The need to know
INFORMATION is power. A more informed person is more powerful. As a result, there has always been a conflict between rulers and subjects on how much information should be made available for those who are being ruled.
There was a time when information about state affairs was a prohibited matter for the general public. With the passage of time and democratisation of state and society, the notion has changed substantially.
But in third world countries, especially where the democratic system has not flourished properly, the scenario is still much less than satisfactory. Although the press in Bangladesh has made remarkable advancement of late, people's access to information is still limited.
People in general, and rights groups in particular, have been demanding a law that would ensure access to information. Responding to the demand, the current caretaker government has taken a laudable initiative to enact the Right to Information Ordinance (RTI), and formed a committee to draft it.
Preparation of the draft by the bureaucrats is a blow to the hopes of the people. Instead of ensuring access to information, the proposed RTI, if implemented, will be a tool for exploiting the people.
When the present government took the move to prepare the draft of the RTI, everybody, including the journalist community, which is primarily responsible for disseminating information to the public, welcomed it.
But there was doubt about the good intention of the move as the responsibility was reposed on a committee headed by a bureaucrat.
Personally, I was not optimistic about the outcome of the committee, as I believe that Bangladesh's public servants are very cunning and farsighted in respect of their personal interests and benefits. They are public servants and meant to serve the people.
But actually, they spin their sticks over the heads of the people to realise undue facilities and kickbacks from them. Their skill is unmatchable, not only in protecting their existing facilities but also in expanding those for the future.
And, finally, things happened as apprehended, although a lot of work had been done in finalising the draft. There were series of seminars, symposia and roundtables seeking mass public opinion, talk shows on TV, etc.
As the journalists are directly involved with dissemination of information, they showed much interest and enthusiasm in the act so that people could get maximum benefit from it. They even submitted an alternative draft. Numerous suggestions have also come from general people.
It was expected that the flaws in the first draft, which were pointed out during the public debate, would be taken into consideration and accordingly corrected. But it was found that the draft ordinance, which was okayed by the council of advisers, is more stringent in respect of dissemination of information.
Now the draft RTI is a foolproof instrument to deny any information about the activities and intentions of public offices.
It is not that we were not getting information about public offices. Rather, in the absence of any formal law, people, particularly the journalist community used to dig out information through various "sources."
There are always some people in every organisation, who supply information. Journalists establish rapport with those people. Without mentioning their names, newspapers used to publish "authentic" news without any distortion.
Under the existing system, it is not easy to challenge the published information, if it is based on facts. But once the new law is enacted it will be difficult to get such information, and the media will face problems in publishing unauthorised information.
The organisation about which information is published may challenge it by saying that it was not derived from authorised persons (information officers).
The incorporated conditions, stages and timetable for getting information are tantamount to denying access to information. Moreover, there was a long exemption list of items about which information would not be divulged.
In the first draft, the number of such exempted items was nine, but in the draft RTI it has been raised to 23. This means that it will be very difficult for a journalist to get information for immediate use.
And think about a farmer in a remote village. He needs some information about agriculture. He goes to the agriculture office at the upazila headquarters and is asked to fill in a form and come 20 days later.
After 20 days, he is denied the information and asked to file an appeal to the higher authority, and the process goes on. Is it possible for a farmer to get information in this way? The suggestions rural people used to get about their farm-related problems will now be sold as information.
As I already mentioned that people in the public offices are cunning. They will simply use the law as a tool to extract kickbacks from information-seekers. One should not forget the proverb that public officials extract money through counting waves.
The journalist community has already rejected the draft RTI. In a meeting recently, senior journalists termed the RTI as a black law, and vowed to resist it. It is not a good thing for the government to go into a direct clash with the journalist community. Therefore, it would be wise to remove the obstacles in accessing information in the draft RTI.
Access to information is a fundamental right. In fact, there are few areas which need to be kept secret in the public offices. Establishment of good governance is not possible without ensuring transparency, which is only possible through allowing people to access information easily.
Comments