TLDR: Public officials lose their right to privacy and are subjected to surveillance. Corruption is impossible if they cannot make private deals.
Preface: The American government has been rolling out mass AI surveillance systems with facial recognition much like we've seen in China. There are currently 5,000+ cities in America that are covered, roughly 1/3 of all law enforcement now uses AI cameras. These databases recognize and keep track the movements and behaviors of literally everyone, the systems are incredibly expensive to install and maintain (we foot the bill) and they are often misused or compromised. It's a huge ongoing issue in America that very few people know or care about so it's been growing and expanding over the passed few years and, if not stopped, will eventually become a beast. This got me to thinking about what an ambitious goal they have: to create such a powerful a system to track and predict patterns of half a billion people; and it's possible with enough energy into a data center but would take a lot of energy and a lot of cameras (currently there are 100k cameras by Flock and a partnership that takes footage from everyone's Ring doorbell).
The solution: Flip the system around. It's much easier, much more doable, much less ambitious, much much cheaper, to surveil politicians than it is to surveil everyone else. Public officials lose their right to privacy and are subjected to surveillance. They cannot have a conversation with their wives without everyone citizen hearing it, they cannot take a bathroom break without everyone knowing exactly how long it took, they cannot exchange a nickle without the whole world seeing the receipts, they cannot receive a gift without the everyone knowing exactly what it is and who its from. Corruption requires privacy. Without privacy, corruption is impossible.
In the simplest terms, we have the Private citizen & the Public official. Citizens have a right to privacy, politicians don't.
Can you find a problem with this idea? I still need to think of a name for this political system, has anything like this ever happened in the past?
A total lack of privacy for elected officials is not the same as an end to confidential military operations. It would only mean an end to private negotiations. Of course military strategy will not be publicized for our enemies to see, that should be obvious, however these privacy rules would still imposed upon the elected person(s) who would make the decision to enter wars in the first place.
Confidential military tech can remain confidential, the existence of the tech may come out but the actual technology does not have to be public for other nations to reverse engineer.
The system that denies privacy would absolutely make life dangerous for elected officials. They could have private security, but their location being publically known is enough to create a real danger of attacks. This could help with the political paradigm of a nation by forcing rulers to serve the people of the nation over others; but that is not the point of the system, the idea is just to end and prevent corruption via eliminating private deals. How could the system allow for safety of rulers during wartime? Well it'd have to be postponed during wartime or there could be a succession of rulers who hold the same view of the war, which is a military strategy that Iran has shown us recently: kill a leader and a new one replaces them. And this wouldn't be an issue in the first place if our nation had strong, well defended borders.