Session 1
Why Transparency & Accountability Matter: Good Governance in a Democracy
Moderator: Omkar Goswami
Soli J. Sorabjee
The core problem of orderly government and good governance was perceptively discerned by James Madison two centuries ago when he stated, "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself".
Over the years, this great difficulty has greatly increased. Experience has unfortunately demonstrated that governments are not obliging and do not control themselves. A government that is either uncontrolled, or uncontrollable, is incompatible with a genuine democracy. It is a contradiction in terms. Accountability is the sine qua non of any democracy. The basic rationale of democracy is that elected representatives of the people and public functionaries are entrusted with power, which is a trust reposed in them by the people. That trust has to be discharged for the benefit of the nation and the people. Public functions and statutory powers are to be performed to serve public purpose and national interest, not for personal aggrandizement, nor for extraneous or ulterior considerations.
The test of effective functioning of a democracy is the degree and extent of accountability of the holders and wielders of power to the people. This accountability is to be enforced not merely at the time of elections but during the life of the government or administration. There can be no dispute about these elementary propositions. The question is how do we ensure and enforce accountability by insisting on transparency and openness in the conduct of public affairs and public transactions. For that purpose, we require information which every administration, whatever its political complexion, tries to manipulate and withhold. The "right to know" needs to be exercised rigorously. It is not generally known that the Supreme Court of India deduced the "right to know" in 1980 from an expansive interpretation of the free speech guarantee in our Constitution. We have the fundamental right to know, even in the absence of freedom of information legislation.
The "right to know" is not meant for gratifying idle curiosity or mere inquisitiveness, but is essential for the effective functioning of democracy. The people have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction, in all its bearing. This enables citizens to make intelligent and informed decisions amongst a variety of choices and thus play their part in controlling the government and enforcing the accountability of public functionaries. Informed public opinion is a potent check on misadministration.
Concealment of governmental information creates a communication gap between the governors and the governed, and its persistence beyond a point is apt to create an alienated citizenry. This makes democracy itself weak and insecure. Besides, secrecy renders administrative accountability unenforceable in an effective way and thus induces administrative behavior that is apt to degenerate into arbitrariness.
The government today is called upon to make policies on an ever-increasing range of subjects, and many of these policy decisions necessarily impinge on the lives of the citizens. It may sometimes happen that the data made available to the policy makers is of a selective nature. It is possible that the policy makers and their advisers may suppress certain viewpoints and favor others. Such bureaucratic habits get encouragement in an environment of secrecy; and openness in governmental work is an effective corrective to this secrecy syndrome. Openness also helps in raising, in the process, the quality of decision-making, which may improve in the face of constructive criticism. Besides, openness has an educational role, inasmuch as citizens are enabled to acquire a fuller view of the pros and cons of matters of major importance, which naturally helps in building informed public opinion, no less than goodwill for the government.
Disclosure of information in regard to the functioning of government must be the rule, and secrecy an exception, justified only where the strictest requirement of public and national interest demand. However, care must be taken that the specter of national security does not hurt us and is not discerned in normal acts and routine national government transactions.
One of the effective ways to bring about transparency is the requirement of disclosure of reasons in support of a decision. The necessity for reasons is not so much to secure agreement of the people with the decision on merits, but to eliminate, or at least minimize, whim and caprice and arbitrariness, to ensure that the decision has been fairly taken, uninfluenced by partisan political considerations, nor influenced by factors of caste or creed.
Some statutes provide for written reasons in support of the decision. Many do not. Thanks to judicial evolution of the principles of administrative law, the settled legal position in India is that every order or decision, which is fraught with public consequences, or is prejudicial to an individual, must be supported by reasons. What is needed is not a detailed judgment but a brief and concise statement of reasons for the decision, so that one knows the essential elements of the decision making process. Why was a particular contract involving millions awarded to X & Co. and denied to Y and Co? Why were thousands of acres of land notified for public purposes de-notified later? The public has a right to know, and it is the obligation of the government to provide the answers.
Another important purpose served by disclosure of reasons is that it will remove wild suspicions, often groundless, surrounding some far reaching decisions and transactions. Regrettably, in the present climate, suspicion has become all-pervasive, a phenomenon which is reinforced by irresponsible journalism. Whilst it is the legitimate function of the press to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions, without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible judgments, it is equally its responsibility not to give credence to rumors, or to denigrate institutions and the persons who man them, by publishing slanted, biased and one sided reports. Fortunately, by and large, our national press has well discharged its societal responsibility and I am sure will continue to do so.
Experience shows that secrecy is the main bulwark of inefficient and corrupt administration. Disclosure of reasons makes a wholesome dent in the veil of secrecy. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. Laws and court judgments are not the ultimate answer to ensure accountability and transparency. We must foster a culture of openness, an atmosphere of transparency. The secrecy syndrome must be banished.
I believe it is in the interest of administration itself that its actions are not shrouded in secrecy giving rise to wild suspicions which can be best removed by frank and candid disclosure of facts and providing requisite information
.... The public has a right to know and it is the obligation of the government to provide the answers
Rehman Sobhan
Making democracy work has shown that it is not enough to have the forms and trappings of democracy in place, in the form of free and fair elections. Democracy must play also an instrumental role in promoting good governance, which also means realizing certain societal goals, such as the eradication of human deprivation, the realization and sustainability of fundamental and human rights, the security of life and human liberty, the democratization of, and participation in, the process of governance, and also the market.
Regrettably, we note that functioning democracies, even those of long-standing, have not been able to sustain good governance, and this has lead to the degeneration of democracy and has compromised its sustainability. Whilst my observations are more specifically addressed to South Asia, the recent bizarre events in Florida, suggest that even the oldest functioning democracy in the world raises cause for concern over the fragility of its democratic institutions. It is evident that democracy cannot be taken for granted, and that its institutions have to be nurtured and constantly reviewed. One must also see that these institutions are made more inclusive, to ensure the participation of the deprived majority, who vote for, but have little say in, the process of governance.
It is arguable that South Asia's 'crisis of governance' today lies in the shallowness of the roots of our democratic institutions. As a consequence of these weak foundations of democracy within South Asia, and perhaps even more so in other regions of Asia, we are witness to a progressive degeneration in the quality of our democratic institutions, both as to the nature of the political discourse, as well as the operational outcomes of such institutions as parliament. This is an exclusionary political process, which has contributed to the elevation of politicians driven by no public purpose but by their ability to use politics as an instrument for private gain, where money and muscle, rather than public esteem, remain the currency of choice.
Such a political culture has compromised accountability, and hence good governance, in the most fundamental way by marginalizing the concerns and participation of the deprived majority, and those committed to the integrity of political life. We are thus witness to Gresham's law of politics, where bad politics drives out good politicians. Throughout South Asia, the growing cost of elections has made parliament into a rich man's arena where the deprived - including women - have little chance of representation, and thus remain without voice, once they have cast their vote. In such a system, policy-makers are, with singular exceptions, making themselves accountable not to their citizens but to the international financial institutions and their policy agendas, and to the need to propagate the abstract forces of the global capital market, without taking cognizance of how these forces, shape policy.
Accountable governance does not limit itself to the machinery of the state. In an increasingly privatized, market-driven economy, those who operate in the private sector need also to make themselves accountable to their share holders, workforce, depositors if they own banks, communities where they operate enterprises, and the environment, which needs to be sustained. This is a concept of corporate responsibility, which is of considerable importance, and is now becoming part of the contemporary discourse on governance. To establish the accountability process we need transparency, both within the government and within the private sector. The cloak of secrecy and obscurity, which shelters misgovernance, must be lifted, the windows opened bringing in sunshine.
I want to put forward some concrete suggestions of what might be such an instrument to ensure transparency in South Asia specifically: All official records, except those which affect the security of the state - and these too should be made subject to judicial review - should be opened to public scrutiny. Affected parties, the press and public, public interest litigants, should have, on request, automatic access to all files and documents of government departments, perhaps for a small charge. All public tenders and documents, relating the final decision-making process in large contracts, should be available for public scrutiny. The income tax records of all those contesting for public office must be placed with the Election Commission at the time of nomination to be released to the press. A similar financial statement for all elected representatives should be tabled on the floor of parliament during the budget session. Party political finances should also be regulated by law, auditable and regularly presented to the public. Senior bureaucrats may also be exposed to a similar process of scrutiny demanded of politicians and, correspondingly, the private and the NGO sectors.
In establishing this process, civil society has to play an activist role, beyond holding seminars and publishing research papers. Credible and sustainable civic activism is a labor and skill intensive task, with a high attendant risk factor. Civil society organizations have to be grounded in the felt needs of effected and concerned citizens, for better governance. The civil society constructed by aid donors as an externally funded livelihood activity cannot sustain itself.
By its nature, therefore, democracy and its end result of good governance remain a deeply indigenous process. At the end of the day, voting citizens of our countries must sufficiently want better governance, better-run hospitals, schools, municipal services, effective and equitable law enforcement, elimination of corruption in accessing such services. This must be a deeply felt public concern. The quality of governance in any society thus depends on the extent to which citizens are willing to assert themselves in demanding better governance. If we create democracy as a spectator sport, then it is the professional politicians who will only play the game and we will end up getting the governance we deserve.
We must ensure that the institutions of governance are reformed so as to enhance both the opportunities of citizens to influence policy, and their own capacity to operate competitively in the market place. Sustainable democracy as well as a stable market economy, both demand the design of an inclusive and participative system. Malfunctioning democracies may lend themselves to misgovernance. This is a particular problem in South Asia, which may lead us into being 'failed states', where the very cohesion of a state as a national entity can be put into question.
Such a prospect is no longer an academic issue in the crisis-ridden world of today. Rather than search for false solutions associated with military and other forms of autocratic rule, we should address the institutions, policies and political culture, which lie at the root of our crises of governance, and seek to build a genuinely participative and inclusive democracy in both the political and the economic sphere.
The quality of governance in any society thus depends on the extent to which citizens are willing to assert themselves in demanding better governance.
Sanjay Pradhan
For the World Bank, democracy is just one instrument, a very vital and crucial instrument for voice and participation, but there are many other instruments, and I would like to bring to the menu some other ingredients that are required for good governance.
Why does good governance matter? Why does transparency and accountability matter? We can say we believe it, but are there some empirical results that backs up that intuitive, gut feeling. Yes, good governance matters for investment and growth. The quality of governance has been measured by surveys of domestic and foreign investors, based on using 4,000 firms in 67 countries by the Bank. The index of the quality of governance used is based on four parameters: protection of the rights of property, judicial reliability, predictability of rules, and control of corruption. What you find is that the lower the quality of governance or government credibility, the lower is the investment rate. Similarly, the higher the quality of governance by these parameters, the higher the investment rate. In fact, what is very striking, is that only two variables - the quality of governance and per-capita income - account for 70 per cent of the variation in investment rate between one country and another.
Now, if the quality of governance is so important, why do we see so many problems? I want to show to you some of the indices that we have constructed in the Bank, using information from Transparency International and other sources, which show the variation across regions in the quality of the rule of law. What you will find is that South Asia features somewhere in the middle, below OECD, but of course the worse cases are those in the Former Soviet Union (FSU), Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The CEE and FSU countries have particularly pernicious problems in this regard and this provides some comparative benchmark with which to evaluate what you are going to do. This is so because when the transition process started, two fundamental forces were simultaneously at work: one was the collapse of the Communist Party, which was the glue that held the system together, and the second was the concomitant widespread redistribution of assets from the public to the private sector. This combination led to new powerful private interests capturing the state, what we have termed "state capture", defined as the influence of powerful private interests in the formation of laws, and regulations through illegal provision of private gains for public officials. This is the most pernicious form of lack of transparency and accountability. Different variants of this problem need to be looked at in different parts of Asia.
There is a separate issue of administrative corruption, which is the bribes you pay for service delivery, and, a grander form of corruption, the purchase of legislation: policy-making has been "privatized". What we have done is look at various countries, and we have made transparent who ranks where in influence. The value of this information, in country after country, is that it initiates public action. It is fine to talk about transparency and accountability, but we need to think of specific mechanisms, which mobilize collective public action, and put pressure on the executive and parliament to act.
How do you in fact get more transparency and accountability? What are the specific institutional mechanisms in a multi-pronged strategy that get you there? If we are going to work in these areas,
we need to zero in on some of these specific institutional mechanisms and work on them.
First, there are institutional restraints, including an independent and effective judiciary, legislative oversight, decentralization with accountability, and so on.
A second factor is political accountability, and this is, of course, the heart and soul of what this is about. As you know, this is about free and fair elections, and many other aspects.
Transparency in party finance, as Latvia and a number of countries are doing, conflict of interest legislation and, again, decentralization are all features here. Civil society oversight is absolutely crucial, as is freedom of information. A right to information ordinance is being signed into law in certain Indian states. Public hearings of draft laws by interested groups and monitoring by media and NGOs are also important.
Another issue, which is very important for better governance, is the role of a competitive private sector and competitive structuring of mega-monopolies. For example, the power sector in the FSU countries and elsewhere were concentrated monopolies, so powerful that they basically purchased the state. Unless you have competitively structured companies, you are not going to get the kind of competition and dispersion of economic power, but structures that translate into concentration of political power. So, transparency and corporate governance is another key point, and collective business associations are another area in which to put greater transparency and accountability.
Finally, there is traditional public sector management reform, with a meritocratic civil service that is not subject to premature, frequent and disruptive transfers, based on patronage.
Chile is an illustration of how transparency and competition have actually been put in action in an area that is most prone to corruption, both petty and grand. Chile has combined transparency, competition and e-governance. This involves supplying a companies' register, indicating their areas of business, on the Internet, and all public agencies have to submit tenders through the Internet. Once they have done so, an automatic email goes to all the possible vendors and there is on-line information of the name, the position of the official in-charge and, once the results are out, there is a transparent track record of information on the Internet, who approved the tender, how many firms were bidding, etc.
Another example comes from Uganda, and this shows how smaller things can affect the common people. In 1990, the government wanted a major improvement in primary education, to benefit the poor. The problem was that the amount of funding reaching the schools was fairly small. Once this information became public and transparent, the focus of the government shifted, and over the years, that share started to rise. From 10 per cent of the allocation reaching primary schools when we started these surveys, by 1998, 30 per cent of the money was reaching primary schools. But then that was still not good enough. So local communities were empowered with the information of how much money they were supposed to get and, by 1999, 90 per cent of the resources were actually reaching the schools.
A number of countries like Latvia are doing surveys of how much government services cost in terms of "bribes", by asking citizens publicly, how much do you pay in bribes? How do you rate different services? Is the police more corrupt or the local housing officer? Public dissemination of this type of information is very good for enhancing transparency and accountability in government. There is a bribe list in Ukraine, which we produced through a survey, where you know for different activities, how much you have to pay. For example, for a border crossing pass you have to pay US$ 211, and 100 per cent of the firms pay that.
The role of the media in publishing this information to generate external pressure for reform becomes very important: it forces politicians and bureaucrats to respond. Another innovation is that some countries are trying to become transparent on how much people pay to purchase their public positions, based on surveys carried out on public officials, where we have asked how much they paid to purchase their position in different countries. Thus, customs and tax posts, which are usually lucrative, are also positions they have paid a lot for.
Transparency and accountability in civil service recruitment and promotion is absolutely crucial. From my limited understanding of what is going on in South Asia now, this graph demonstrates the pernicious problem that emerges when this matter is politicized, with the frequency of transfers and so on. You see that the Philippines is much worse than other countries in East Asia, with politicization and political appointments going very deep, all the way to the levels of service director. In other countries in East Asia, it is narrow, and this keeps a much more meritocratic system, much less prone to political patronage and corruption. That, combined with the small differential in public and private wages, leads to a much higher index of bureaucratic capability, which indeed helps in better governance.
My whole point is to "unbundle and de-mystify" these much grander concepts and to say that for ordinary citizens, and ordinary business people, there are many things which countries are doing. So the message I have for you is a message of hope. Countries have undertaken reforms to enhance transparency and accountability in governance, with visible outcomes. But in our experience - and I did not have a chance to expand on that - the need for political leadership is absolutely essential, obviously requiring committed leadership, competition building, and communicating the case for reforms, again using transparency.
Discussion
- The World Bank surveys suggest a correlation between the "quality of governance" as measured by protection of property rights, control of corruption, predictability of rights and judicial reliability, which was not to be seen as the same as democracy of even democratic governance. Thus, in the case of China, which had massive foreign investment (US$ 45 billion per annum), it was pointed out that there was relatively high quality of governance, but of course democratic principles such as human rights and participation were not seen as desired outcomes or priorities by the ruling government. It was also emphasized that the corporate sector also cares only for profit and not democratic principles.
- It is important for a functioning democracy for good governance by politicians to be rewarded with re-election. If this does not happen regularly enough, then the incentive to perform well is weak. Sometimes, for example, a genuine increase in transparency and accountability can produce an ironic or unforeseen result in terms of public perception. Thus in one Indian state where decentralization was introduced with local elections, corruption that had been carried out behind closed doors became more visible and apparent with the result that the general public thought corruption had increased, while it had in fact decreased because of greater transparency.
- State funding of political parties was strongly recommended as a way of limiting or reducing corruption in politics. In the Indian case everyone knows that millions of rupees are spent on campaigning and electioneering, which are not accounted for - so people assume they have come from bribes related to defense or building contracts, crime, muscle power and "black money".
- Tax-free status for donations to political parties and public disclosure over the allocation of contracts was recommended, and also tougher penalties on MPs failing to disclose assets and disqualification for known criminals.
- Democracy will flourish better, especially in ex-colonial states, with reduced administrative and discretionary authority so that individual citizens know better their rights, and political controls over the administration is reduced and governed by public guidelines. The exercise of discretionary powers by government should be accompanied by reasons behind a particular decision.
- It is important that parliaments are fully representative of the cross-section of the voting population, and ensure that those without wealth have opportunities for election. But with regard to the proposal for dual constituencies and the reservation of seats for women, it is important to be clear about the meaning of representation in politics. It is increasingly argued that sectional interests (women, deprived sectors, minorities) can only be represented by individuals from those sectors, but this would undermine the notion of the broad concept of political representation.
- Courts should provide protection for disclosure of facts, and truth, coupled with public interest, should be a defense against any contempt proceedings.
DINNER REMARKS
Richard Celeste
Democracy is always a risk exercise. It is a "never finished" piece of business. Democracy reflects human imperfections, how things go wrong. This can happen even with good people in charge. Power goes with the office and can be a competing influence.
I was recently in Chennai for the opening of a new college of journalism. We need to celebrate the free press as a vitally important part of a free society, even it does not make life comfortable, along with the importance of the rule of law and an independent judiciary.
As a practicising politician in my former role as Governor of Ohio, I know that politicians must "experience" the will of the majority, not just the voting or polling process. They must be willing to work to build constituencies for change so even the unpopular step becomes the chosen, preferred step. Most important historic steps cut against the grain of public opinion.
I know this from my personal experience in a crisis in my home state of Ohio when I was Governor. For my 1982 campaign, I raised $5 million including $100,000 from one particular donor. Then in the mid-1980s, I had to deal with a major savings and loan scandal involving this man, and I was faced with an executive order closing 69 savings and loan organizations. We tackled the crisis, we worked with the people and we had the state advance $90 million and we had the guilty man convicted and I was re-elected, and I have to say, 15 years later, the organization had repaid the state all the money owed and all the interest. So, I have to say, accountability and transparency is vital together with political leadership.
Arun Jaitley
It was mentioned by the Ambassador that democracy is a risk exercise. There are also costs to democracy, but it is a risk well worthwhile, because there seems to be now no other option. I must also confess, there have been very few opportunities to discuss a subject like making democracy work in this country, in the last decade or two, because it was no longer considered something about which there was anything left to debate. About a quarter of a century ago, when we had an aberration and institutions were suspended, there was a very extensive debate and a campaign for its restoration. But in the last 20 years or so, it is one subject on which there has been a complete consensus.
We are also passing through 50 years of the Indian Republic, and I think our experience on the subject has indeed been very encouraging. We started off with a great battle against poverty and hunger, a campaign for development, something which we are still endeavoring to achieve, the break up of the country, a multi-religious, multi-regional society, which housed one sixth of the world's population. We can now look back on the institutions which democracy has given us: we have a parliamentary system, which indeed has worked well, and the population, directly and in-directly, participates in the decision-making process of the country. We hold elections even at a few months notice, and we also complete our hand-counts in 48 hours, even with such a large voting population - while people across the world will wonder how we achieve it. We have different regions, languages, eating habits, yet we witness a unity and diversity, with our federal character pulling ourselves up. We have a constitution, which represents the spirit of freedom and liberty, in its 51st year. Our judicial institutions represent fairness, although we are concerned the process is a little slow. We also have a very powerful and vibrant press of 40,000 newspapers and journals, and in several different languages. In the five years since we opened up our skies, we have reached 100 TV channels, creating plurality and opinion of all kinds.
A second positive appears to be the strength of our democracy: we have faced many crises, five wars, natural calamities and tensions because of the character of our society. But despite all these crises, there is a tremendous resilience thrown up by this society, and we have a great capacity to emerge out of each crisis within days and weeks. And over the last 10 years, despite this large population and under-development in certain regions, we have been in the process of un-shackling the energies of the Indian people and attempting to move towards what could be a higher level of development in Indian society.
Having said so, we also have areas of concern, and some of these are directly related to making democracy work. One aspect that has been concerning me in various contexts is the co-relation between "good governance" and "good policy". Good governance, at times, implies difficult decisions and, at times, unpopular decisions and the acceptance of such difficult decisions, which may be an essential aspect of good governance, is not always there.
Then there is the fallout from electoral funding: this is an area of concern. No transparent system has been delivered, and in the absence of such a proper, transparent, identifiable system, there is a direct relationship to "dishing out of favors", making compromises, and questions being raised in public as to what are the considerations for which the political process gets funded. This is one area where we really have to work hard, to devise a legitimate source of funding for the political process itself.
On transparency and accountability, we started off with a culture of secrecy, which we inherited. We thought the culture of secrecy was an essential part of any governance. Indeed it is customary to stamp every paper that passes through government at a certain level, as "secret". I recollect, once after the president of India had, unfortunately, died, the next meeting of the cabinet had to pass a condolence resolution. After the resolution was passed, one of the participants in the meeting raised a question: "Why should this resolution be secret?" Well that is a culture that continues, that is a tradition that continues. Our law-making process was secret. After our discussions, when we had formally settled our proposals, it was still considered almost scandalous if any of these went out to the media. Even when the cabinet took a decision, until such time as we could introduce it in parliament, it remained secret. The law making process itself was not a very open or transparent process. We have also had governments claiming privilege not to show documents to courts or to the public.
We also have legislation on the statute book, though not enforced very regularly, which has two strong provisions for secrecy. The first, of course, relates to securing security, which in any system is quite understandable. The second concerns any document that comes into your possession when you are not supposed to be in possession of it: this has created a serious debate for the past decade or two, with popular demands that this provision be repealed. So I must say, in all fairness to successive governments, although this second provision has not been very seriously enforced in the last decade, it is still there in the statute book.
Now the process of getting out of this culture of secrecy has itself evolved as a process, and I think the most significant factor in this has been the Indian media. We started off with investigative journalism because journalists did not respect the "top secrecy" of commercial documents and decision-making. It is convenient for any government to say that it has taken a decision, which involves billions and billions, but as it is a secret process, nobody is entitled to see any of the relevant documents. But then truth always has an inconvenient habit of leaking itself out. In the last two decades, we have seen a large number of documents reaching the media, and popular opinion, by and large, has respected those in the media able to get hold of these and bring some vital investigation to public knowledge. The courts have, by and large, diluted to an extent the privileges, which governments used to claim. This evolving situation seems also to be affecting the political process.
Our law-making procedures are now completely changed. Even before we go to the cabinet, and parliament, and even before the government takes a final view, every successive draft is put out on the web for public discussion. In fact, we have been inviting suggestions on several occasions, before government finally takes a view. That secrecy in the law-making process has more or less been completely abandoned.
When we discuss accountability, it is the politicians who have been at the receiving end. This has been a point of view with which I have normally disagreed. One of the largest accountabilities in parliamentary democracy has been of the political fraternities. It is extremely difficult, in the context of accountability, if you are in government and you are a minister. Every morning when you pick up the newspaper, you keep your fingers crossed as to which decision you took yesterday which is being adversely commented upon, because nothing is secret these days. Your decisions are questioned by your colleagues in the cabinet, and by your colleagues in your party. You are accountable at those levels and you are grilled everyday in parliament and by the media. Governments are more accountable because the original five-year terms get reduced for some reason or other, and you have to go to the people almost every second year and we have to answer a lot of inconvenient questions.
It is very convenient for any government to say that it has taken a decision, which involves billions and billions, but as it is a secret process nobody is entitled to see any of the relevant documents. But then truth always has a very inconvenient habit of leaking itself out.
Discussion
- Democracy is about building consensus, not merely relying on majority voting, and in all the discussion about transparency and accountability such a key point must not be lost.
- Sometimes democratic politicians take hard, unpopular decisions, and they can pay a heavy price for this in terms of losing electoral support at the next election. Two examples given were the Mongolian democratic opposition party, which after winning power for the first time set out to reform the political institutions and ended up badly beaten at the next election by the Communist MPRT Party. Also, there is the case of Chester Bowles, who lost the governorship of Connecticut after setting up to reform the liquor trade. However, losing for the "right reasons" can build the strength of a political party and of democracy.
- The arrival of electronic media has changed the way the media conducts itself, and its function of democratic accountability, not least because the time frame now is constant and it cannot be so easily controlled. While there remains a tendency to sensationalism at present, it is thought that the new media would settle down and contribute positively to democratic processes. At present, satellite television has more viewers than terrestrial television in the state of Tamil Nadu, suggesting the increasing role of new electronic media.
- There was a diversity of views over the degree to which civil servants can be protected from having to disclose information. It was noted that, in many countries, civil servants are protected from freedom of information requirements to varying degrees to avoid their being targeted, to avoid commercial and other exploitation of material, and because civil servants cannot use the media to defend or refine their views if they are put in the public domain. It was argued, however, that this disclosure was a key element in transparency and accountability.
- Obligations for increased transparency in government can lead to less candor among civil servants and politicians. This could be offset by arranging for different levels of public disclosure within information law, for example, to private citizens and to juridical courts. In India, the right to information is gaining ground, dating back to a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that "free expression" in India is not just freedom of expression but also a right to information.
|
