Since the 1st of January, the British public can access information held by various public authorities. The Act covers files from government departments, local authorities, schools, colleges and authorities, the police, advisory bodies, publicly owned companies, and parliament among others. A request can be made by fax, email or in writing, and the authorities are required to respond within days.

There are of course exceptions to what can be viewed. Sensitive information about national security or the economy is out of bounds. Classified under three categories, with different measures of accessibility, some of the information can be vetoed by the government. The Act itself is enforced by the Information Commissioner. An Information Tribunal also oversees any appeal against a rejected request in certain exempted cases.

Just imagine how such a law could work wonders in Mauritius. A Freedom of Information Act could allow the public to see the criteria upon which governmental appointments are made. Selection procedures in our public companies, under potential scrutiny, might become just that bit more meritocratic. Perhaps we could elucidate how our state television and radio become propaganda tools in the hands of successive governments.

For journalists, the legislation sanctions even wider probes into the state apparatus. Spin and other disinformation tactics used by politicians could be subject to more media questioning. Although it does not allow for fast breaking news, the FOI Act can make research papers more complete. The law even makes private companies contracted by the government vulnerable to investigation. Will corruption make the headlines of newspapers on a more regular basis in the future? It remains to be seen.

The FOI Act in itself is not a pioneering or maverick piece of legislation by the New Labour government in the United Kingdom. Its origin can be traced back to the 1789 Declaration on the Rights of Man in France. Article 14 made information about the budget available to the public. Even before that, in 1865, Denmark allowed losing parties in court cases to access administrative papers. But it is Sweden’s Freedom of the Press Act, considered as the first FOI Act, in 1766, which first made allowances for public viewing of official documents.

<B>Ironic twist</B>

Nearly two and a half centuries later, we now celebrate the 28th of September as the World Right to Know Day. The UN has enshrined the Freedom of Information in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Article 19 makes it a binding treaty obligation. According to Privacy International (PI), an independent, non-governmental organisation, which campaigns for government accountability in the world and against surveillance of the individual, over fifty countries possess FOI laws. Another 40 countries are considering such legislation, says the organisation.

In the Commonwealth, only 11 out of the 54 member states can boast of FOI Acts according to the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI). In Mauritius, Article 12 of the Constitution guarantees the right to receive and impart information without interference as part of the right to freedom of expression. But this falls short of any comprehensive legislation that gives the public explicit access to government papers.

Despite the large number of countries, which have a law guaranteeing public access to government papers, some major discrepancies can be noted. The CHRI lists Pakistan and Zimbabwe as one of the 11 countries with FOI legislation. The former is, in fact, a dictatorship, with a former army general, who seized power in a bloodless coup, as Head of state. The latter, as an ironic twist, uses its Access to Information and Protection to Privacy Act 2002 to exert media censorship and political repression. Under the law, Robert Mugabe’s government has imprisoned journalists and muzzled the independent media.

Elsewhere the legislation exists in words and not in deeds. PI deplores the fact that, in many countries, the laws remain dormant because of a failure to implement them properly or a lack of demand from the public. In other states, the exemptions provided by the law give the authorities the power to abuse them and refuse the release of information under one excuse or another. Not least so is the US government. The Bush administration is now curtailing the scope of its FOI Act either through amendments or other laws like the Patriot Act.

<B>Greater disillusion</B>

However, despite some abuse, a FOI legislation remains a cornerstone of any serious democracy. At a time when the electorate is showing even greater disillusion with the ruling classes, such a law could do no harm to reassure us on their commitment to openness. A global survey, by Gallup International, shows that 63% of those interviewed think their politicians are dishonest, 60% say they have too much power and 52% see them as unethical. In Mauritius particularly, where we tend to see our politicians as lying, unreliable, corrupt and morally bankrupt individuals, the public and the press would undoubtedly welcome the chance for more transparency.

Mauritius remains a long way from such government accountability seen in some of the most vibrant democracies. It can be seen in the way the press takes a battering each time it tries to investigate the actions of governments past and present. Outcries of media conspiracies among our rulers are dissonant with their use, or rather abuse, of state television as an extension of their poster campaigns. But the public needs to play its role and demand a FOI Act. It took twenty years of campaigning in Britain to get such a law. The onus is on the Mauritian population to make it a general election issue.