Avenues for Research and Political Practice

Abstract

Executive secrecy constitutes both a theoretical and a practical problem for democracy. Democratic decision-making and public debate require access to information. Executive secrecy, it seems, has no place in a democracy. In political practice, though, secrecy remains ubiquitous. This final chapter discusses implications arising from the analysis of the two case studies, intelligence and Public–Private Partnership secrecy. First, it lays out an agenda for further research, identifying research desiderata ranging from an international comparison of the findings of this study through an analysis of executive secrecy in political practice, of ‘street-level secrecy’, to research into other forms of scrutiny as a form of procedural legitimation, namely by courts and the media. Second, it draws tentative conclusions for a political practice rooted in the empirical analysis of plenary debates and interviews. Derived from the analysis, it argues that proxy-monitoring mechanisms which ensure secrecy while enabling their oversight could be applied to fields other than intelligence secrecy. Also, it argues in favour of legislative and contractual solutions to the problem of third-party interests which played an important role in both case studies. Finally, it stresses the relevance of democratic, public discourse in addition to parliamentary discourse.