The last decade has shown a remarkable increase in theoretical as well as empirical research, putting forward a more critical perspective on transparency. Although few argue against transparency, many scholars have called attention to the drawbacks and even dangers of transparency, implying that there might be important benefits of less than full transparency. This chapter takes a critical approach to the common assumption that increased transparency in political decision-making generates public trust in political decisions and increases their legitimacy in the eyes of the citizens. It argues that transparency may have both positive and negative effects on public perceptions of the legitimacy of political processes. Drawing on this insight, this chapter shows that the important question is not – and has never seriously been – transparency or not. Rather, the important question is what kind of transparency best balances the different demands that contemporary liberal democracies raise on representative decision-making. In this vein, the second part of the chapter discusses the potential of post-decision justifications of political decisions and policies as a compromise between secrecy and transparency that might satisfy both democratic demands for public oversight and decision-making efficiency.