Транспарентність як явище та вимога публічно-владної діяльності

Abstract

Здійснено спробу висвітлення ряду елементів, що стосуються транспарентності, як явища і вимоги публічно-владної діяльності, а також етичної оперативної цінності в практиці органів публічної влади. Розроблено теоретичний аналіз транспарентності публічних органів влади як вихідного принципу, що дасть практичний ефект позитивної адміністративної діяльності. The article attempts to highlight a number of elements relating to transparency as phenomena and requirements of public power, as well as ethical operational value in the practice of public authorities. The author developed a theoretical analysis of the transparency of public authorities as a starting point, which will give a practical effect of positive administrative activity. Transparency, as a phenomenon and phenomenon, is evidence of the maturity and development of society, taking into account the ability of the latter to recognize the need for a permanent dialogue both within the society itself and with the institutions of the state, the authorities. Modern scientific approaches to the analysis of the phenomenon of transparency in society and the state testify to the efforts to form a clear idea of the structure and nature of the phenomenon of transparency and its role in the activities of public administration bodies in the context of establishing cooperation between civil society and the state. At the conceptual level, the phenomenon of transparency is a guarantee of confidence in the authorities and a fence against abuse on their part, which in the end forms and ensures effective partnerships between the state and its citizens. The public’s trust in public authorities depends directly on their level of transparency, since it relates to the communicative ability to cooperate and respond promptly to criticism and to overcome the contradictions between public and public interests. The approach, which sets the priority of the unequal treatment of state institutions and civil society, is considered incorrect and leads to disputes and conflicts that have a destructive result for the development of the state as a whole. Therefore, attempts to create additional obligatory and restrictive mechanisms and instruments by the state should be carried out extremely moderately, taking into account and counting the onset of the possible consequences of their introduction, as well as with a preliminary assessment of the expert environment and broad discussion among citizens. Otherwise, such initiatives will have the opposite effect and will play a catalyst role for civil unrest and a permanent conflict with public authorities.