Once upon a time there was a king. The king ruled over his subjects and administered justice. He could do no wrong, so he could not be questioned and he was not accountable to any forum.
Times changed. The king became the Crown, and then came the concept of rule of law, with two leading premises: nobody would be punished without being heard, and nobody could be a judge in his own case because judges must be neutral. But the Crown still had a privilege that could not be questioned.
Before long, the Crown and its administrators were made to give reasons for their actions and decisions. This was a giant leap forward – an end to arbitrary and whimsical use of authority. But the privilege of the Crown continued to be as sacred as the rule of law itself.
That did not change even after the arrival of the representative government and ministers, who were answerable to the Parliament and served until they enjoyed the confidence of the legislature. This was remarkable in its own right. Democracy was seen at its best when ministers were grilled in the House of Commons by their peers.
But the citizens could still not ask questions. The Westminster form of government was all about ministerial responsibility, and public interest demanded that their actions were not questioned in courts or elsewhere, except in Parliament. This privilege was even given to those at the very bottom of the hierarchy. The bureaucracy formed on the Weberian model and raised on colonial tradition made access to legitimate information cumbersome and impossible. The Official Secrets Act of 1923 in the UK and the subcontinent (it is still operational in Pakistan) barred civil servants from disclosing any information seen or received in official capacity.
All that has changed in most of the modern world, partly due to digital record keeping and partly due to progressive legislation providing access to official information to citizens. It has been accepted that representative democracy cannot function without transparency. And transparency is all about citizen participation, which is only possible with access to official information about government’s actions. Freedom of Information has now been accepted as a fundamental right, along with other inalienable rights of life, property, expression and associations.
The United States passed its Freedom of Information law in 1968. The UK House of Lords effectively diluted the Crown’s privilege in famous case Conway v Rimmer the same year. Australia passed its Freedom of Information law in 1982, and the UK – in its latest amendments in 2012 – replaced documents with data and provided unhindered access to all official data of 24 departments and 331 agencies through its websitegov.uk.
Pakistan passed its Access to Information Act in 2010. It was an improvement on an earlier legislation passed in 2002. But the country still lacks a culture of transparency.
Accountability has become a buzzword again recently, and there are all kinds of questions being asked about the offshore accounts of people’s representatives. But there is little talk of transparency, which is the essence of accountability. Anybody associated with the government is either elected or appointed. In the former case, there are elaborate details to be provided to the Election Commission, while in the latter, public servants are required to submit periodical and annual information about their assets and other activities. In addition to that, all government activities, ranging from procurement expenditures to revenue collection, are well documented. The law demands that all this information be available to the public whenever demanded.
Governments are however always wary of sharing this information, because there are political costs attached with it. Narendra Modi’s educational qualification might not have any legal consequences, but huge political grounds were to be lost in case of wrongfulness. No leader wants his kitchen expenses or children’s tuition fees discussed on television.
Then, there are other serious issues. Government policies are usually an outcome of long technical and professional deliberations. If all information is open to public, the quality of decision-making will suffer. Cabinet members and senior bureaucrats might not proffer candid and frank input necessary for sensitive issues. There are also matters related to national security and international relations. In many instances, public interest would be served in hiding instead of revealing.
The solution to this conundrum is more information, not less. Governance in broad daylight would be far more transparent, accountable and comfortable than the one shrouded in darkness. The real issue is not that some nosy journalists have access to some information, it is that there is very little information around. Talking about politics is among the favorite pastime of our people, after food and Facebook, but they have very little information to form mature opinions. Most of the information they have reaches them in the form of juicy conspiracy theories, half-baked conjectures and insipid press releases.
A positive chaos would be far more useful than an uneasy discipline. Political debates, no matter how bitter, are not weaknesses but the very strength of democracy. They keep citizens engaged in the process and keep their hopes alive.
Governance is not only about decision making in the capitals. It is about who pays taxes and who collects them, who arrests people and who releases them, who earns and who spends. It is about functions of the bureaucracy, from the Patwari to the governor of State Bank.
A voluntary flow of information from all departments and all public office holders will ensure transparency, which is the only long-term instrument of accountability.
Times changed. The king became the Crown, and then came the concept of rule of law, with two leading premises: nobody would be punished without being heard, and nobody could be a judge in his own case because judges must be neutral. But the Crown still had a privilege that could not be questioned.
Before long, the Crown and its administrators were made to give reasons for their actions and decisions. This was a giant leap forward – an end to arbitrary and whimsical use of authority. But the privilege of the Crown continued to be as sacred as the rule of law itself.
That did not change even after the arrival of the representative government and ministers, who were answerable to the Parliament and served until they enjoyed the confidence of the legislature. This was remarkable in its own right. Democracy was seen at its best when ministers were grilled in the House of Commons by their peers.
A positive chaos would be far more useful than an uneasy discipline
But the citizens could still not ask questions. The Westminster form of government was all about ministerial responsibility, and public interest demanded that their actions were not questioned in courts or elsewhere, except in Parliament. This privilege was even given to those at the very bottom of the hierarchy. The bureaucracy formed on the Weberian model and raised on colonial tradition made access to legitimate information cumbersome and impossible. The Official Secrets Act of 1923 in the UK and the subcontinent (it is still operational in Pakistan) barred civil servants from disclosing any information seen or received in official capacity.
All that has changed in most of the modern world, partly due to digital record keeping and partly due to progressive legislation providing access to official information to citizens. It has been accepted that representative democracy cannot function without transparency. And transparency is all about citizen participation, which is only possible with access to official information about government’s actions. Freedom of Information has now been accepted as a fundamental right, along with other inalienable rights of life, property, expression and associations.
The United States passed its Freedom of Information law in 1968. The UK House of Lords effectively diluted the Crown’s privilege in famous case Conway v Rimmer the same year. Australia passed its Freedom of Information law in 1982, and the UK – in its latest amendments in 2012 – replaced documents with data and provided unhindered access to all official data of 24 departments and 331 agencies through its websitegov.uk.
Pakistan passed its Access to Information Act in 2010. It was an improvement on an earlier legislation passed in 2002. But the country still lacks a culture of transparency.
Accountability has become a buzzword again recently, and there are all kinds of questions being asked about the offshore accounts of people’s representatives. But there is little talk of transparency, which is the essence of accountability. Anybody associated with the government is either elected or appointed. In the former case, there are elaborate details to be provided to the Election Commission, while in the latter, public servants are required to submit periodical and annual information about their assets and other activities. In addition to that, all government activities, ranging from procurement expenditures to revenue collection, are well documented. The law demands that all this information be available to the public whenever demanded.
Governments are however always wary of sharing this information, because there are political costs attached with it. Narendra Modi’s educational qualification might not have any legal consequences, but huge political grounds were to be lost in case of wrongfulness. No leader wants his kitchen expenses or children’s tuition fees discussed on television.
Then, there are other serious issues. Government policies are usually an outcome of long technical and professional deliberations. If all information is open to public, the quality of decision-making will suffer. Cabinet members and senior bureaucrats might not proffer candid and frank input necessary for sensitive issues. There are also matters related to national security and international relations. In many instances, public interest would be served in hiding instead of revealing.
The solution to this conundrum is more information, not less. Governance in broad daylight would be far more transparent, accountable and comfortable than the one shrouded in darkness. The real issue is not that some nosy journalists have access to some information, it is that there is very little information around. Talking about politics is among the favorite pastime of our people, after food and Facebook, but they have very little information to form mature opinions. Most of the information they have reaches them in the form of juicy conspiracy theories, half-baked conjectures and insipid press releases.
A positive chaos would be far more useful than an uneasy discipline. Political debates, no matter how bitter, are not weaknesses but the very strength of democracy. They keep citizens engaged in the process and keep their hopes alive.
Governance is not only about decision making in the capitals. It is about who pays taxes and who collects them, who arrests people and who releases them, who earns and who spends. It is about functions of the bureaucracy, from the Patwari to the governor of State Bank.
A voluntary flow of information from all departments and all public office holders will ensure transparency, which is the only long-term instrument of accountability.