“Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.” Attributed to Spanish-American philosopher Jorge Santayana, these words signify not only the duty to remember, but more, the right to know.
We remember that which we know. How can we remember that which we do not know: that which has been hidden from our view?
Unfortunately, our society, most conveniently, is, at times, more interested in promoting the right to forget, or better still, the right to be forgotten! Forgetting and consequently ignoring the past always has disastrous consequences.
Transparency is a basic value in any democracy worthy of its name. Without transparency there is no possibility of having any form of accountability. Hiding information, ensuring that it is not accessible, is a common stratagem used by those who want to avoid accountability. Data protection is unfortunately continuously being used and abused in order to avoid accountability.
Data protection rights are unfortunately continuously being abused, as a result, at times, shielding criminal activity. Though well intentioned, the recent decision of the Data Protection Commissioner on the publication of online chats between Yorgen Fenech and Rosianne Cutajar is part of this (unintended) fallout of privacy rights. Though in fairness it has to be stated that it is the publication of the full chats which has irked the Data Protection Commissioner and not the information contained therein.
Reading through the Yorgen/Rosienne chats decision of the Data Protection Commissioner reveals the tightrope negotiated by the Commissioner to try and protect both privacy as well as the right to be informed. It is appreciated that it is always difficult to draw a line as to where privacy ends and public interest reigns.
But then having the full chats published instead of a synthesis, as indirectly suggested by the Commissioner, served the purpose of not quoting out of context. The full context of the chats is essential as this clearly shows the toxic development of a mix of the power of money, sex, and political power. Through what was published it is clear how money and expensive gifts was the price through which a young politician was purchased. This is definitely in the public interest to know.
The right to know is not the satisfaction of a curiosity thirst. In any democracy, the free flow of information is basic and essential. Withholding information or obstruction of access to it should only be an exceptional occurrence.
Unfortunately, rather than being exceptional, the withholding of information or access to it, is fast becoming a normality.
Our Courts are resorting too often to withholding the publication of sensitive information. The court case of the NGO Repubblika challenging the Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute top Pilatus Bank officials will no longer be heard behind closed doors as the original decision has now been reversed. This was another instance where our right to know was being stifled by those same authorities entrusted to defend us! Fortunately, the doors are now open. We have the right to know whether it is correct to state that the Attorney General acted abusively in defending criminality instead of prosecuting it! Has the criminal world captured the state institutions? This is what is at stake in this case! We have the right to know.
The reluctance of government to adhere to Freedom of Information Tribunal decisions is another disturbing matter. For example, the Shift online news portal has won 40 cases at the Information Tribunal and 18 cases in Court relative to information requested on consultancy contracts and payments made to Saviour Balzan and his companies. Millions of euros of public funds have been used. Government is however refusing to be accountable for this use of these public funds.
What is the purpose of this secrecy? Has the state purchased the collaboration of a section of the media? This is what is at stake here. We have the right to know.
The right to know is basic in any democracy. Transparency and accountability work in tandem. Without transparency, accountability is hampered. A lack of transparency is an essential first step in order to ensure that accountability is avoided altogether.
Transparency is the indispensable foundation of good governance. In contrast, bad governance is generally wrapped in secrecy through the withholding of information which should be in the public domain. Without transparency, accountability is a dead letter: devoid of any meaning whatsoever. Accountability is about responsibility: it signifies the acknowledgement and assumption of responsibility for our actions. This cannot be achieved unless and until transparency is entrenched as an essential element of the operation of the state and public institutions.
Whenever government, public bodies or state institutions are secretive about information which they hold, and refuse or oppose without valid reason requests to release information they give ample proof of their governance credentials.
We deserve better than that.
published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 28 January 2024
Blog ta' Carmel Cacopardo 