When a government source leaks classified information to a journalist is that an affront to democracy? Is it an usurpation of legitimate choices made by elected officials? So says Rahul Sagar in Secrets and Leaks: The Dilemma of State Secrecy. His position is summarized and endorsed by Gabriel Schoenfeld, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, writing in The Claremont Review of Books. "A system where leaks are not condemned but condoned would have serious consequences and be fundamentally anti-democratic," Schoenfeld argues. "The parties involved in leaks—government bureaucrats who illicitly disclose confidential information, and journalists who disseminate it—are self-appointed, private arbiters."
Variations on this argument have been deployed by numerous critics of Edward Snowden. While reasonable in theory, they are ultimately unpersuasive for these reasons:
- In theory, Sager may be right that decisions about what to declassify are ideally made by "persons or institutions that have been directly or indirectly endorsed by citizens." But in practice, the nameless bureaucrats who make the vast majority of decisions about what gets and stays classified are totally unaccountable to citizens; and it stretches credulity to characterize an official running, say, a secret program in the NSA or CIA as being "endorsed by citizens" even indirectly when it's likely that not even their congressional representative is aware of the program. The secret state is so controversial precisely because citizens can neither endorse nor condemn that which they're never told about in the first place, nor can they reelect or oust representatives on the basis of votes the implications of which they do not and cannot know. The unfortunate reality is that almost all decisions about what secret information is made public are undemocratic, whether those decisions made by leakers or nameless bureaucrats.
- In fact, leakers and journalists who facilitate leaks can accurately claim that while they cannot get preemptive permission from the polity to publish a particular secret, it is usually the case that the public is happy to have the extra information. As I've argued at length repeatedly, if we ground our analysis in the factual past rather than the speculative future, journalists have a far better track record than government when it comes to deciding what ought to be revealed to the public.
- There is a near consensus that the U.S. government has an over-classification problem. There are laws governing what sort of material ought to be classified. But government officials consistently and systematically classify far more material than they are justified in doing under the law. They also regularly deny Freedom of Information Act requests in bad faith and otherwise hide information because it makes them politically vulnerable or reveals their incompetence or corruption. Since no informed observer of the United States government can deny that it classifies far more information than the letter or spirit of relevant law would permit, there is a strong case to be made that government decision-makers are systematically thwarting democratic designs and the public will, and that exposing wrongly classified information serves the public will.
- Insofar as leaks to journalists are undemocratic—and as I acknowledged above, they are, to a degree—they are also consistent with the deliberately undemocratic First Amendment, which was intentionally given supremacy over both the popular will of the moment and the preferences of a given Congress or president. The First Amendment emphatically and undemocratically empowers the press to publish information that Congress would otherwise suppress. There is no way to read its guarantees without concluding that the Framers thought the press should sometimes publish material even when the representatives of the people thought otherwise.
- Government employees take a (democratically legitimized) oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Fulfilling that oath can sometimes require them to disobey a superior—perhaps by revealing classified, unconstitutional behavior to the public. To decide if this kind of act was democratically legitimate, one would have to decide what's more important: upholding one's oath to the Constitution, or obeying one's agreement to refrain from revealing classified information. Surely we can all think of some examples where exposing the truth would be the better option.