Introduction We have made transition from a nation that was governed, in main, by an unelected old-boy network, drawn from a narrow band of people, where vast majority of had no real idea of what was going on, to a far more open and democratic system of governance. Long may it continue (Carwyn Jones, thenMinister for Open Government, National Assembly of Record of Proceedings, Jan. 21, 2003)1 What, after all, is claimed when operation of power is described as transparent? is seen through, and what, then, is seen? Transparency, as it is used in contemporary global-speak, presumes a surface to power that can be seen through and an interior that can, as a result, be seen. If processes through which power functions constitute its interior, what, then, constitutes its surface? Its (ideological) representations? If so, can such surfaces ever be rendered transparent; can they ever be completely stripped away? Or, can they only be transformed/replaced/covered over? And by whom? (Sanders and West 2001:16) This article examines linkages between and political legitimacy in multi-sited domains of European governance. The specific focus is on National Assembly for Wales, an elected body of 60 Assembly Members (AMs), which is institutionally tied to both United Kingdom (UK) and European Union (EU).2 The Assembly was established in 1999 following a referendum (in 1997) and parliamentary legislation in London (in 1998). Somewhat paradoxically, it is intended to break from historical culture of adversarial, insulated politics in UK while operating within limits of UK and EU governance structures. The Assembly was expected to usher in a distinctly Welsh and democratic political environment otherwise absent from for more than five centuries. At core of this new democratic mandate are ideological touchstones of transparency and inclusion, which are institutionalized through formal and informal codes of conduct, new patterns of legislative practice, and technologically-driven networks of disclosure setting Wales apart from England and the UK. Given that Assembly lacks primary legislative powers, i.e., that it may only adapt laws made in House of Commons to specific policy circumstances of (see endnote two), creating a transparent institutional environment is a fundamental means through which Assembly is legitimated as distinctly Welsh and democratic. Thus, it is not surprising that when conducting fieldwork on political culture in National Assembly during 2003, consistent response to my question, What is your opinion of Assembly's Open Government Policy?, was one in favor of openness in government.3 Who could question value of transparency in politics, after all? The goal of openness is neither unique to nor to government institutions in general. Transparency is today common lexical currency of a globally dispersed, if often overlapping, constellation of political and economic discourses heralding practical administration of bureaucratic, democratic and/or corporate reforms.4 Undoubtedly, multitudinous emergences of as an organizing principle raise important questions about confluence of political and economic processes of social (and self-) regulation and administration under capitalism. Why, after all, is transparency so important a reference point of legitimate administrative practice across a range of institutional settings, in specified historical moments, and with regard to a global body public differentiated by, for instance, nationality, gender, race, ethnicity, and class? Equally critical questions, moreover, must be posed about how and why certain elements of this transnational lexicon are appropriated in some cultural-political contexts and less (or not) applied in others. Whereas first statement above, made by a high-ranking elected official in Assembly, suggests a necessary, if not mutually constituting, relationship between transparency and democracy, second, by Sanders and West, poses a more cautious analysis. …