Public versus private status of records and archives: implications for access drawn from the archives of political representatives in the United States, France and Germany

The basic prerequisite for records, archives and information to be open to the public one day is that their own status must be public. Selected examples from the United States, France and Germany demonstrate a trend in the development of the relationship of advanced democratic societies to records of mostly official origin, especially the top representatives of public political power (presidents, government ministers and secretaries, chancellors). Civil society increasingly shows an interest in access to records that testify to the actions of their top representatives. States are gradually enforcing the interpretation of “their” records as public and not private. However, these representatives still demonstrate a strong feeling that society is not quite entitled to these records. The USA, France and Germany all deal with this matter in different ways. A top politician, especially in the performance of his role or entrusted office, is not a private citizen. Therefore, there should be much stricter and more thorough public scrutiny, and a requirement for transparency. Controversial records, perceived to be on the border between public and private status, should always be treated as public. Top political and public officials have much less “right to be forgotten” than ordinary citizens and thus it is their “duty to be remembered”.