Why do we need RIA?
Monday, 10 December 2007
Shamsul Huq Zahid
Chief Adviser Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed while speaking at a function in Dhaka last week expressed his government's desire to introduce the Right to Information Act (RIA), one of the much-discussed legal issues. At least 61 countries including some of our neighbours have similar laws in force.
The chief adviser is not the lone important personality to express the willingness to have such a law to ensure access of the people to information pertaining to government's activities and the State. Similarly, other important persons both within and outside the government on a number occasions in the recent past laid due emphasis on the introduction of the RIA. It is most likely that such a law would be introduced during the tenure of the present interim government which, like the political governments, does not have to listen to various pressure groups that often forces the authorities to delay or change decisions.
The Law Commission had prepared a draft of the RIA in 2002. But the BNP-led alliance government, it is alleged, did not pay much attention to the issue. The file containing the draft shuttled between the law and information ministries on a number of occasions and, after some days, it was pushed under the rug in spite of the fact that the immediate past law minister and other government leaders spent lot of words highlighting the need for introduction of the RIA. The mismatch between words and deeds of the politicians-turned- ministers is very much known and the people have learnt to digest it.
The chief adviser has rightly pointed out that an act like RIA not only helps the government to be accountable and transparent but also encourages it to make available the basic services to the people. In this context, he referred to the Article 39 of the Constitution that guarantees the right of the people to information. However, there are a few pieces of age-old legislations that run counter to the objectives of the proposed RIA. The sections 5 (1) of the Official Secrecy Act, sections 123 and 124 of the Witness Act of 1972 and section 19 of the Government Servants (discipline) Act of 1979 have been obstructing the people's right to information.
The obvious questions that one might feel tempted to ask: Should the common people be allowed to share even the classified information? What will be the basis of classification of information? Is the government adequately prepared to ensure free flow of information to the people?
The issue of protecting the classified information has actually been used by the bureaucracy quite cleverly to deprive the people of their right to information and protect the interest of the former. The politicians, naturally, always have been liberal in ensuring the free flow of information. But while in power being misguided by the bureaucracy, they, too, tried to conceal information. Besides, when politicians indulge in corruption, they would, for obvious reasons, be extra-careful to conceal facts under various pretexts. So, one cannot expect free flow of information under a government that is run by corrupt elements, politicians or otherwise.
Before, embarking on the enactment of the RIA, the government should make certain what part of the information should be declared 'classified'. The government, under no circumstances, can risk divulging any information that could put the independence and sovereignty of the country at risk. Besides, it needs to be ensured that in the name of right to information, nobody becomes a victim of blackmailing.
Another important issue that deserves attention of all concerned is the government's capacity to make available information to the people. It is expected that the proposed law would clearly tell the people about the ways of seeking information and what they would do in the event of their failure to get it.
Under the prevailing situation, the RIA though a necessity is unlikely to be that helpful. It might take months or even years for an ordinary citizen to get a piece of information he or she needs urgently because of the outmoded operational system in government offices. The situation is likely to different in private organizations that are mostly automated. The past governments talked quite loudly about the need for e-governance but did little to introduce it. Had the government offices be properly automated, it would not have been that difficult to satisfy the information seekers within a short period. Khaki files tied by white or brown tapes-- red tapes are not being used these days because of widespread criticism linked to bureaucratic inaction-- do still dominate the racks and file cabinets of the government offices. Digging out information from the heaps of files would be a hell of a job that the government officials would deliberately avoid.
The government officials, by habit, are averse to technology. Many high officials have computers in their rooms. But they hardly use them. In most cases, they do not know how to operate them. Years have gone by since the procurement of computers but they never have tried to learn the ways to operate them, a trait that is easily picked up even by a five-year old kid in no time. The reluctance of the public sector officials to divulge information to the people is evident from the state of the websites of various government offices. The websites are hardly updated. The websites of important government offices that need to be updated daily remain filled up with even six-month old information. For the sake of transparency and accountability in procurement, the government offices are supposed to put on display the procurement and tender notices on their websites, but that is hardly done. So had the government officials been sincere in providing the necessary information to the people, none would have demanded a law like RIA.
The people would welcome a piece of legislation that would guarantee their right to information. But, at the same time, they know it well, how difficult it will be to enforce the same. There is no dearth of good laws in this land but their enforcement has been, unfortunately, well below the people's expectation.
Chief Adviser Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed while speaking at a function in Dhaka last week expressed his government's desire to introduce the Right to Information Act (RIA), one of the much-discussed legal issues. At least 61 countries including some of our neighbours have similar laws in force.
The chief adviser is not the lone important personality to express the willingness to have such a law to ensure access of the people to information pertaining to government's activities and the State. Similarly, other important persons both within and outside the government on a number occasions in the recent past laid due emphasis on the introduction of the RIA. It is most likely that such a law would be introduced during the tenure of the present interim government which, like the political governments, does not have to listen to various pressure groups that often forces the authorities to delay or change decisions.
The Law Commission had prepared a draft of the RIA in 2002. But the BNP-led alliance government, it is alleged, did not pay much attention to the issue. The file containing the draft shuttled between the law and information ministries on a number of occasions and, after some days, it was pushed under the rug in spite of the fact that the immediate past law minister and other government leaders spent lot of words highlighting the need for introduction of the RIA. The mismatch between words and deeds of the politicians-turned- ministers is very much known and the people have learnt to digest it.
The chief adviser has rightly pointed out that an act like RIA not only helps the government to be accountable and transparent but also encourages it to make available the basic services to the people. In this context, he referred to the Article 39 of the Constitution that guarantees the right of the people to information. However, there are a few pieces of age-old legislations that run counter to the objectives of the proposed RIA. The sections 5 (1) of the Official Secrecy Act, sections 123 and 124 of the Witness Act of 1972 and section 19 of the Government Servants (discipline) Act of 1979 have been obstructing the people's right to information.
The obvious questions that one might feel tempted to ask: Should the common people be allowed to share even the classified information? What will be the basis of classification of information? Is the government adequately prepared to ensure free flow of information to the people?
The issue of protecting the classified information has actually been used by the bureaucracy quite cleverly to deprive the people of their right to information and protect the interest of the former. The politicians, naturally, always have been liberal in ensuring the free flow of information. But while in power being misguided by the bureaucracy, they, too, tried to conceal information. Besides, when politicians indulge in corruption, they would, for obvious reasons, be extra-careful to conceal facts under various pretexts. So, one cannot expect free flow of information under a government that is run by corrupt elements, politicians or otherwise.
Before, embarking on the enactment of the RIA, the government should make certain what part of the information should be declared 'classified'. The government, under no circumstances, can risk divulging any information that could put the independence and sovereignty of the country at risk. Besides, it needs to be ensured that in the name of right to information, nobody becomes a victim of blackmailing.
Another important issue that deserves attention of all concerned is the government's capacity to make available information to the people. It is expected that the proposed law would clearly tell the people about the ways of seeking information and what they would do in the event of their failure to get it.
Under the prevailing situation, the RIA though a necessity is unlikely to be that helpful. It might take months or even years for an ordinary citizen to get a piece of information he or she needs urgently because of the outmoded operational system in government offices. The situation is likely to different in private organizations that are mostly automated. The past governments talked quite loudly about the need for e-governance but did little to introduce it. Had the government offices be properly automated, it would not have been that difficult to satisfy the information seekers within a short period. Khaki files tied by white or brown tapes-- red tapes are not being used these days because of widespread criticism linked to bureaucratic inaction-- do still dominate the racks and file cabinets of the government offices. Digging out information from the heaps of files would be a hell of a job that the government officials would deliberately avoid.
The government officials, by habit, are averse to technology. Many high officials have computers in their rooms. But they hardly use them. In most cases, they do not know how to operate them. Years have gone by since the procurement of computers but they never have tried to learn the ways to operate them, a trait that is easily picked up even by a five-year old kid in no time. The reluctance of the public sector officials to divulge information to the people is evident from the state of the websites of various government offices. The websites are hardly updated. The websites of important government offices that need to be updated daily remain filled up with even six-month old information. For the sake of transparency and accountability in procurement, the government offices are supposed to put on display the procurement and tender notices on their websites, but that is hardly done. So had the government officials been sincere in providing the necessary information to the people, none would have demanded a law like RIA.
The people would welcome a piece of legislation that would guarantee their right to information. But, at the same time, they know it well, how difficult it will be to enforce the same. There is no dearth of good laws in this land but their enforcement has been, unfortunately, well below the people's expectation.