ANIRUDRA NEUPANEThough we have a progressive RTI Act in place since four and half years‚ our democracy is not moving in the direction to materialise our dreams of a corruption-free society. Why? It is because we are not using the strong RTI tool in our hand to ensure transparency‚ but talking about corruption in isolationAfter the National Information Commission (NIC) issued an order in the name of the Finance Ministry to give information requester Taranath Dahal, an RTI activist, a copy of the report of the committee formed by Inland Revenue Department (IRD) to investigate practice of tax avoidance through fake VAT bills, the ministry provided it to him. Though the ministry provided incomplete information to the requester, it is, however, a good beginning in the long march to building a corruption-free Nepali society. This single event at least proves that RTI Act is the strongest tool we have to fight against corruption.
It has been agreed that corruption has been a main hurdle in making democracy a means of socio-economic transformation in Nepal. Different campaigns have been undertaken by the civil society organizations to reduce corruption and ensure good governance. It has been about ten years since the parliament of Nepal enacted Corruption Control Act and Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) Act, with the very objective of corruption control. There is no doubt that corruption does not decrease unless and until there is strong political commitment, but with the use of RTI, the gap between governance system we have, and what we want will definitely be reduced.
Article 27 of the Interim Constitution of Nepal has guaranteed the citizens the right to know. We have Right to Information Act 2007 enacted to facilitate citizens enjoying their constitutionally guaranteed right to have access to information in public institutions. The Act has mandatory provision of disclosure of information for every public institution. It has defined government, government-owned and funded institutions, political parties, NGOs and all the institution involving in the work of public interest as public institutions falling within the ambit of RTI Act. When citizens have access to all the public information, they can see, review, analyze and decide whether the system and procedure of taking and executing decisions are fair. The dream of having a transparent and corruption-free society presumed by ideal democracy can come true only when all the citizens know how decisions in the name of the people are arrived at in reality.
Though we have a progressive RTI Act in place since four and half years, our democracy is not moving in the direction to materialise our dream of a corruption-free society. Why? It is because we are not using the strong RTI tool in our hand to ensure transparency, but talking about corruption in isolation. Instead of involving ourselves into the RTI practice, we tend to only criticize the government by making references to Transparency International reports.
And, this will not be taking even a single step towards building a corruption-free society. The RTI Act has made us a judge to decide whether the system and procedures for taking decisions are fair. When citizens start exercising that power granted by the Act, malpractices continuing in public institutions will definitely be discouraged.
It is a bitter truth that most of the Nepali citizens are ignorant of the RTI, and its importance. There are some citizens informed of the RTI Act, but they also do not know the procedural aspect of acquiring information through the Act. The citizens who have knowledge in this regard also do not want to enter into the systematic procedure of acquiring information from public institutions, but prefer sitting and accusing those institutions for bad governance in vain. Unless there is a strong demand side, the free flow of information from public institutions has no meaning to talk about. To create a strong demand side, the people’s awareness as regards the RTI Act should first be enhanced. When citizens start seeking information of their concern as a lifestyle, pressure on the part of supply side is created that results in the implementation of the RTI Act.
When information is not sought, there is a slim chance that public institutions publicize information by themselves. Even though there is a mandatory provision in the Act for so-motto disclosure of information of public concern, if the citizens do not involve themelves into sthe RTI practice, this provision is not executed. So, not only Taranath or Freedom Forum, but the civil society as a whole should play a role in promoting RTI culture in Nepal. If the citizens start filing hundreds of applications to public institutions for information of their concern, the institutions concerned will at least feel the importance of RTI.
If we cannot receive the requested information even after filing an application, we will have the right to say that the RTI Act has not been implemented. It is true that government should be responsible for insuring transparency and controlling corruption, but it is the duty of informed civil society to make the government accountable to the citizens.
Taking the strength of RTI into consideration, we should stop talking about corruption in isolation, and start anti-corruption campaign by filing applications for information from public institutions, from the place we live in. (The Himalayan Times, 7 November 2011)
It has been agreed that corruption has been a main hurdle in making democracy a means of socio-economic transformation in Nepal. Different campaigns have been undertaken by the civil society organizations to reduce corruption and ensure good governance. It has been about ten years since the parliament of Nepal enacted Corruption Control Act and Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) Act, with the very objective of corruption control. There is no doubt that corruption does not decrease unless and until there is strong political commitment, but with the use of RTI, the gap between governance system we have, and what we want will definitely be reduced.
Article 27 of the Interim Constitution of Nepal has guaranteed the citizens the right to know. We have Right to Information Act 2007 enacted to facilitate citizens enjoying their constitutionally guaranteed right to have access to information in public institutions. The Act has mandatory provision of disclosure of information for every public institution. It has defined government, government-owned and funded institutions, political parties, NGOs and all the institution involving in the work of public interest as public institutions falling within the ambit of RTI Act. When citizens have access to all the public information, they can see, review, analyze and decide whether the system and procedure of taking and executing decisions are fair. The dream of having a transparent and corruption-free society presumed by ideal democracy can come true only when all the citizens know how decisions in the name of the people are arrived at in reality.
Though we have a progressive RTI Act in place since four and half years, our democracy is not moving in the direction to materialise our dream of a corruption-free society. Why? It is because we are not using the strong RTI tool in our hand to ensure transparency, but talking about corruption in isolation. Instead of involving ourselves into the RTI practice, we tend to only criticize the government by making references to Transparency International reports.
And, this will not be taking even a single step towards building a corruption-free society. The RTI Act has made us a judge to decide whether the system and procedures for taking decisions are fair. When citizens start exercising that power granted by the Act, malpractices continuing in public institutions will definitely be discouraged.
It is a bitter truth that most of the Nepali citizens are ignorant of the RTI, and its importance. There are some citizens informed of the RTI Act, but they also do not know the procedural aspect of acquiring information through the Act. The citizens who have knowledge in this regard also do not want to enter into the systematic procedure of acquiring information from public institutions, but prefer sitting and accusing those institutions for bad governance in vain. Unless there is a strong demand side, the free flow of information from public institutions has no meaning to talk about. To create a strong demand side, the people’s awareness as regards the RTI Act should first be enhanced. When citizens start seeking information of their concern as a lifestyle, pressure on the part of supply side is created that results in the implementation of the RTI Act.
When information is not sought, there is a slim chance that public institutions publicize information by themselves. Even though there is a mandatory provision in the Act for so-motto disclosure of information of public concern, if the citizens do not involve themelves into sthe RTI practice, this provision is not executed. So, not only Taranath or Freedom Forum, but the civil society as a whole should play a role in promoting RTI culture in Nepal. If the citizens start filing hundreds of applications to public institutions for information of their concern, the institutions concerned will at least feel the importance of RTI.
If we cannot receive the requested information even after filing an application, we will have the right to say that the RTI Act has not been implemented. It is true that government should be responsible for insuring transparency and controlling corruption, but it is the duty of informed civil society to make the government accountable to the citizens.
Taking the strength of RTI into consideration, we should stop talking about corruption in isolation, and start anti-corruption campaign by filing applications for information from public institutions, from the place we live in. (The Himalayan Times, 7 November 2011)
