A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency. This is what Barack Obama said in early days of his presidency. He is no more at the helm in the United States and the world has to content with Donald Trump. But what Obama said is applicable to all functioning democracies, but not so crucially as in case of Pakistan. After four years of discussions and debates for urgent need of an effective right to information law, the government had tabled its Right of Access to Information Bill 2017 in the Senate. The Senate Standing Committee on Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage on Monday unanimously approved it. The bill in its present form, however, tends to be more restrictive - more restrictive than the one it is going to replace the Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002, which was promulgated by the then military dictator, General Musharraf. In essence, it is going to be the discretion of the government as to what can be disclosed and what remains secret. That would be possible courtesy the third category of information between the one that is closed and the one that can be disclosed. Under this arrangement any request for information would be refused to be entertained if consequential disclosure to public is likely to cause damage to country's interests in the conduct of international relations. And if that request still passes these tests it has to ensure also that its disclosure is not going to cause "invasion of privacy, cause damage to economy, damage to financial interests of public body and harmful to commercial activities of public body." And then there is the no-go area of defence matters, which too stand blocked for information access. Whether or not the information asked for falls in this category, it is up to the discretion of the minister in-charge of the concerned public body.
Ideally, there should be only one list of exempted information and the rest should be decided by the public. The question is how effective the three-member proposed Information Commission would be vis-à-vis the concerned public body's veto by taking the stand that disclosure would harm the public interest. How can then a person seek relief against a public body like Nepra, Ogra or PTA if he feels that the decisions being made by the government tend to undermine and hurt his interests? On the face of it, the said bill is committed to facilitating the public access to information as "it is an essential pre-requisite to public realization of their ideals of good and transparent governance." But that seems to be mere jugglery of words. The right of access to information draft bill has received a score of 106 out of 150 from the Canada-based Centre for Law and Democracy. Quite ironically, its predecessor had won a 147-point score. Perhaps, the consensus in the Senate blocking easier access to information stems from the political elite's shared apprehension that such a move would let loose the skeletons incarcerated in their cupboards. Free flow of information lends strength to democracy; it helps weed the corrupt politicians out one by one. The corrupt elite is scared of a strong RTI law because, as they say, 'sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant'.
Comments
Comments are closed.