Stephen Vasciannie | Encouraging transparency

“Knowledge send us Heavenly Father…”

In matters of public affairs, we tend to place great emphasis on the side of secrecy. In most situations, government ministers are bound to secrecy in the discussion of Cabinet matters. Similarly, civil servants are normally bound by legal rules that prevent them from discussing in public even humdrum matters. Also, in various governmental and other public institutions, members of most boards are sworn to secrecy in relation to all, or almost all, issues.

SECRECY RATIONALE

The broad rationale for secrecy is that, in significant ways, it promotes free discourse among stewards of important policy matters. In some situations, if a government official anticipates that her or his position on an issue will be presented in the public square, the official may be disinclined to express the viewpoint because disclosure may, for instance, be premature. Where, however, confidentiality prevails the official may speak freely, without fear of exposing a preliminary position to scathing criticism or condemnation. Frank deliberations may therefore be facilitated by non-disclosure rules.

On a related point, especially in small societies, secrecy may play a positive role in protecting officials from ill-founded accusations, recriminations and acts of vengeance. When information is kept private, the disappointed persons in certain decisions are unlikely to know (with any degree of certainty) the identity of protagonists commandeering the decision. The scope for negative and inappropriate reactions is thereby limited by secrecy.

INSIDE TRACK

As a part of the prevailing regime of secrecy, public officials are also prohibited from using information gained in confidence for their private gain: the insider is prohibited from taking advantage of special information and is, simultaneously, barred from passing on information that may work unfairly to the benefit of some individuals. If Mr. A knows that government is planning to acquire certain items, Mr A’s associates should not benefit from this knowledge ahead of third parties.

JUDGEMENT

But, on the other hand, the promotion of secrecy in public affairs is often seriously problematic. To begin with, where secrecy is mandated from above, members of society – outsiders to the secret – are deprived of knowledge and information that would enable them to reach reasonable conclusions about government policies. Take, as a very general example, the question of government largesse such as “givebacks” during the general election season. The populace should have a sense of whether this is “run with it politics” or whether it is a responsible allocation of benefits to needy persons at a time of social pressure. The calculus of considerations in such matters, as discussed by, for example, the Cabinet, should be available for general scrutiny.

Again, to pursue an example with international ramifications, the Jamaican Government recently embraced publicly the “two state solution” in the notoriously knotty Israeli-Palestine conflict in the Middle East. But pre-existing opinion from high governmental authority seemed studiously to avoid this conclusion, noting, for instance, that there was no need for Jamaica to take a position on the status of Jerusalem. What factors, then, prompted this apparently fundamental change in Jamaican foreign policy? What did the Cabinet Ministers say when the policy change was contemplated? Such questions should not be shrouded in secrecy.

POLITICAL ALIENATION

Secrecy in the public arena also tends to alienate outsiders. That many Jamaicans remain deeply withdrawn from our political discourse is impatient of debate: no more than 38 per cent of the electorate took part in the 2020 general election, while the turnout in the 2024 Local Government hovered at an even more paltry level in the region of 30 per cent. O, what can ail thee, electoral system? If the distance between political representatives and the people is to be reduced, greater transparency, rather than secrecy, recommends itself. Far too many voters and non-voters view the political class with profound scepticism. A partial antidote to this problem is the opening up of the corridors of power through enhanced access to information.

Nor is the value of greater transparency confined to the deliberations of political officials, whether elected or appointed. Civil servants and persons in other public or near-public institutions are almost routinely sworn to secrecy by law or by unjustifiably ubiquitous non-disclosure agreements. Some people – on this or that committee – may go along with largely unnecessary non-disclosure agreements because they do not wish to be perceived as disruptive or cantankerous; they should notice, however, that they may be contributing to the entrenchment of a culture of secrecy at various levels of society.

TEAM PLAYERS

Not only that: if good, public spirited people quietly go along with secrecy in order to be team players, they may grow comfortable in the environment of unnecessary secrecy in public affairs and may themselves eventually run the risk of being accused of hiding public information, when this is not their intention.

Naturally, on some matters, secrecy will remain necessary in public, near public and private bodies, at least for a time. When, for instance, reputations may be damaged unfairly by the partial, strategic or dishonest release of information, there is a case for confidentiality. Similarly, confidentiality may be required in the midst of sensitive negotiations in business and national affairs. But, generally speaking, where negotiations are completed, agreements have been reached, policy positions settled, and arguments have been resolved interested members of the public should have access to information.

POWER

In today’s world, information is an incredibly fast-moving commodity. If it is available, but withheld without good cause from the public, a vacuum will be created. And, as is often said, nature abhors a vacuum. Fake news, rumours, and sus will come to fill the vacuum, to the detriment of the society.

Secrecy, then, must not be an end in itself. We should aspire for a situation in which disclosure is the norm and non-disclosure the exception, especially in institutions funded by the public purse. That way, the public will be better able to identify its leaders who are responsible, innovative and conscientious. Information brings knowledge, and knowledge is power.

Stephen Vasciannie is professor of international law, at The University of the West Indies, Mona. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com