A great wall between the public and data

Located between China and India, Nepal ranks 108th out of 180 countries in the Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index (CPI), a very unenviable position compared to neighbors like Bhutan (26th), the Maldives (93rd) and India (93rd). What offers us a little bit of solace is a relatively better position than other neighbors, namely Sri Lanka (115th), Pakistan (133rd), Bangladesh (149th) and Afghanistan (162nd).

In my reading, a lack of transparency and open-access data policy is mainly to blame for a poor showing vis-a-vis CPI on the part of Nepal, which in 2015 became a federal secular democratic republic, a political order that is supposed to have democracy, transparency, and access to information at its core. 

Access to information is vital for a smooth operation of this political order because it helps not only to improve public service delivery but also increases public trust in government bodies. 

That is why the Constitution of Nepal has upheld the right to information (RTI), with Article 27 of the Charter declaring RTI as a fundamental right of every citizen of Nepal. 

With the aim of guaranteeing RTI, the government introduced the Right to Information Act 2007, set up a National Information Commission (NIC) in 2008, regarded as a very important step in promoting transparency and corruption in Nepal, and introduced some supporting rules in 2009. Section 4 of the Act has provisioned respect for and protection of the citizens’ right to information through classification and updation of information and dissemination of the same to the public, envisioning citizens’ ‘simple and easy’ access to information. Whereas Section 5 has a provision “to keep the information updated for at least 20 years.” 

Per the Act, both government and non-government entities must update information every three months and disclose the information even when the public does not seek it. 

Despite the open open-access data policy, none of the governmental entities (including the ministries), barring a few exceptions, have duly followed the RTI Act and other relevant rules. 

It is common for government officials to cover up corruption and malfeasance by hiding crucial information, including details of public officials' property, revenue losses, tax evasion and reports on suspicious financial transactions. 

Most of the government entities have appointed an information officer each for dissemination of information of public importance. But most of them are not very cooperative when it comes to providing data and dilly-dallying is quite common among them. 

This tendency to deny RTI is mainly due to 1) a culture of secrecy within government bodies, 2) lax implementation of RTI Act and its rules, and 3) no strict punishment for offices and personnel tasked with categorizing data and publishing them. 

It gives rise to some important questions: Are these entities functioning as per relevant rules and regulations? If  the officers have performed their tasks accordingly, then why are they hesitating to share data with the public?  

Does this unwillingness to share data reflect the concerned personnel’s vested interests? 

Whatever the reason behind this, correction measures should be taken and data made available to the people. In the absence of an open-access data policy and data-sharing mechanisms, it is impossible to verify whether the concerned personnel are discharging their duties in accordance with relevant laws or not. 

Following interventions are necessary to ensure the public’s easy access to data in Nepal: 

• Strict implementation of RTI Act 2007 and its Rules 2009 
• Implementation of new concepts in governance such as New Public Services and New Public Governance
• Activities aimed at raising awareness among the public to seek data from both government and non-government entities 
• Promotion of the culture of information dissemination and transparency through disruption of the culture of secrecy 
• Comprehensive research on identifying the impediments to open-access data-sharing systems, ways to remove the hurdles and implement the identified correction measures 

 The author, a veterinary officer at the Department of Livestock Services, is a graduate of the University of Cambridge