Picture Capitol Hill without people. Not a tourist or lobbyist in sight. A sign on the door of the Capitol Building reads, “Government closed until further notice.”

Except unlike the 1995 shutdown, Congress hasn’t gone home. Representatives are still proposing, debating and passing legislation – legislation the public has never heard of, much less discussed.

Taxes hike and drop, soldiers are deployed and brought home, roads are built, buildings are demolished, treaties are signed, and average citizens notice only when they see it on their bill.

If that doesn’t sound like democracy to you, you’re in luck. It’s not.

Edmund Burke, a representative in the British House of Commons in the 1700s, articulated a trustee theory of representation. In this model, citizens “entrust” their representatives with the power to act for the common good without constantly checking in with their constituents.

This model allows representatives to make decisions based on conscience and common sense – something most people would agree isn’t used often enough. What it does not do is shield government from public scrutiny.

Openness in government at all levels is a hallmark of democracy. Granted, some information must be confidential, whether for national security reasons or simply to ensure representatives can make good decisions without fear of a backlash from their constituents. And if voters distrust their representatives, they can always choose not to elect those people the next time around.

But voting someone out of office after they’ve cheated or lied or committed adultery or stolen a dollar from the Coke machine might make us feel better, but the damage is done. Voters need to be informed before the fact, so they can make, well, informed decisions and contribute to an informed discussion about issues in which they have a stake. That adds up to most everything in a country with a government composed of the people – at least in theory.

Similar to a presumption of innocence in criminal cases, there should be a presumption of openness in government. Unless the state has a compelling interest in keeping information from the general public, it shouldn’t.