The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Thursday, April 13, 2017.
We can easily
forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when
adults are afraid of the light.” These famous words by Greek philosopher Plato
perfectly describe the attitude of adults in Bangladesh towards the Right to
Information Act (RTI).
Few of our
fellow citizens realise that the RTI law has the power to change the age-old
culture of official secrecy in the country and help establish transparent and
accountable governance. RTI laws, enacted in over 110 countries of the world,
are known as “sunshine laws” to bring the secretive world of government work
from darkness into sunlight.
The law
enables citizens to access all information with a few exceptions held by public
offices. Citizens may use the information so obtained to ensure their
legitimate entitlements under the laws of the land. Or they may use it to find
out if public offices abide by the laws, rules and regulations or indulge in
unfair practices. It is not difficult to see how this can contribute to open
government.
But to
achieve this objective, the law must be used by citizens first. This is where
problems of implementation arise.
Most of our
citizens are accustomed to the culture of secrecy that shielded all government
work from public view for centuries, and we are understandably reluctant to ask
for information from public offices. In fact, many are afraid that the
authorities concerned might even retaliate if the information they seek is
considered sensitive. They also do not feel confident that the defence
mechanism built into the system, via the Information Commission, will be able
to protect them from uncooperative or irate officials. While some citizens have
overcome this fear in more recent times, it is still a far cry from what is
required for any systemic change.
In the face
of such reticence, uptake of the law has been understandably slow. This column
suggests alternative ways to deal with the situation to pave the way for
further progress.
The main
objective of the RTI Act can be encapsulated in two words: open government.
Save a few sensitive areas, the law seeks to make most government information
open to citizens, who may make RTI demands upon respective public offices,
including those of some NGOs. By doing so, citizens, in effect, monitor the
work of public servants.
Those who do
not feel confident to ask for specific information could consider using other
provisions of the law to advance its goals without the attendant fear. One of
them is known as the “proactive disclosure” provision of the law. It requires
public bodies to proactively disclose basic information about their work to the
public at regular intervals. Unfortunately, progress here has been slow as most
offices do not feel the compulsion to do so. Citizens can play a role to change
this situation.
They could,
for example, simply ask the offices concerned about the status of
implementation of Section 6 of the RTI Act which contains the “proactive
disclosure” provisions of the law [See www.rib-rtibangladesh.org for the text].
By doing so, citizens would alert the authorities concerned that they are being
watched by the people — play sort of a “watchdog” role. If many citizens were
to do this on a regular basis, the approach is likely to work. For, it is
easier for the offices to abide by this general requirement of the law than
respond to specific queries about their work.
Section 6 is
entitled “publication of information”. It requires every authority under the
law “to publish and publicise all information pertaining to any decision they
have taken, any proceeding or activity they have executed or proposed, by
indexing them in such a manner as may easily be accessible to the citizens.” It
also states that in “publishing and publicising such information, no authority
shall conceal any information or limit its easy access.”
The
disclosure requirements include the organisational structure, activities,
responsibility of the officers and employees; description and process of
decision-making; lists of all laws, acts, ordinance, rules, regulations,
notifications, directives, manuals, etc., of the authority including the
classification of all information lying with it. If the authorities published
all these, there would be little need for citizens to resort to RTI demands in
the first place.
The
provisions further include that public authorities must disclose “all
information pertaining to any decision they have taken” and “description and
process of decision-making”. They are also required to “explain the reasons and
causes in support of such policies and decisions”. This is indeed a big
departure from the culture of secretive governance.
It is not
difficult to imagine, therefore, the likely reaction of public authorities if
citizens were to simply ask them about the status of implementation of the
above provisions. They must either state that they are implementing them or, if
they don't or disregard even to respond to such queries, face the tune at the
complaint hearing before the Information Commission (IC), which is of a
quasi-judicial nature.
If the IC
plays its role well, it is more likely that the authorities would take the
negligence more seriously. And if they respect the provisions of Section 6
fully, at least half the objectives of the RTI Act would be achieved without
intervention by citizens.
Unfortunately,
the work of the IC too has not been fully up to the mark in this regard. In
close to the 2,000 RTI complaints it has dealt with since the law came into
force, the IC has given very few decisions to impress upon the authorities the
consequences of disregarding the law. Only a handful of noncompliant public
officials have been penalised or chastised by the IC so far in accordance with
the law. This has not only deprived the public exchequer of large sums of money
but has also failed to promote respect for the law by public officials.
Another
alternative of a similar nature for citizens to consider would be to ask each
public authority for a copy of its “Citizen's Charter”. Legal requirements in
this regard are contained in regulation 13 of the RTI Regulations (Preservation
and Management) 2010.
It requires
each public authority to adopt a “Citizen's Charter” containing information on
how it deals with information seekers under the RTI Act. It is supposed to
include a description of measures the authority takes regarding: standard of
services offered to applicants, transparency in the process, choices provided,
courtesies shown, provision for complaints and ensuring equal treatment for
all.
Apart from
other authorities, citizens could ask the IC itself for its “Citizen's Charter”
to learn how it deals with their applications or complaints. Regarding the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act, a simple request to the IC could be to find
out why it has used the penalty and other sanctions of the law so sparingly and
not given reasons for many of its decisions, as required by the section. In
fact, since the IC is the main torch-bearer of the RTI Act, its own
implementation of the law should be exemplary for others to emulate. If it does
so properly, the task of citizens would be minimised. They would feel less
anxious of public officials and more forthcoming to make use of the law to
promote “open government”.
(Shamsul
Bari and Ruhi Naz are Chairman, Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB) and
Project Coordinator (RTI section), RIB, respectively.)
.JPG)
.JPG)
