
Julian Assange is a hero of our time.
Julian Assange is a hero of our time.
I suppose.
But what better age will this lead to? I can only envisage ineffective government leading to anarchy.
Original post by TheRevolution
Situation: there is a hostage situation and the police plan to snipe the hostage frrom a nearby building.
Would you say that the public have a right to know about this before the op happens? if so do u realise that it is likley to result in the hostages death?
If you say this is irrelevent I correct you. Imagine if the US new NK were planning to send nukes to NYork the following day. Obama decides to invade secretly w/out a public announcement and he manages to relieve the NKs of control of the weapons. He is clearly putting American lives at risk and the invasion of a country w/ out consulting the ppl might sound unacceptable to you. If WikiLeaks had access to Obama's discussions before the invasion and released it America wold have been nuked. Obviously there are things the media has no business in being able to access otherwise they are interfering with the gov'ts job.
Would you say that the public have a right to know about this before the op happens? if so do u realise that it is likley to result in the hostages death?
If you say this is irrelevent I correct you. Imagine if the US new NK were planning to send nukes to NYork the following day. Obama decides to invade secretly w/out a public announcement and he manages to relieve the NKs of control of the weapons. He is clearly putting American lives at risk and the invasion of a country w/ out consulting the ppl might sound unacceptable to you. If WikiLeaks had access to Obama's discussions before the invasion and released it America wold have been nuked. Obviously there are things the media has no business in being able to access otherwise they are interfering with the gov'ts job.
It's a hypothetical situation with so many variables...too many what ifs so it's kinda pointless to even talk about it let alone using it to justify your point. I'm sure the US has a plan to react to such an event, be it the missile shield or bombing NK.
Original post by Hylean
Who ever said I was referring to them keeping things quiet as "corruption"? People don't need to know everything, but in a true democracy, they have the right to, if they want. I don't need to read The Bible, but it shouldn't be kept from me either.
Wikileaks gives governments the transparency we as voters want. It allows us to see what they really think, what they're really doing, etc. If used properly, it means the governments will have no secrets, yes, but they shouldn't need secrets either. If they've got nothing to hide, they've nothing to fear. Thus, Wikileaks will help keep corruption and double dealing down.
Governments shouldn't have secrets. The politicians are allowed secrets, but not the Governments.
Wikileaks gives governments the transparency we as voters want. It allows us to see what they really think, what they're really doing, etc. If used properly, it means the governments will have no secrets, yes, but they shouldn't need secrets either. If they've got nothing to hide, they've nothing to fear. Thus, Wikileaks will help keep corruption and double dealing down.
Governments shouldn't have secrets. The politicians are allowed secrets, but not the Governments.
I disagree.
If WikiLeaks is used properly there will still be some secrets; perhaps ones that will be released when it is safe to do so (not politically but in terms of national security). WikiLeaks should have access but as long as it doesn't get to a level that is extremly dangerous. Assange himself said he's balancing the leaks with the effects it will have on soldiers lives in Afganistan. I'm not sure whether i feel that he has no right playing God and balancing the lives of soldiers as he has no authority to do that or whether the ends justify the means.
Double dealing is somethimes necessary to national security as are Government's having secrets. look at my example in my previous post.
Original post by TheRevolution
I suppose.
But what better age will this lead to? I can only envisage ineffective government leading to anarchy.
But what better age will this lead to? I can only envisage ineffective government leading to anarchy.
Why would it lead to ineffective government?
As far as I'm concerned, a more enlightened electorate makes for a more democratic decision.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- a level history - edexcel cold war coursework
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- LNAT essay review
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B: 9PL0 3B - 17 June 2022 [Exam Chat]
- parliamentary sovereignty
- Your Perfect Country
- Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- Should i vote Labour?
- Auditors are a waste of time
- A lot of people have been telling me I don’t display a normal behaviour.
- politics essay help please
- Higher Modern Studies exam question
- GCSE Early Elizabethan England 16 marker Attempt
- Higher modern studies 2024
- A level Edexcel Politics
- Higher Modern Studies marks
- Can someone please mark my Power and Conflict poetry comparison Essay? (Out of 30)
- prediction classics 2024 and question on classics A level
- BBC: Tory donor accused of racist remarks about Diane Abbott
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
