Information: How Do We Manage?

TODAY, the rate of information generation has grown exponentially. Our capacity to absorb information, organise it and cope with it has not grown at the same rate. This has never happened before in human history. The issues of the information society emerging today are complex and do not revolve only around economic value. It is just as important for Bangladeshis to have the foresight to utilise technology to strengthen democracy, increase social equality and strengthen their unique culture and language. This will not happen by itself. In Bangladesh, rural people who depend on their own labour for survival make up the bulk of the population. They are unorganised and reluctant to make claims for their minimum wages and other human rights. The concept of their human rights, if communicated and understood by them, could very well transform into an all-out agitation. Globalisation has had a strong impact on these dis-empowered communities, and they have no voice in the decisions made by policy-makers, transnational corporations and big business about their livelihoods and how they will survive. Above all people must increase mechanisms for these people to act on their own behalf. The question then follows - within Bangladesh, who is going to put a Right to Information for the people into practice? And for what purpose? First, the present system of information storage and retrieval needs to be thoroughly understood and specific bottlenecks in getting information need to be identified. Then, specific processes for accessing information must be devised which either upgrade the existing systems of information-access or introduce new methods for it. Management of information would then prove to be the key to people's empowerment.

There are two primary challenges before the Right to Information movement in Bangladesh. The first is to foster a deeper and more vibrant understanding amongst the citizens and activist groups on how basic, vital and essential this right is to all democratic and survival issues. The second is to fight for a legal entitlement, which would allow people to increase their democratic space by exercising this right. In the past, whenever these two elements have converged in South Asia, the Right to Information campaign has succeeded in energising a cross-section of people. A legislation of the Right to Information is very important to give an image in people's minds. But to give it practical effect, the question is, what are you going to do with it once you get it? Because the accountability mechanisms within the state are very back-dated, and records are in a sorry state. How can inert information, either in state or in private hands, be transformed into social action? In working out the process and the internal dynamics lies real substance in the concept of Freedom of Expression. Within this process would be involved the human ingenuity of encoding, recording, reproducing, transferring, publishing, disseminating and broadcasting the information. Storage and retrieval of data and transmission of facts are also a part of this process. As Justice Krishna Iyer had said: "The Chemistry which converts sterile information into living wisdom requires intermediate processes and meaningful sequences.... facts don't speak nor (do facts alone) illuminate the mind."

In India as well as in Sri Lanka, the Right to Information is now an established fundamental right and is perceived even by the courts as being a part of the right to Freedom of Speech and Expression and the Right to Personal Liberty. As of now, if a person is refused information by the government, the only remedy for him or her would be to approach the Court by way of Writ petition. Now, legislation is needed not to create a right, but to create systems in which the right can become meaningful without recourse to constant litigation. Why can't citizens take their own initiatives? Why must people wait for information to be given to them by others? When the national campaign for a Right to Information came out in India, bureaucrats all across India felt overwhelmingly that RTI was impossible from a management perspective. They felt that it would be as dangerous as opening some kind of 'Pandora's Box'. But many bureaucrats were nonetheless sickened and demoralised by the corruption they witnessed around them every day, and some believed that an RTI would provide some remedies. It therefore became important to show that it is practical to provide people with access to government-held information.

Harsh Mander, a senior official in the Indian Administrative Service, was interested to know what information, if given to the people, would empower them. He started by issuing a series of orders to release information to the public related with the Public Distribution System (PDS), and to show people what food-grain was available and whom it was going to. He found that with the mere possibility existing that the public might access the PDS records - corruption in that area fell by 50%. Then he extended this to worker's wages, contracts and receipts - the traditional areas of corruption. The Chief Minister was interested when he saw Mander's findings and he passed orders and gave entitlements for the citizens to have access to these documents. Three successive central governments have come and gone in India by now, but nothing has happened over drafting a Freedom to Information Act. It seems that there won't be further progress until there is pressure on the government from a people's movement.

Not all state administrations in India have bureaucrats willing to implement information access rights to the public. After a long and hard struggle by activists, the chief minister of Rajasthan agreed to let the public have photocopies of government documents. However, senior members of the bureaucracy in Rajasthan had repeatedly disagreed with the chief minister and defended their positions that the Chief Minister's assurance to the people of providing photocopies of documents was impractical and would therefore, not be implemented. According to them, it was impractical as photocopying machines were not available at every village level administrative cell, where the documents are stored. The bureaucrats then argued that in order to get photocopies made, the gram sevak would have to come up to the block or district headquarters, which would add to the cost for his/her travelling allowance. When they finally relented and gave access to photocopies of documents, the administration went on to burden itself further by not allowing citizens to have certified copies of documents. Had there been certified copies released to citizens then and there, the citizens could have made their complaints directly in court or at the police station with the documents supporting their complaints.

In mid-1997 the Chief Minister of another Indian state, Goa, announced that his government would soon introduce a right to information legislation. Goa's activists and press corps were caught off-guard. Then, in early 1998, Goa's citizens had an Act explicitly guaranteeing a Right to Information. Though organisations have been slow to respond, a wide array of individuals have sought to assert their newly confirmed right. After a year on the books, the Goa Right to Information Act (GRIA) has generated about 400 applications for government documents. Many applications are related to inquiries about potentially illegal construction. Some applications involve clearances given to polluting industries. And many are inquiries into the diligence paid to licensing or taxation rules regarding the properties and businesses of certain individuals, presumably with a view to expose favouritism. Other requests relate to: building permits and subsidies for hotels which violate planning and environmental codes, toxic waste emitted by a zinc factory, and the role of an Indian Administration Service officer in a lottery scam. In addition, the "All Goa Citizens' Committee for Social Justice and Action" submitted applications for information involving cases of alleged patronage and nepotism in appointments, promotions and service conditions in higher and secondary education. Willingness to divulge this information has varied widely across the government. Some departments have not responded at all, violating the 30-day time limit. Others have responded fully. There is enormous variation in charges levied for this information. Some departments have not made any charge, while others have made seemingly arbitrary and sometimes significant charges - charges for 'processing fees', for instance, or for 'the cost of arranging the inspection of documents'. One agency issued a string of objections to requests, including that the requester did not qualify as a 'citizen' under the Act, the information requested was not clearly in the public interest, and that the information sought relates to commercial secrets protected by law. At one level, these variations are just the 'teething pains' of an administration adjusting to a new procedure. But they lend insight into what should go into a Freedom on Information (FOI) Act for the whole of India.

It is very important for all grassroots groups, NGOs and civil society activists to have a mechanism for accessing information on the finances of the state sector. However, this information is never given comprehensively, and releasing itemised budgets is unheard of in South Asia. At the higher levels of government they are, quite simply, very secretive when it comes to the finances of the state. If information is not forthcoming, you should ask an elected representative to ask for it in the state assembly, because the state has to release information to them as bound by law. If documents are bulky, it may be useful to precede the inspection with a field study so that one is aided in identifying documents that may be relevant for the subsequent audit. It would also be useful for persons with intimate knowledge, both of local specifics as well as technical details, to form part of a team that is deputed to inspect the documents, so that identification of specific documents related to the problem in question is possible. Legal entitlements, backed by necessary administrative instructions, should ensure that certified copies are supplied within the prescribed time limits. A thorough understanding would have to be attained in advance, about the content of the documents, the kinds of malpractices that can occur, and how these involve manipulation of the records. Based on this, a specific methodology could be developed in each instance, to collate and professionally scrutinise the documents, to detect specific prima facie instances of corruption and malfeasance.

Bangladesh should not blindly follow other countries in drafting information-access laws, rather lawmakers should see their experience and take what is good and reject what is bad. Yes, illiteracy is an obstacle to dissemination, but this obstacle can be overcome and is by no means a reason to stop. To progress, we need a Freedom of Information law that contains elements for facilitating its use by ordinary people, particularly in the rural areas. Those elements should include a provision requiring the state to broadcast information by the electronic media about government programmes and entitlements - and programmes about the FOI law itself - to give an image in people's minds, promote citizens' awareness of their rights, training for Information Officers to help them process oral requests and deal with the poor in a sensitive and helpful manner, and speedy and effective appeals process understood by, and accessible to, ordinary citizens. These legal provisions should be supplemented by sustained pressure from NGOs, political and social activists, the press and legal professionals to ensure that a Freedom of Information bill is used to promote the interests of the needy, particularly rural Bangladeshis.

Some bureaucrats however, will invariably say that a Right to Information will cost too much to manage, and Bangladesh cannot afford this. But compare the cost of managing this Right to the cost of corruption. The corruption and mismanagement within this country's system being reduced alone would make up the costs easily. In the United States, it is said that one of the unanticipated benefits of having the Freedom of Information Act has been that agencies now have to improve their filing and information management systems so that they are workable. That is something Bangladesh desperately needs. Presently, there is not the slightest attempt at any systematic record-keeping in the government. For example, if you happen to enter a District Record Room, you'll invariably find it in a complete mess, with stacks of papers and files scattered all over the place and enveloped in dust, damp and darkness from all around. The so-called Record Keeper generally knows nothing about the papers being "preserved" here. Senior officers simply cannot be bothered to inspect the record rooms. The academic community, eager to use these materials for carrying out in-depth research, is obviously unable to do so under the existing circumstances. There is also the petty bureaucratic tangle of obtaining "necessary permission" which inhibits the use of such materials by those who are willing to put up with the horrible state of record maintenance. However, it is quite possible for the Bangladesh government to collect and preserve its valuable records and documents almost free of cost, and in the process maintain the heritage of a people who rightly claim to be a new nation, but with a long past. What is required is a little "heritage consciousness" and "will power" on the part of those who matter in this regard. There is no need to hire a single new person, and if necessary the surplus staff of the government, who are now drawing salaries without doing any work, could be utilised in this exercise. If a legislated Right to Information were made retro-active to 3-5 years, then it is not a huge task to get all the information together. The public demand is reasonable. Using the local pool of Information Technology technicians it should be cost-effective and sufficient to develop methodologies by which to store, preserve and retrieve information.

If the state is unable to run an uncorrupted, clean system, at least let it enable us, the citizens, to check its corruption by legislating on the Right to Information. Right to Information is a Fundamental Right and since we claim to be a democracy, we define our own rights and duties, or don't we?

The writer is Consultant, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI).