The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Friday,
July 15, 2016.
Authorities
have no incentive to publicise and market the Right to Information Act; but
that is exactly what they have to do.
You idiot.
You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop. There is really no description of
stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate. I quake at the imbecility of
it."
These are not
the angry ramblings of any ordinary individual. They are in fact words of the
former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, addressed to himself
in his memoirs while reflecting on his government's introduction of the Freedom
of Information (FOI) Act. The latter is the same as our Right to Information
(RTI) Act. He was lamenting his “stupidity” for steering the passage of a law
that came to hound him subsequently.
The
"cash-for-honours-scandal" and the investigation that followed enabled by the FOI Act were considered among the most stressful, disruptive
and damaging episodes in Blair's premiership. Blair said of the law, “For
political leaders, it's like saying to someone who is hitting you over the head
with a stick, 'Hey, try this instead', and handing them a mallet." He saw
the FOI Act as a blunt instrument for use by citizens against public officials.
And yet the
same Mr. Blair thought very differently about FOI when he was the leader of the
opposition: "The very fact of its introduction will signal a new
relationship between government and people: a relationship which sees the
public as legitimate stakeholders in the running of the country and sees
election to serve the public as being given on trust."
He justified
his government's implementation of FOI by saying: "If a government is
genuine about wanting a partnership with the people who it is governing, then
the act of government itself must be seen in some sense as a shared
responsibility and the government has to empower the people and give them a say
in how that politics is conducted."
It is
remarkable that the same law gave rise to such opposing points of view. This
may be attributed to the immense power of FOI/RTI laws to affect governance
issues in different ways. Mr. Blair's laments reflect the frustrations most
political leaders and public officials feel at the loss of their authority to
hide facts from the public because of transparency provisions of the laws.
On the other
hand, his justification of the need for FOI law for the UK demonstrates its
importance in the contemporary world. The steady proliferation of transparency
laws globally, sincethe end of the Cold War, testifies to that. No other law
has received so much attention in such a short time from so many countries. Out
of 108 countries which have adopted the law so far, about 80 did so in the last
25 years. The Sri Lankan Parliament passed the law only last month, fulfilling
a commitment of the new President to adopt measures to strengthen democracy and
heal war wounds.
The words of
another former Prime Minster, Manmohan Singh of India, reflect similar
dichotomous views about the law. "Even as we recognise and celebrate the
efficacy and the effectiveness of the Right to Information Act”, he said, “we
must take a critical look at . . . concerns that need to be discussed and
addressed honestly." Singh's successor, Narendra Modi, also made a strong
statement, albeit indirectly, when he held up the replacement of the Chief
Information Commissioner of India for 11 months.
The position
of such powerful leaders on FOI/RTI leads us to ask how our own Prime Minister,
Sheikh Hasina, the leader of another populous democratic nation, views its
application in our country. It is more so because her government steered the
adoption of the law in the very first session of the new Parliament in 2009.
Has she, since then, followed the implementation of the Act very closely? Does
she feel strongly about its success?
Alas, little
is available on record on the subject. This is surprising, as she must be aware
of the tremendous possibilities that have arisen in the country for promotion
of good governance through proper use of the law. Moreover, her party had
pledged the adoption of an RTI Act in the election manifesto of 2008 in
recognition of its immense value to promote democratic governance. Equally
importantly, as an astute politician, she must be aware of the tremendous value
her support would have on the success of the law.
How to
explain then her seeming silence on the subject? It is unlikely she is
indifferent to the subject; more likely, she is not kept informed about
critical issues of its implementation.
From all
indications, the bulk of our citizens, whose empowerment is the key objective
of the law, are not excited by it. So, the demands for information to
government offices are few and far between.
Public
authorities throughout Bangladesh receive around 10,000 RTI applications
annually. The figure in India is almost six million per year. Our Information
Commission receives fewer than 200 complaints a year. Its counterpart in India
handles some 35,000 complaints/appeals annually (and many more if figures from
individual states are added). The Bangladesh figures show that the law is not
catching on here.
The paucity
of RTI applications to public authorities lets these authorities off the hook.
Public officials are neither burdened by a huge number of applications to
respond to, nor are they worried about disclosing embarrassing or sensitive
information. They have little to grumble about in terms of this law, and
perhaps this is why her officials feel no compulsion to keep the Prime Minster
informed of the ground realities of RTI.
If matters
continue this way, there is a real risk that the RTI Act may fall into disuse.
While we maybe encouraged by a few positive results from a handful of RTI
interventions in the country, we cannot expect any systemic change from them.
Of course, these examples give hope that all is not lost and that there are a
few dedicated NGOs and activists, as well as some committed public officials,
to keep the RTI flame alive; but they cannot ensure continuing progress.
In
celebrating the seventh anniversary of the entry of the RTI Act into force in
Bangladesh this month, we must, therefore, resolve to look back and identify
the challenges and impediments we have encountered over the years and work
together to find ways of overcoming them. While citizens must bear the bulk of
the responsibility because of their pivotal role in making use of the law, the
government and the Information Commission must also help, particularly to
propagate and facilitate the use of the law by citizens.
In next
month's column, we will focus on the role of the Information Commission in
steering implementation of the RTI Act. We shall subsequently take a look at
some promising recent initiatives of the Cabinet Division of the government in
this regard.
The writers
are Chairman, Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB) and Project Coordinator
(RTI section) of RIB respectively. Their email id is: rib@citech-bd.com.
.JPG)
.JPG)
