ABSTRACT
From the start in 1945, transparency had different connotations depending on whether it was interpreted literally, metaphorically, or analogically. The architectural profession repressed the Third Reich as a subject, making that period in German history temporarily invisible though always palpably present. In external politics the construction of West Germany as a modest, unassuming, almost invisible entity in the heart of Europe was a form of transparency; and in internal politics the movement towards a pluralistic, participatory representative democracy-an open society, with an open government, accessible representatives, and a free market economy-was another. But in spite of the importance Arndt accorded transparency, perfect transparency was never a goal or even a real possibility under the West German system. The Weimar Constitution was, in fact, more “transparent” than the Basic Law whose statutes provide for a balance between the freedoms implicit in a democratic society and controls deemed necessary either for the public good or to prevent the kind of political stalemates that recurred during the Weimar era. The framers of the constitution recognized that increased transparency in government and civil society was necessary especially given the transgressions of the Third Reich but, at the same time, they understood that transparency had to be regulated and that a democracy could not function in a state
of perfect transparency. Thus, from the start the West German parliamentary democracy was based on a balance between parliament’s responsibilities to communicate with and to the public, and its responsibility to control the workings of the state.2
