Stronger commitment to transparency is vital for the success of RTI Act
Clearly, most citizens are unaware of the tremendous bounties the RTI Act has to offer
Can public officials ever become transparent in their work and feel accountable to citizens?
"The freedom of a nation cannot be upheld by laws alone, but also by the light of the nation and knowledge of their use." These words by Anders Chydenius, a Swedish enlightenment thinker and politician of the eighteenth century, had set the ball rolling for the adoption of world's first freedom of information law in Sweden and Finland in 1766. Since then around 115 countries/territories have enacted similar transparency laws.
NGO experience shows that many RTI applications from marginalised communities do not get recorded as those who obtain benefits by simply using the law do not care about receiving a formal response. Officials concerned also do not wish to record applications and may even avoid reporting them to concerned offices, as they often resort to irregular practices to dispose them off.
It would be unfair to compare the Bangladesh situation with the Indian experience (refer to Part I of this column published yesterday).
During the International Right to Information Week celebrations recently, a common question in people's mind was: Is the Right to Information Act 2009 (RTI) going in the right direction?
A common reaction of most people about the RTI Act is a lack of trust in its efficacy. It is this general lack of faith in the willingness of public officials to break away from the age-old culture of official secrecy...
What is encouraging to note is that this time the government has come forward to break the culture of secrecy. That's why the RTI law has a provision of pro-active disclosure.
Stronger commitment to transparency is vital for the success of RTI Act
Clearly, most citizens are unaware of the tremendous bounties the RTI Act has to offer
Can public officials ever become transparent in their work and feel accountable to citizens?
"The freedom of a nation cannot be upheld by laws alone, but also by the light of the nation and knowledge of their use." These words by Anders Chydenius, a Swedish enlightenment thinker and politician of the eighteenth century, had set the ball rolling for the adoption of world's first freedom of information law in Sweden and Finland in 1766. Since then around 115 countries/territories have enacted similar transparency laws.
NGO experience shows that many RTI applications from marginalised communities do not get recorded as those who obtain benefits by simply using the law do not care about receiving a formal response. Officials concerned also do not wish to record applications and may even avoid reporting them to concerned offices, as they often resort to irregular practices to dispose them off.
It would be unfair to compare the Bangladesh situation with the Indian experience (refer to Part I of this column published yesterday).
During the International Right to Information Week celebrations recently, a common question in people's mind was: Is the Right to Information Act 2009 (RTI) going in the right direction?
A common reaction of most people about the RTI Act is a lack of trust in its efficacy. It is this general lack of faith in the willingness of public officials to break away from the age-old culture of official secrecy...
What is encouraging to note is that this time the government has come forward to break the culture of secrecy. That's why the RTI law has a provision of pro-active disclosure.
In last month's column, we said that a key reason for the tardy progress of the Right to Information Act (RTI) in the country is general disbelief that the age-old practice of official secrecy in the work of public authorities will change just because there is a new law that seeks to end it.
