The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Sunday, July 15, 2018.
Nine years
ago this month, the RTI Act 2009 of Bangladesh was born. It came at a time when
the entire nation was filled with a deep sense of relief and hope for change
and reforms. The country had just held one of the fairest of general elections
in its troubled history, after long spells of non-representative and
military-led governments. A popularly elected government had assumed power. In
such a positive milieu, the adoption of the RTI Act by the new government was
both symbolic and radical. But has the law lived up to the expectations?
“The radical,
modernising and democratic symbolism” of RTI laws is the subject of many recent
studies which seek to understand this global phenomenon radical, because it
seeks to banish the tradition of secrecy in governance and replace it with
transparency and accountability; modern, because it promotes active
participation of people in governance as an essential element of development
and progress; and democratic, because it recognises people's supremacy over the
state by giving them the right to monitor government work.
The recent
studies show us that RTI fares better where ground realities are “shaped by
long-term social and political changes, as the case for secrecy gradually
erodes amid institutional reform, changing societal attitudes and technical
advances.” Lack of such realities hinders growth.
Another study
found that the existence of a deep-rooted culture of official secrecy impacts
negatively on its implementation. According to the study: “The UK represents
one of the most challenging environments for FOI (RTI) in a developed democracy
and one of the least conducive to success… UK carried a reputation as the
developed world's most secretive democracy.” This was attributed to the
existence of numerous “Official Secrets Acts”, which contributed to a “culture
of secrecy which dominated British public life… and symptomatic of the secret
nature of the state.”
Other studies
focused on the nature of RTI requests and the background of people who made
them. Some found that the law does well where social activists, journalists,
researchers and political parties make greater use of the law than private individuals.
In other words, the law flourishes where it is used for broad social issues
instead of mere personal interests.
How does the
Bangladeshi situation relate to the above findings? On the relevance of ground
realities, recall the context in which the RTI Act 2009 was adopted. During the
years of its growth, Bangladesh suffered severe political upheavals, causing
grave instability and deep social division. There was little scope for citizens
to make meaningful demands for change. Issues like citizen-state relationship,
transparency and accountability in governance were raised from time to time but
never crystalized into popular demands.
In the
euphoria that gripped the nation for renewal when the new government assumed
power in 2009, there was little alternative for it but to attend to the call
for change. It chose to embrace the RTI Ordinance 2008, which was promulgated
by the outgoing interim government, and adopt it as an Act of the new
parliament. In less than three months, the RTI Act 2009 was born.
But in the
rush to adopt the law, without any discussion or debate in the parliament, the
country missed an opportunity to flesh out its pros and cons. This, as we saw
later, had a clear negative impact on its implementation. A law that called for
fundamental changes in the way a government relates to citizens cannot work
unless both sides are fully aware of the role they must play under it.
Added to this
is the existence of a deep-seated culture of official secrecy, for which the
Bangladeshi experience is comparable to that of the UK. It was inherited,
together with the system of governance, from colonial times. As was aptly
described by a British scholar: “The Westminster system, with its executive
dominance, one-party government and strict lines of control, made both for
power hoarding and, as a corollary, information hoarding.”
The RTI ship
in Bangladesh was thus set to sail on unchartered waters. Citizens of the
country, for whose empowerment the law was ostensibly enacted, were left
largely unaware about their enormous responsibilities to make it work. Public
officials, tasked with providing the requested information to citizens, were
unprepared to give up their tradition of official secrecy. The Information
Commission was given a herculean task to steer the ship without the necessary
know-how. They had to learn on the job. The government, too, was largely
unaware of its responsibilities beyond the adoption of the law.
With such an
uncertain beginning, it is indeed creditable that the RTI ship of Bangladesh is
still afloat. However, it is still a rickety ship in which we hope to reach
shore.
The number of
people using the law is still miniscule compared to the size of the population.
The focus of the few who use the law is still largely limited to matters of
personal interest, such as how to obtain benefits from government entities at
the local level. This is indicated in the reported 95 percent positive
responses to all RTI requests made in the country. The use of RTI on matters of
public interest, like malfeasance in governance, corrupt practices in awarding
government tenders, misuse of power, etc., is still few and far between.
The lack of
awareness of public officials about the law is aggravated by the attitude of
many who, though aware, are reluctant to abide by it. This is obvious from the
over 2,000 decisions that the Information Commission has made, over the last
nine years, on complaints received from aggrieved applicants. The decisions are
replete with examples of senior officials discouraging their subordinates from
disclosing requested information, relevant officials refusing to attend
complaint hearings even after repeated summons, and so on. Many complainants
lose time, money, and heart leading them to abandon the process.
In the midst
of such difficulties, the tasks of the Information Commission have multiplied.
As for the government, after a lapse of time, it has tasked the Cabinet
Division to play the role of a nodal agency to promote implementation. It has
initiated a number of useful measures to enforce compliance by government
officials. We are yet to see the results though.
To meet the
various challenges, it is time the main protagonists of RTI in the country,
namely, citizen's groups, the Information Commission and the Cabinet Division
of the government, work out a common strategy. Clearly, the most urgent need is
to promote greater and more relevant use of the law. If we continue to use it
largely for trivial matters of personal interest, and not for vital issues of public
concern, there will be little for us to demonstrate its positive impact on
governance and on implementation of Goal 16 of the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), which includes effective use of RTI.
By this time
next year, let us be ready to celebrate the “Decade of RTI in Bangladesh” by
demonstrating, through relevant data, that RTI in Bangladesh is on the right
track.
Shamsul Bari
is Chairman, Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB), and Ruhi Naz is Project
Coordinator (RTI section), RIB.