But doing things in private means there is no oversight or accountability. But doing things in private increases voter apathy. But doing things in private is

But doing things in private means there is no oversight or accountability. But doing things in private increases voter apathy. But doing things in private is suspicious behaviour in a Western democracy. But doing things in private means that the people most affected will not be able to contribute to close loopholes, tighten up wording, spot inconsistencies, improve operational processes etc. But doing things in private means that bribes, extortion, blackmail etc. are par for the course during negotiations, with no penalty of a backlash. But doing things in private means she with the biggest bribe wins. But doing things in private is merely a delaying tactic as the law has to eventually become public knowledge at which point it will be politicized, escalated etc. But doing things in public is how we (attempt to) improve fairness in a modern Western democracy, despite the cost in efficiency. Clearly there is a compromise to be made between the two extremes, as dlss's points are very valid and are constantly a challenge for democracies to overcome. But I posit that the balance doesn't lie on the "keep everything secret" side.