The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Sunday,
August 14, 2016.
I can't waste
my time responding to RTI queries from riff-raffs and vagabonds," a public
official was recently heard saying. Right to Information (RTI) workers
throughout the country are familiar with such statements, which reflect the
attitudes of many public servants, even seven years after Bangladesh's RTI Act
2009 came into force. Few are willing to open up public records for scrutiny by
the public, which is the basic objective of the law.
A large
number of civil servants, bureaucrats and other employees belonging to the
three branches of the Government - the executive, judiciary and the legislative
- semi-government authorities, entities that run on or enjoy public fund, like
schools, colleges and universities, NGOs that receive foreign funding and other
agencies covered by the RTI Act, are still unprepared to abide by the
transparency requirements of the RTI Act.
As a result,
when citizens ask them for such information, they fret and fume and threaten
them with unpleasant consequences. Whether they serve at the union, upazila,
district or national level, many public officials cannot believe that ordinary
people who trembled before them in the past would now dare to ask them for
disclosure of information which was out of bounds for them. They get particularly
angry with RTI activists and NGO workers who help ordinary citizens to make RTI
demands. Officials are unwilling to reconcile with the fact that the days of
secretive governance are gone, with the advent of RTI.
A research
project recently completed by an NGO on the challenges and prospects of RTI in
Bangladesh gives voice to these attitudes. Quotes from officials include:
"We have
lots of work to do at office. If you people add to our burden by asking for
unnecessary information, where shall we go? You better withdraw your
application or be prepared for trouble."
"Because
of you I have now been summoned to appear before the Information Commission.
How could you do that? Don't you know, we could put you in trouble? So please
inform the Commission that you got the information now, so both you and I will
not have to appear before it."
The research
findings also revealed that ordinary citizens avoid exercising their right to
information for fear of retaliatory measures by public authorities. Some of
their comments include:
"I am
afraid to apply. I may be summoned to the office and threatened with dire
consequences simply because I have asked for the information. This has happened
to people I know. I would rather starve than make an RTI application."
"Who
will protect me if the authorities file a fake case against me or send the
police to arrest me? I know of people who receive telephone calls from
concerned officials threatening them to withdraw their RTI applications or face
consequences."
"People
are afraid to confront public authorities. In my union, we know that we always
get less than our entitlements under the government's safety-net programmes.
But I dare not complain or ask, as I am afraid my name may be struck off the
beneficiary list altogether."
"People
don't see public authorities as friends. They are afraid to ask them any
question. They would rather avoid them. I don't see RTI gaining popularity with
ordinary people."
Such opinions
go some way towards explaining the slow progress of the RTI Act in the country.
The public must have confidence in the efficacy of the law, and public
officials a healthy fear of it, if we are to make full use of this right.
The three
main players who can do something about this situation are the government, the
Information Commission and the civil society. Civil society remains divided
because many key NGOs who fall within the ambit of the law are reticent to
promote it for fear that it may boomerang on them. Some smaller NGOs have
played a sterling role to keep the RTI ball rolling among the marginalised
sections of the country, although their efforts to engage the middle and upper
classes have largely failed so far.
There are
positive signs that the Government of Bangladesh is slowly moving towards
greater engagement with the law, not unexpected for a government which adopted
the law to fulfill its election pledge. However, the government appears not to
have fully discovered yet the value of RTI as an instrument to improve
governance and bring citizens closer to it. In fact, in most developing
countries, governments tend to see RTI/Freedom of Information laws as
unnecessary encumbrances on their use (or abuse) of power. Normally, it is
citizens who keep RTI alive.
The
Information Commission (IC) has borne the bulk of the responsibility to take
the RTI Act forward in the last seven years. For a new entity entrusted with an
unknown task, it has made significant contributions to put the law on track. In
previous columns, we have written about what more it can do.
Till the time
the government comes out fully to play its role and the civil society is
engaged to promote the law more vigorously, the IC must take the lead to
provide the much needed shot in the arm for the sagging RTI regime. Some simple
steps would achieve a great deal.
Together with
awareness-building and other stipulated activities, the IC should consider:
- removing procedural difficulties faced by applicants in submitting RTI applications;
- encouraging greater use of the law through more positive interpretation of its provisions; and
- putting the punitive provisions of the law to greater use so that recalcitrant public officials realise that they must respect the law or face penalties.
Towards
these objectives, the IC could consider the following:
1)
Allow applications to unnamed Designated (Information)
Officers: Among issues which bother RTI applicants, the requirement to address
RTI applications to specifically-named Designated Officers is foremost. This is
because, apart from the difficulty in obtaining the names, in many offices the
DOs have not been appointed or been changed/transferred or incorrectly named on
the website. The rejection of applications for such mistakes frustrates
applicants, leading many to abandon RTI. A significant number of complaints are
"discharged" by the IC for this reason. Simply allowing RTI
applications to be addressed to unnamed DOs would improve the situation
dramatically. Similarly, other reasons for "discharging" about 43
percent of all complaints over the years could also benefit from a more
accommodating attitude of the IC.
2)
Consider registered mail to be definitive proof of
receipt: A significant number of RTI applications are lost because the
authorities concerned deny having received them, even when dispatched by registered
mail. The IC's leniency on the DOs impacts negatively on the applicants. Simply
adopting a rule that applications sent by registered mail will be deemed to
have been received can remove the problem.
3)
Hold Designated Officers accountable: In another large
number of complaints heard by the IC, the DOs concerned justified their failure
to provide information by claiming ignorance about the law. About 78 percent of
DOs agreed to provide information only at the prodding of the IC. While the law
provides for punitive measures for such failures, the IC has consistently been
reticent to impose them. In seven years, only six penalties were imposed on
DOs, while hundreds went scot free. As a result, people's trust in the law
suffered. Their fear of public officials will reduce significantly if punitive
measures foreseen in the law are applied more stringently. However, the fact
that DO's are often guided by the views of senior colleagues, against whom no
penalty provisions exist, must also be addressed.
4)
Follow-up of decisions: Applicants are also discouraged
when they fail to obtain the information even after IC directives. A better
follow-up mechanism can end their gripes.
5)
Alternative venues for redress: The holding of complaint
hearings by the IC at different locations in the country and/or through video
conferencing will reduce cost for complainants and remove another impediment to
the growth of RTI.
The IC has
the ball in its court. If it plays it well, the entire nation will benefit.
The writers
are Chairman, Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB) and Project Coordinator
(RTI section), RIB, respectively.
Email:
rib@citech-bd.com.
.JPG)
.JPG)
