This would mean it was well before Julian Assange and his wikileaks troop taught us why it was even something to pursue in the first place.
As a firm believer in transparency – particularly when it pertains to the public, and especially so when it is on accounts of corruption, nepotism and such, I whole-heartedly agreed. But, what unsettled my soul was the idea of not drawing that defining, but fine line between ought to and ought not to remain confidential.
Washington DC’s backlash and embarrassment is only to be expected – when you are not worried about someone going through your dirty laundry you are not exactly choosing your words all that carefully. If the same were done of our personal lives – of our relationships, finance and habits, we would have been similarly outraged. Only a state, especially one that calls itself democratic, should not be stashing piles of such laundry anywhere and assuming it is not to be privy to its citizens.
Due to the marked difference between moral and legal obligations, it is necessary to declare the state’s obligation to inform the only constituency it is truly accountable to – their own public.
Private records are private, public records are not.
Citizens’ Campaign for Right to Information (CCRI) describes it as “the right to request and obtain information of public and individual importance held in public agencies.”
While private affairs regarding love interests, fetishes and family affairs are of little concern to citizens like me, unless they are affiliated to the public sphere, public ordeals on the other hand are very much the opposite. It is something we the public want to be in on and more telling, deserve to be clued in about - not through sneaky drips and leaks, but directly through the source.
In preventing, knowing and punishing, citizens are not subjects who are ruled, but are actively holding the rulers accountable instead.
It is somewhat unsurprising that a group on Facebook collected just under 5,000 signatures for a document titled ‘A Letter to the Supreme Court of Nepal: Support Action against Corruption’. Presented to Chief Justices Mr Ram Prasad Shrestha and Mr Khil Raj Regmi, the brief letter simply stated the signatories’ support for corruption-free public office holders.
The proactive measure was grass-root, but they did make their point. In fact, one of the best means to support this effort may be indeed be pushing for Right to Information to be ensured a constitutional right of every Nepali citizen, a right we Nepalis are knowledgeable about and have safe access to.
At a recent debate organized by Media Initiative for Rights, Equity and Social Transformation (MIREST-Nepal), constitutional expert Kashi Raj Dahal presented his concept paper, ‘Right to Information and the New Constitution’.
In Nepal, where inefficiency and nepotism is rampant in every sphere from the legal to the public to the private, perhaps the Right may indeed prove meaningful.
Corruption, which rots any institution from the core deservers special attention and recent scandals splattered across headlines mean I do n0t need to say much more.
Dahal emphasizes the need to press for Right to Information precisely as a means to counter corruption. The three very rudimentary points are as such:
One, prevent corruption by letting the public know.
Two, know where corruption has taken place and why or how.
Three, punish the guilty as the corrupt case is exposed.
In preventing, knowing and punishing, citizens are not subjects who are ruled, but are actively holding the rulers accountable instead.
Granting the masses such rights and power is of course not in the interest of the elite few who would otherwise enjoy exclusive access to sensitive details regarding public offices and/or the ability to highlight or destroy information as it pleases them.
According to right2info.org, since February 2010 some 80 countries have had “nationwide laws establishing the right of, and procedures for, the public to request and receive government-held information”.
The first Right to Information law was enacted by Sweden in 1766. I suppose it is only a twisted turn of fate that Assange was extradited from the same country in 2010 for his contributions to ensuring every citizen receives the right to be informed.
Nepal, just one of 19 in the Asian and Pacific regions, has every reason to be proud to have legislated access to information.
Taranath Dahal writes that “the Right to Information, despite being guaranteed since the adoption of the 1990 Constitution, was only given effect in July 2007 with the adoption of the RTI Act 2007 in Nepal. The Parliament of Nepal passed the Act in July 2007 to give effect to the people’s fundamental right to seek and receive information on any matters of public importance held by public agencies”.
In light of recent accounts of our lawbreakers - I mean, our lawmakers - and their escapades, it seems fitting to not just possess this right, but to practice it too.
Know that we have the right to know. After all it is not a request, it is a right.
sradda.thapa@gmail.com
Related story
Desperate search for missing girls as nearly 80 dead in Texas f...
