Back room dealing, do we really need it?

I have to admit a little astonishment that there are
manifestly intelligent people who argue;
back room deal making is in the people's best interests.

The evidence to the contrary being so overwhelming.

If you ask one of these people to articulate a real or
hypothetical backroom conversation where our interests are
being bartered and where it is not in our best interests to watch,
they stonewall.

A more fundamental problem than blind faith in back room
decision making is, even if it were a good thing, the wrong
people are deciding which decisions the people have a right to participate in.

It is the same as allowing a politician or public servant to self-redact the truth in public records. Seriously, how stupid is it, to give those with the most to hide, the authority to redact their own public record?

And then the government backs them when you have to
litigate to see the truth about the spending of your power
and resources.

How stupid is it, to allow politicians and public servants
to decide what truth about the public interests, they have to
surrender?

The terms of public service are the prerogative of the people,
not of politicians and public servants.

Who decides, who decides?

When it is our power and our resources being spent,
the people will decide where the line is, on transparency.

The people will determine the standards of conduct and competence for politicians and public servants.

And the people will have transparent and inescapable accountability to those standards for politicians and public servants within their public service.

But only if the people are willing to insist upon it rather
vehemently.

"Public corruption and incompetence are made possible

only by the sanction people give them." Ayn Rand (derived)