There is an ongoing debate about the Right to Information (RTI) Act in India, and the proposed amendments to the scope and extent of that legislation. It is tempting to express one’s sentiments for or against it but the RTI debate is a layered discussion, which requires sensitivity to the nuances it involves. To break it down into its simplest form, there is disagreement over what and how much information the public has a right to receive. This in turn has a bearing on the agents responsible for giving the relevant information up. The RTI debate is intriguing because it is not just a debate about information; it is a debate about power.
The RTI Act is a mechanism to ensure citizens’ access to information. As it stands, the RTI Act fulfils an important function of narrowing the information gap between the public and its leadership. The Central Information Commission (CIC) has recently made a move to push for inclusion of political parties in the RTI Act, which has been met with criticisms citing conflict with the role and rights of a political party in a democratic system. Yet, it is imperative to adopt a more macro perspective about the political landscape and not be myopic about the effects of such an amendment to the RTI Act.
Thomas Jefferson remarked, “information is the currency of democracy“, an observation which is particularly apt in this debate. Is an informed citizenry not a fundamental tenet of a democratic system? If it is, then the provision of information on public authorities and other political parties can be argued to be equally essential because they have a shared influence on public opinion and the discourse involved in policy formulation. The conversations and lobbying by other political parties and interest groups have a significant effect on the decisions involved in policy formulation, which in turn affects lives of ordinary citizens. If the government is expected to be transparent, it is intuitive to expect the same of other political institutions whose activities have the same end, particularly those who are “substantially financed by the Central government… [and] control vital organs of the State.”
The existing information gap has done an excellent job of maintaining a power imbalance in Indian society today, reserving room for the government and other institutions to manipulate the citizenry through illegitimate means. Coercive techniques such as torture are but one example. Thus, the debate calls upon a much larger question about the legitimacy of the Indian government and it is logical to consider how the RTI Act and the CIC’s push for greater inclusion feed into that.
India may be labeled as the world’s largest democracy, but the magnitude of corruption in the country is also common knowledge. Since the legitimacy of the state hinges on the public’s trust in the system and the people involved in the management of that system, it is critical for reform to be a top-down initiative. This approach is preferred because it will (1) be more strategic and coordinated than having a collection of individual efforts at state or provincial level; (2) communicate the state’s commitment at tackling the problem of corruption, both internally and in other institutions relevant to protecting the constitutional rights that citizens are entitled to; (3) draws on the authority that the leadership possesses, of which has been granted by the people. In a more abstract sense, it is a reconciliation of the state’s political outcomes with social outcomes, and that should not be perceived or treated as a trade-off.
It is now appropriate to add a word of caution, because the position advocated in this argument is not that the RTI Act can or will solve all of India’s problems. Rather, it is an input to ensure that transparency is an instrument that is upheld in the governance of India as a democracy, which necessitates a closer look at the value it brings to the people and not just the costs borne by other parties. It is definitely necessary for the RTI Act to run in-tandem with other instruments or tactics to ensure that the overall strategy will fulfill the long-term goal of democratic growth in India.
For the ordinary citizen to form a value judgment with the help of the RTI Act and the proposed expansion, it is important to ensure that the RTI does not create another loophole and reset the reform process. The CIC has proposed to include political parties in the RTI Act, which necessitates the following to be addressed clearly and comprehensively: (1) conditions to classify an organisation as a political party; (2) procedures for registration of a political party; (3) safeguards to ensure that proper documentation of a political party is in place, for which evasion of registration can be detected and the organisation in question possibly penalised; (4) the exact provisions of the RTI Act that a political party is legally bound to adhere to.
To date, there is a lack of enforcement on the registration of political parties in India, and absence of such a mechanism is a loophole, which could jeopardise what the RTI is set out to achieve. Creating more regulations for the activities of political parties without a system to ensure that the relevant organisations register themselves creates the perfect disincentive for these organisations in reporting their activities as a political party, and work their way around the system. It is important to consider the factors laid out above and more, for the RTI Act to meet its intended objectives. Otherwise, with its current organisation of power, India could remain the largest democracy, but perhaps never the greatest.
About the author: Ms. Vivian Ng is a student at the Singapore Management University, and currently interning at the AHRC. The author can be contacted at vivian.ng@ahrc.asia.
