I understand your point and the importance of the issues you're raising, but ultimately I still think it's important for leaders to be able to have confidential discussions. While transparency is important, I think that if people know that their meetings will be public then the real decisions will be made in private, and the meetings will just be an opportunity for political messaging. You don't get the same outcome plus transparency, you probably get a worse outcome and fake transparency.

EG, imagine a hypothetical scenario where Greece gets into debt trouble again, but now the other finance ministers don't trust that their meetings will be kept private. The German and French finance ministers meet privately, and decide to screw over Greece and come up with a cover story about how they can't do anything else. A better outcome would be if they had private meetings with Greece and at least had the opportunity to reach a compromise. The best possible outcome might be having the same meeting with full transparency so that the public is fully informed, but that's not what would happen.

See, but you even say, the best possible outcome would be full transparency, but you know that wouldn't happen. And that is the problem. Ohhh Germany/France/Portugal/Greece or Lithuania (doesn't matter) doesn't want their voters to know what they are fighting for, so they will never be open about it. How is that democracy? How is it possible to vote for any party anywhere when they just tell the average joe 'yes, your pension will be cut 15%, and your kids pay more in taxes, but trust me, I did the best I could, you should be thankful'. Is this democracy?????

I regularly listen to RFI. What the pro EU press tries to spin after brexit is that some questions should not be asked in a referendum, some decisions should not be left to the citizens. I am frequently asking myself the same question. How is this democracy? I'm quite certain that the next thing we'll hear from them is that democracy is not always good or something in that line of thinking.

Think of it in a future context. If discussions weren't kept secret, then the German/French Finance minister would not have said that... unless he wanted the world to hear it.

And even if it was the case... Maybe the logical reasoning is something like: EU need some worldclass banks to be independant, so we can't let a single country trash everything for all other EU countries.

I can understand that Greek people would be angry to be "sacrified"... and that's why that kind of meeting is secret! Because to govern is not only to be elected but sometimes to have to take bad choices, when only other choices are worst

I am not even againts french/german politicians to do that, they represent their population, but Greek people have the right to know they are being sacrificed for the 'greater good'. And what their representatives did, and to vote accordingly. And if it is a Grexit, so be it, but don't hide things from the population because they are unpopular, specially when they mess with their lives so much.

If that were the case, the politician would have to be able to explain that to the electorate and convince them of it. If they can't, then that decision should not be taken.

That's what democracy should mean - we don't elect representatives so that they can take decisions we don't want but that they think are good for us. We elect representatives because direct democracy doesn't scale.

Actually, that's 2 different points of view on democracy: do we elect people to to do what we want now or to do what is best for us in the long run ? And who is "the people" ? The majority of the numbers (without any though for all minorities) ? The loudest minorities ?

At best, both would be same: elected people would explain to the people what is best for them and convince them, then people would want what is best for them in the long run.

But sadly, nobody like to be sacrified now for the long term better good of all. And politicians need to be reelected. So politicians have to hide and manipulate to some extend (for what they think is the greater good of most of the population)...

"Crowd wisdom" is nice for really specific matters... but not really for managing a population with diversities in the long run.

And yet in 2020, with a little bit of tech know-how, why exactly should it not scale?

If you choose to make discussion public, at least in a timely fashion, then you will lower the effectiveness of these discussions and the quality of the decisions.

Quite often, especially with difficult issues, people have to take risks or make painful compromises or at least suggest them, even if the final result is nothing like them. Sometime people bluff, lie and distort in order to improve their position. There is give and take.

If everything is made public then you will essentially get discussions that are no better than discussions amongst the public, which everyone would agree is suboptimal.

> in a timely fashion

This is the crux of it: All involved (except Varoufakis) apparently thought their words would remain secret forever. This is bad for democracy, because it nurtures conspiracy theories. Prompt publication is likewise bad, because it hardens negotiating positions at a distance far apart, and makes participants fearful of speaking uncomfortable truths.

The US Federal Reserve publishes its minutes, but only some time well after the participants go home. Live-tweets on their hourly progress -- say, from Mar-a-Lago -- are not a concern.

Painful compromise should be taken only with the assent of those who will feel the pain. Otherwise, it is sadism or carelessness, not painful compromise.