Recent exchanges in the print media on aspects of “public information,” our right to know, to access facts and stats and to familiarize ourselves much more with the role and responsibilities of our Commissioner of Information – himself a Master of Many Unfamiliar Words – have motivated me to re-visit this issue, briefly.
I suspect that it was around 2006 when the Alliance for Change introduced a “modernistic” freedom of information bill/act in the National Assembly. The Jagdeo Administration, such as it was then, effectively “cold-storaged” that potential legislation for years. Some governments have more to hide than others. Some governments place no priority on their populations being fully informed and/or educated. But a people’s lack of information and knowledge – their “ignorance” – can either help or harm an administration. Especially when the politics become poisoned.
I wonder, what’s the Granger government’s position on freedom of information (FOI)? After all it was new Governance/Natural Resources Minister Trotman who had shepherded the AFC’s FOI years ago.
**************************
So, what is FOI?
You know how my simple, unlettered mind defines terms and issues for my working class comrades.
Simply stated a Freedom-of-Information Act is legislation that ensures that well-meaning taxpayers, electors, students, all citizens, can access information which can shed light upon numerous situations, national status, investments, state of population, business, legislation, rights, governance and methodologies. As long as government, for example, conducts business on our behalf, in our name, we have a (constitutional) right to know- to be privy to most, if not all, details of what they are doing. Or what they did. But why?
Because access to public information is a basic, precious right. Knowledge breeds reasoning then rational, informed decision-making and decisions themselves. Raphael Trotman had argued, I think that no open, accountable government would want to disallow or suppress information (flows) to those they were elected to govern. He prosecuted that evidence has been established “empirically” that the right to access information has made profound differences for the better, in the lives of people. From poverty reduction to democracy, information is a bedrock.
At a Parliamentary Conference for the Parliament and Media held here in 2008, I was exposed to various models of FOI legislation. Our neighbour Trinidad and Tobago has robust, effective legislation which allows its citizens access to what they need to know, wherever it is stored. I recall a British participant deeming FOI law “The Oxygen of Democracy”, with Stabroek News declaring afterward that what the then Jagdeo government was “allowing” was the oxygen of embarrassment.
For when the aspirational Constitutional articles including 146 (“The freedom to receive ideas and information without interference”); when constitution is not supported by active, implementable laws, we “enjoy” only paper rights.
******
Our Right to Know- What?
If a people, especially the numerous representatives of Civil Society, must participate meaningfully in decisions that affect their daily living (Article 13) there are basic things they must access- facts and figures, conditions of certain contracts, statistics and their meanings related to population, investments, budgetary allocations, about their representatives’ public earnings, taxes, assets, how the national patrimony is being managed. Oh man, the list is long. But why is that right important? When food, fuel and medicines, recreation and education, are more personal priorities and concerns?
Information, like knowledge, is power and the right to access it, either from government or private sources, is now so treasured by free-thinking citizens that officialdom with nothing to fear or hide has guaranteed access by legislation. In fact, many of societies’ stakeholders from individual citizens, whether farmer, entrepreneur or attorney to representative groups, now grasp fully the value of this civil right, the freedom of information. For “the fundamental premise… is that governments, for example, hold information not for themselves, but as a service for the people. Those citizens therefore have a democratic right to access that information.”
There are necessary exceptions of course. Sensitive negotiations with foreign powers, confidentiality clauses about investments, the weaknesses of police or army, security stats bandits might relish and so on should be embargoed for periods of time. Classified info can also be in our own interest.
But we must know who is bidding for our trees and gold. Who will privatise sugar, how many doctors we are paying for, why the education system is to be altered; how casino licences and television spectrum are allocated. We could not be told beforehand, when the army or police will raid obviously. We must not know what happens in our parliamentarian’s bedroom, but is her income taxes in order? Her integrity and suitability to serve is our business!
There is now a Commissioner of Information in keeping with our FOI Act. What does he do? I’ve seen his public correspondence but this I propose: Let three prominent critics apply for specific information within a given period. Ought to be interesting.
******
The presidential spokesman
I have allowed myself- having actually voted APNU+AFC last May- until end of August to regard as this government’s settling in, honeymoon period.
So this is no real (harsh) criticism of Minister Joseph Harmon. Is the former GDF officer, current Attorney-at-law the Cabinet Secretary, if there is one? He does seem to be a presidential spokesman after the Cabinet deliberates weekly.
I like how you stand upright alone, to conduct your briefings Sir. (Do you still use “Comrade” in APNU/PNC, as in my bygone time?) No McCoy types for you. As a matter of fact you stand alone like Josh Earnest the Obama White House Spokesman/dude.
However, as a fan of yours, I caution you early on: Eschew any hint of knowing-it-all arrogance; be humble in your authority as you deliver precise accurate, verifiable information to the youthful press corps; spend little time on opposition (PPP) distractions.
And, Oh! Sit with the Prime Minister and/or senior Ministers to determine if/when they should make their own announcements, from time to time. Respect until…
Ponder well….
First Dare: One PPP contact dared me to write that minister Raphael is no different from Bharrat. Allegedly, they both pretended that they were not interested in future “positions” Now?
Dare 2: That I must tell the Police to have zero tolerance for the Young Rich who flaunt their wealth speeding on their huge million-dollars motorbikes. No helmets, but perhaps illegal items as they whizz past poor cops.
The CG bandits too, use no tail lights. Arrest them!
Til next week
(Comments? allanafenty@yahoo.com)
