Reducing corruption through ‘Proactive Disclosure’

Information is power. It enables an individual or community not only to access required data but also to use it for better understanding of the process of decision making and the manner in which such a decision will be implemented. Freedom of thought, conscience and speech are elements which are recognised in our Constitution as fundamental rights. Consequently, the right to information is considered as an inalienable part of this matrix.

It is believed that if this is undertaken with care, then it will assist in the empowerment of people. It is also considered that this factor, if properly executed, by public, autonomous, statutory organizations and non-governmental organizations receiving funding support from the government or from external partners, will eventually assure transparency and accountability, help reduce corruption and assist in the promotion of desired democratic good governance.

Ensuring free flow of information is however not always easy. There are several challenges and the principal among them relates to the mind-set of the individuals entrusted with the task of providing information to applicants.  Over the years their conservative and sometimes negative attitude has been reinforced because of certain provisions in the following – the Official Secrets Act, 1923, the Rules of Business, 1996 and the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979.

Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2009 provides the cure for this malaise. It states that provisions for facilitating information flow need not be impeded as the RTI Act will supersede the provisions of other Rules or Acts.

It would however be pertinent to note here that certain exemptions have however been retained within the RTI Act. The providing of certain aspects of information has not been made mandatory under Section 7 of this Act. This principle, it may be mentioned is consistent with the practice followed in other countries who have also subscribed to the Freedom of Information process.

The Bangladesh RTI Act has however not allowed exemptions to totally dilute information flow. Certain sub-sections have been incorporated into the Act that recognizes the exemptions but also limits the limitations. Section 9(4) of the Act provides that where a request for information is made under sub-section (i) of Section 8, and relates to life and death, arrest and release from jail of any person, the Officer-in-charge shall provide preliminary information within 24 hours.

Similarly, another interesting departure within this Act lies in Section 32 (2). This has been incorporated to ensure equity and justice. Section 32 (1) states that this Act shall not apply to eight institutions involved in state security and intelligence. This format is similar to the practice that presently exists in most countries who participate in the free flow of information. The institutions have been mentioned in the Schedule of the Act- the NSI, DGFI, CID, SSF, and Intelligence Cells of RAB and of NBR, Defense Intelligence Units and the SB of Bangladesh police.

Against this backdrop of promoting national security requirements, the Act however takes the innovative step of ensuring rights aimed at good governance and reducing corruption through Section 32 (2). This states that provision of 32(1) shall not apply to such information that pertains to corruption and violation of human rights within these institutions.

As one can see, principles of law exist not only to help disclosure but also to foster accountability within the format of the governance structure.

In this context, it is now universally believed that access to information can be further taken forward with proactive disclosure of required information. It is felt that if this can be carried out meaningfully, it will create transparency and reduce the scope of corruption. This is now being practiced among nearly all the Western countries (most successfully among the Scandinavian countries) and also in Japan and Korea.

Our government has initiated several steps over the past three years with regard to digitalization and freedom of information flow. Nevertheless, certain recent issues have created in many a credibility gap with regard to its efforts to fight corruption. Consequently, it was heartening to note in a recent media report that our Anti- Corruption Commission has decided to start special inquiries within certain institutions- the Dhaka City Corporation, the LGED, the Roads and Highways department, the Department of Environment, The BTCL, the BRTA and a few others. That is welcome. Mal-practice of governance and corruption in these institutions are largely due to their lack of proactive disclosure.

At this point it would be useful to define proactive disclosure. It is the practice of providing public information in a timely fashion via accessible means without a request for information being filed. The information is made public at the initiative of the public body. This way disclosure is ‘proactive’ rather than ‘reactive’.

The World Bank Institute in their working paper, ‘Proactive Transparency’ has outlined certain elements that Offices need to disclose on their own initiative. I am highlighting some of them:

Institutional information- legal basis of the institution, internal regulations, functions and powers; Organizational information- organizational structure including information on personnel and the names and contact information of public officials; Operational information- strategy and plans, policies, activities, procedures, reports and evaluations; Decisions- decisions and formal acts, particularly those that directly affect the public- including the data used as the basis for these decisions; Public services information- description of services offered to the public, booklets, copies of forms, information on fees and deadlines; Budget information- projected budget, actual income and expenditure; Decision-making and public participation- Information on decision-making procedures including mechanism for consultations and public participation in decision-making; Public procurement information- detailed information on public procurement processes, criteria and outcome of decision making on tender applications; Information about information held- An index or register of documents/information held including details of information held in database and Publications information- information on publications issued, including whether publications are free of charge or the price if they must be purchased.

In addition to the above, it is important that the following are also followed with care by each institution covered by our RTI Act and also by other corporate bodies that do not directly fall under the horizon of this Act. Each of them should have their own website, publish their Annual Report regularly within the stipulated time and then uplink the same onto their web portal; ensure that updated information about the activities of the Body is accessible at all times through their Notice Board, Press Releases, Press Conferences and that information regarding all activities requiring the tendering system be available in recognized newspapers with wide circulation. At the level of the Upazila Parishad, a permanent signboard should be established that will contain details of the development projects including timeframe, financial allocation, technical specifications etc.

I have no hesitation that if we have such disclosure, and work together, we can foster good governance and reduce the potential for undertaking corrupt practices.

It has been a positive step that the Information Commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission and the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General have jointly started to encourage

pro-active disclosure within their Institutions and also in several other government Ministries associated with economic development, healthcare and infrastructure building. One hopes that such efforts will pay the required dividends.

One cannot however conclude any discussion on the subject of good governance without referring to the need for establishing an Ombudsman, who can be impartial, rise above partisan politics and ensure accountability within the system of governance.

Article 77 of our Constitution suggests that the Parliament may, by law, provide for the establishment of the office of Ombudsman. Consistent with this principle, the Ombudsman is expected to exercise such powers and perform such functions as Parliament may, by law, determine, including the power to investigate any action taken by a Ministry, a public officer or a statutory public authority. This concept has proven to be very successful in the Scandinavian countries, particularly in Sweden and has extended the reach of efficient and corruption-free governance in that nation. We should also seriously consider replicating this in Bangladesh.

The writer, a former Ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance. He can be reached at muhammadzamir0@gmail.com