can government transparency learn from the epistemology of Islamic finance?

Jeremy Harding offers (LRB 14 May 2009) an epistemological account of transparency based on Islamic finance: "A contract for a contract, which is what many derivatives amount to, is a sign for a sign, not a sign for a thing; it introduces clutter and congestion into the realm of signs -- a realm of solemnity for practicing Muslims -- and erodes consensus on the value of underlying assets, just as riba (or interest) earned on a principal, like on like, turns money from a counter into an agent, to the detriment of authentic counters and legitimate agents."

According to a UK financier specializing in Islamic finance: "economies in which wealth transfer predominates over wealth creation are destined for poverty, because 'real' wealth -- food, medicine, bricks and mortar, high and low technology goods -- is consumed or decays and has to be renewed. Exchange on its own, however vigorous, is unable to do this renewing. A farm or a factory producing electronic parts is more desirable than a casino, even if they all put resources and people to work."

Similarly transparent governments need to show the thing itself, not a refabricated version. Post decision-making documents, not gussied up explanations; share actual decisions, not just spin; open up decision-making meetings, not just press conferences.