Whistle-blowing, ‘national security’ and the erosion of democracy
IS THERE democracy IN US ??????? THEN WHY CANT THEY TALK WRITE ANNOUNCE SS THEY PLEASE THE TRUTH
Major Wikileaks activists, such as Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, who are on the run from Western political persecution, are being sheltered by states which, perhaps, identify with them on some issues, but the acid test for all states, whether they be pro-Wikileaks or otherwise, is whether they recognize and provide for the Right to Information. If this is not the case, protection for Wikileaks activists would only be an exercise in state-level hypocrisy and duplicity.
Both ‘democratic’ and authoritarian states are likely to unite over some of the controversial issues growing out of whistle-blowing, which is currently taking the form of Wikileaks disclosures. This is so mainly on account of the perceived primacy of ‘national security’, which is seen by many administrations as being threatened by Wikileaks revelations of ‘state secrets’.
For the majority of states, ’national security’ is a concern which cannot be compromised and on this issue authoritarian and ‘democratic’ rulers worldwide, in a way, make common cause. But how do ‘ordinary citizens’ define ‘national security’ and to what extent are their views on this matter taken into consideration and acted upon by governments? This ought to be a crucial question for democratic opinion anywhere.
Major Wikileaks activists, such as Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, who are on the run from Western political persecution, are being sheltered by states which, perhaps, identify with them on some issues, but the acid test for all states, whether they be pro-Wikileaks or otherwise, is whether they recognize and provide for the Right to Information. If this is not the case, protection for Wikileaks activists would only be an exercise in state-level hypocrisy and duplicity.
Wikileaks ‘activism’ or the process of disclosing what are seen by states as sensitive and controversial matters, but which are of public importance, is, in the final analysis, a reaction by the people to state repression and to the refusal by governments to recognize the public’s Right to Information. If the people’s Right to Information is respected by governments and transparency in governance is ensured, there would be little or no need for whistle-blowing or the disclosure of state-level irregularities by civic-minded persons or groups. In other words, if the Right to Information is ensured, Wikileaks and whistle-blowing would be superfluous.
It is no coincidence that Wikileaks-style whistle-blowing became a prime public issue initially at the height of the Arab Spring in the Middle East and neighbouring regions. The young of those countries wanted accountable, transparent governance, besides growing employment opportunities, and these factors, basically, sparked the Arab Spring.
It would be relevant to point out that the need for accountable governance has been catching on steadily even in the South Asian region, although Sri Lanka is yet to make any significant progress in this direction. There is, however, a glowing example in accountability from Pakistan, where its President is currently being hauled-up before the Accountability Court on corruption allegations. Prosecuting political leaders in the courts of a country on perceived or real wrong-doing, alone, does not constitute democratic vibrancy and accountable governance, but it is a certain sign that the Rule of Law reigns in that country. After all, the principle that no –one is above the law is central to the Rule of Law.
Coming from Pakistan, this instance of accountability is of tremendous importance, because Pakistan is now proving that it can steadily tread the path of democratic governance quite skillfully. It was just a few months back that Pakistan celebrated the occasion of a democratic administration in its history completing a full term in office. This is a milestone that needs to be noted region and worldwide.
Last week it was noted in this column that Bangladesh too is acting on the need for accountability. A Jamaat-e-Islami leader was found guilty of war crimes, which he committed in the early seventies, and was sentenced and this should be seen as a significant development in the history of Bangladeshi governance. It proves that Bangladesh is fully capable of initiating and sustaining accountable governance. It amounts to empty prattle to claim ‘top democracy status’ and do nothing to initiate accountable governance and this is something countries such as Sri Lanka need to take note of.
These are crucial times for democracy everywhere. There could not be any trade-offs between democratic freedoms and ‘national security’ or any such concerns which governments see as being of paramount importance. What are considered military and sensitive defence-related matters cannot be discussed in public, for sure, but what has gone awry in the ‘democratic world’ is that the norms of transparent governance are observed more in the breach by it. Besides, ‘national security’ concerns are unconscionably used by governments of the developing world in particular, to curb democratic freedoms. When such trends strengthen within states, they compel the public to take even to the streets to protect their rights and freedoms.
Accordingly, the people’s Right to Information must be guaranteed and protected by governments. If this does not happen the chances are that public frustration with the state would intensify and we would very soon have collective people’s protests and violence which would pose a grave threat to state and social stability. This is what the Arab Spring amounts to.
It is possible to arrive at compromise formulae to these current dilemmas of democracy. All information related to ‘national security’ cannot be released immediately to the public but it could be ‘classified’ and provided to the people after a reasonable time span. This must be done in recognition of the core value of democracy that the people are the prime stake-holders of the state. The people eventually react violently to political repression and it would be entirely counter-productive from a state’s point of view to keep the people in the dark about anything.
While whistle-blowing and Wikileaks need to be seen as welcome public reactions to state repression, governments would be only laying the basis for strong democratic countries by ensuring the prevalence of the Right to Information. In the case of the West, it has only hastened whistle-blowing by violating International Law in its dealings with the rest of the world. For instance, the US savaged UN norms and International Law by violating Serbia’s air space over Kosovo in 1999 and by militarily invading Iraq in 2003, without UN sanction. By doing so, the US put the world on notice that it would not let anything stand in its way when it comes to securing its interests.
Through such actions the US has only managed to further aggravate its domestic law and order issues, which have fueled state repression and corresponding public reaction. Thus, states have no choice but to empower their publics and ensure the continuation of democratic norms, along with transparent governance. Governments and ‘political classes’ cannot be laws unto themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment