VOICE
OF "COMMON CAUSE"
Towards
an Open Government
The
enactment of the Freedom of Information Act, 2002, since replaced
by the Right to Information Act, 2005, is an important milestone
in the citizen's struggle to secure information about the way
he is governed. It has been a long and painful struggle and the
state apparatus seems to have been embittered by it. Accustomed
to operating under the protective shadows of the Official Secrets
Act, it tends to regard the outcome as a major defeat, which has
to be avenged in a million skirmishes with the foot soldiers of
the enemy by denying them the desired information under every
conceivable pretext. Anyone who is called upon to invoke the provisions
of the RTI Act time and again will vouch for the great ingenuity
of a vast majority of the designated public information officers
in stretching the letter of the law to deny access to the information
sought. They pay scant heed to the spirit of the legislation encapsulated
in section 4 of the Act, which mandates that every public authority
shall endeavour to provide, of its own accord, as much information
to the public as possible, so that the public have minimum resort
to the use of the Act to obtain information.
The provision of effective access to information constitutes a
crucial step towards a deeper and more meaningful democracy. The
intrinsic value of the right to information is predicated on the
fact that in a democracy, citizens are entitled to know what concerns
and interests them. The instrumental value of the right to information
comes into play as, empowered by knowledge, citizens can demand
and secure action for development. Relevant information also enables
them to make enlightened choices, effectively engage in democratic
processes and call to account their elected representatives and
the officials, who claim to act in their interest. The right to
information is a potent weapon in the campaign against corruption.
It promotes social and economic development and reduces conflict
by enhancing government transparency and accountability. It is
imperative that public authorities cease to view a demand for
information as an affront; instead, they should proactively place
all material facts concerning their operations in the public domain.
Such an attitudinal change would win them the trust of the people,
which is fundamental to good governance, and obviate the need
for invoking the statutory right to information. The real value
of the Right to Information Act is in enhancing the democratic
process by encouraging popular participation in public affairs
and ensuring the accountability of those in office.
*
TOWARDS AN OPEN GOVERNMENT
* SUPREME COURT & PILs |
*
APPOINTMENT OF C.A.G.
* POLICE REFORMS |
There
are far too many obscure nooks and corners in the edifice of government,
which have been kept beyond the pale of public scrutiny. For instance,
appointments to constitutional posts and other high offices in
India have always remained shrouded in mystery. The government
has been steadfast in its refusal to lay down any qualifications
for these posts, or spell out the procedures for preparation of
short lists of candidates and the criteria for selection. Unfortunately,
the Supreme Court has not upheld the challenge to executive arbitrariness
in the appointments to the constitutional office of Comptroller
& Auditor General of India. But this setback need not deter
the civil society from pressing for replacement of secrecy and
mystery in appointments to high public offices with transparency
and objectivity. As citizens of a mature democracy, we are entitled
to demand the restoration of competence and an end to the culture
of expediency and cronyism.
It
is only natural that this new culture of openness should also
extend to personnel management in government. In this connection,
the Fifth Central Pay Commission had specifically mentioned activities
such as appointments, transfers and postings, empanelment, promotions
and resolution of disputes among government servants and recommended
that clearly defined criteria for all such matters should be laid
down and publicized so as to permit a scrutiny of the decisions
purported to be based on them. Hopefully, this recommendation
will see some action after a lapse of eleven years.
The
domain of policy formation is equally in the need of public airing
and exposure. Public participation in the processes leading to
policy formulation and legislation is virtually non-existent.
Advances in information and communications technologies have made
it possible for governments to transcend the limitations of representative
democracy and to reach out to the general public to ascertain
its aspirations and concerns and accommodate them. It will be
foolhardy to underestimate the public concern and disquiet over
issues such as terrorism, inflation, food security, energy crisis,
unemployment, growing income disparities, social discords and
corruption. It is quite possible that the government has formulated
its strategies and actions plans to address these concerns, but
the public needs to be reassured that it is indeed the case. We
have not seen any White Papers on these critical issues.
We
also need to question established practices and conventions which
inhibit the dialogue between the citizenry and the government.
The mystique of the budgetary process, for instance, is an anachronism
from the colonial era. There is no reason why the Finance Minister
should not take the nation into confidence about his budget proposals,
which should occasion an informed public debate. The budget document
should then be finalized and presented in the Parliament.
To
conclude, if we want an open, accountable and participatory government,
we must be exigent in our insistence for a radical change in the
processes of government.
Kamal
Kant Jaswal
