Right to
information: a guardian of democracy
“democracy
dies behind the closed doors”, said an American judge Damon Keith in a very
famous Detroit Free case. It is a guardian right of democracy in
Pakistan. However, before to discuss it at length; it is pertinent to define
it. The right to information (hereinafter will be referred to as RTI) has been
defined and adopted up till now by almost above a hundred countries as per
their norms, legal, and socio-economic mores, etc. Moreover, it also has successfully been
recognized in each international instrument that deals with fundamental human
rights.
In
Pakistan, the RTI has been bestowed a constitutional status of a fundamental
right in the 18th constitutional amendment. Under its Article 19A,
it has been defined as the “right of every citizen to have access to
information in all matters of public importance”. Afterward, all four provinces
of Pakistan adopt it. In Punjab, through the legislation of ‘The Punjab
Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2010’, it is comparatively defined
better than the rest of the provinces: a right to acquire information,
including the inspection of documents and works, to extract and to access a
certified copies of requisite documents and materials, etc. in all matters of
public importance.
Furthermore,
through the adoption and legislation of the ‘Right of Access to Information Act,
2017’, the federal government of
Pakistan also adopts and defined it. While
reiterating its belief on transparency and its aim of improved access of
information to the records controlled by public functionaries. Furthermore, to promote
the principle of accountability before its citizens; to accept the principle of
participatory democracy; to eradicate
the menace of corruption; to improve the performance of governance; to strengthen
socio-economic growth; to boost the good governance and to honor human rights, it
adopted the ‘Right of Access to Information Act, 2017’. In this legislation,
the RTI is defined as the right to access to information controlled by public
functionaries or agencies including information of documents or records which
may either be digital or printed in nature, in all matters of public importance.
Why is it
a guardian of democracy? Because James Madison once said, “a popular government
without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to farce
or a tragedy”. Those countries which have adopted it in its true letter and
spirit are successful democracies. Yet those who have snubbed it and do not
adopt it by those means; there the rule of law and accountability is still a
chimera. Such as the United States of America adopted it in 1966 through the
‘Freedom of Information Act, 1966. Sweden adopted it in 1949, Australia adopted
it in 1987, and Canada in the year of 1983. There is a list of successful
democracies that adopted it first and a list of failed democracies that have
not.
On the other hand, Pakistan adopted it officially—with a heavy heart as a cumbersome
duty to be obliged and which was imposed by international institutions and
pressure—in the year 2010. Yet not in its letter and spirit. In this regard,
up till 2010 a series of successive procrastinate promises were made by each
one who came at the helm. As a false claim, often the notion of security or
sometimes national security has been put forth as an impediment in its
implementation—it requires another long debate that whether RTI hinders
national security or not. But its late and still hypocritic adoption, adrift
our citizens from its usage and benefits. Thus, the depth of corruption’s ocean
is consistently increasing; the impermeable culture of secrecy is gaining
strength; the lack of openness and transparency is resulting in huge losses to
the exchequer.
It is a
guardian of democracy because it ensures political accountability and true
representation. For the first aspect, ‘accountability’: it is crystal clear
that each democratic state emphasized on this notion. Thus, where there is a
democracy, there is the right to information. These two co-exists. None can
survive without each other. Notwithstanding, this first aspect; the second
comes as a consequence of the first one. As the accountability of whom: the
representatives. This representation
stems from the relationship of electorates with elected ones. And when these electorates do not pursue their
promises and slogans; there comes the RTI to let it be known to the citizens
what their chosen ones are doing.
It is
also a guardian of democracy because it compels the elites and the rules to
answer before laymen and downtrodden. This is obviously a dislike situation. To
whom the elites and bureaucrats consider nothing; their simple application can
place them at the dock before the law. This answering aspect is democracy. As
it is a two-way promise: one promise by the voters that they will vote, second
by the representatives that they will abide by their promises made with voters.
Thus, the right to information guards and protect democracy.
Moreover,
it is also a guardian of democracy because it protects the citizens from the
unbridled, whimsical, arbitrary and fanciful powers of the rulers through
accountability. It is not that constitutional status of being Article 19A gives
it guardianship title. Rather, its unimpeachable relationship with democracy
makes it worthy of this entitlement. This is because RTI finds its place
straightforwardly in discussions of democracy and its principles: such as participation
and accountability. And as a guardian of democracy, it not only tackles the
corruption but also helps to evaluate the public response; as elections are not
the only means of democracy, rather the right to know after the formulation of
government is real democracy.
In a
nutshell, it is sin-qua-non for a true democracy. It controls corruption and
malpractices by giving access to information in all matters of public
importance to every citizen. Being a part of freedom of expression; it
strengthens the fourth pillar of the state: media. The right to information
comes as a savior for the downtrodden from whimsical, capricious, mischievous
shenanigans of the rulers and elites by compelling to disclose all those
matters that deal with the masses. It advances the transparency and deprecates
the secrecy. In other words, it flourishes democracy.
Hafiz Muhammad
Azeem.
The writer is an advocate of the high court
and writes on various topics. He can be reached at Khokhar.azeem@yahoo.com. His articles can be accessed on
hmazeem.blospot.com. He holds an LL.M. from the Punjab University and teaches
law.