BHUTAN : 29 May, 2010
The government apparently doesn’t think so
The government recently refused the media the right to a copy of the country’s draft right to information Act for public discussions; the work on which began since 2007. So much for right to information.
The information and communication minister, Lyonpo Nandalal Rai, in an earlier interview with Kuensel, felt that the Bhutanese were not ready to even discuss such a law, leave aside its introduction.
“Do we have enough literate society,” he asked, adding that when Bhutanese in general failed to understand the basic essence and values of democracy, how would they fathom what RTI entailed.
“Even our educated lot are unaware of what RTI entails,” he said. “Have we reached the point in time to table this, which otherwise will only burden and not enable the society.”
He also said that the introduction of the right had to be timed, in that the government would have to allow it to evolve gradually, so that people would attach greater value to the Act.
“Let us get the feel and understanding of democracy first,” he said.
Lyonpo Nandalal Rai explained that the Act should not be introduced to suit the whims and thoughts of people, who, like those considering themselves the constitution experts and narrowly interpreting them. “Same will happen with the RTI Act,” he said.
Should that happen, he said, people would begin misusing the Act by considering their individual rights and not value those of others. “What if people just walk into offices and start digging up files in the name of RTI?” he said.
But the director of Bhutan centre for media and democracy, Siok Sian Pek-Dorji, argued that, although there was a need for greater understanding of the right among people, the best way to do that was through the process of talking to people.
“It’s more appropriate if we allow the literate and those interested to debate it and get people to discuss it, to then gradually bring it in,” she said.
RTI, she said, in Bhutanese context, would be better interpreted as access to information, because people somehow, misunderstood the term “rights”.
“Some people think that, by reinforcing rights, we’re acknowledging that we’ve been wronged so far, which isn’t necessarily the case,” she said. “Many people are beginning to see it as rights and responsibilities.”
Siok Sian Pek-Dorji added that, although endorsement of an Act may take time, the news media, in the interim, had a major responsibility in ensuring that news and critical information were shared.
Opposition leader Tshering Tobgay pointed out that the Constitution guaranteed RTI as a fundamental right, which meant that citizens in general and the media in particular should have access to any government information.
In that regard, he said there was a need for procedures and, in that context, a separate legislation.
“I don’t see how people could misuse RTI for the simple reason that the constitution guarantees it as a fundamental right,” Tshering Tobgay said. “And fundamental rights of citizens should be respected.”
Indian ambassador Pavan Varma said it was a myth to believe that by doing too much too soon meant strengthening institutions.
Even India, he said, took 60 years after democracy to introduce RTI and it continues to study means to strengthen other democratic institutions.
In Bhutan, he said, many institutions, which were the mainstay of a democratic structure, like the executive, legislature and collateral bodies, such as the anti-corruption commission, audit and the media, were being strengthened.
“When Bhutan feels it’s either ready for such an Act or that it’s good for Bhutan, I have faith that Bhutan, with the kind of democratic credential it has already shown, will make the right choice,” Pavan Varma said, adding that it was wise to calibrate the pace of change, in accordance with the ability of a society’s infrastructure to absorb and implement it.
Royal education council‘s professor Mark Mancall said that, in many countries across the world, introduction of freedom of information came fairly late in the process of democratisation.
“But there is no certain point at which to introduce RTI,” he said.
Coming to public discussion on the statute, he said the government had the right to submit any legislation it wanted to parliament, which then had the responsibility to call a hearing on any legislation.
Kuensel sources said the draft RTI, which the ministry tried to table for discussion at the cabinet, was pushed aside by some ministers, who felt it was too early to deliberate on.
Professor Mancall explained that, although it was right for government to worry about people misusing the right, anyone engaged in public life had to become used to answering questions; a culture they are unaccustomed to today.
“In fact we aren’t yet a culture used to asking questions,” he said. “That’s where the cultural change actually comes in.” If the country was serious about being a democracy, he said, the only way that public could participate in decision-making was by being educated and provided with the kind of information they needed to question their representatives.
“We have a situation in which the parliamentarians are elected, but the pubic doesn’t have the kind of information to question the parliamentarians,” he said. “We need the RTI Act but we don’t have a consensus yet on what that means and of what use the information is.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
