Last week, at least two major events occurred with close
relevance to Caribbean development that ought to have signalled greater urgency
regarding the tasks required to ensure the viability of our tiny states.
In what must be described as a hugely enlightened moment,
UNESCO chose “A Press for the Planet: Journalism in the face of the
Environmental Crisis” as the global theme for observance of World Press Freedom
Day 2024.
The other significant occasion was the launch of a “Review
of the Legislative Framework of Freedom of Information and Access to
Information Legislation in the English-speaking Caribbean” by the
Kingston-headquartered Media Institute of the Caribbean (MIC) – which I serve
as Vice President.
What was important about both events was that these two
activities had been recognised (both before and during) as being mutually
beneficial and co-dependent.
In summary: without recognition of the right of our
populations to access information held in trust on their behalf by public
agencies, there can be little progress with making the several issues of
survival priority items in an informed public space.
Access to/freedom of information laws, for instance, form
part of a society’s toolkit to assist it in getting to the bottom of issues
affecting it. This, some of us assert, is a question of legal right and not a
privilege extended by benevolent governments.
Caribbean countries that have refused to either pass such
legislation or ensure that its existing form is meaningful are in breach of the
kind of relationship that acknowledges such a right.
Furthermore, all our countries have signed onto a
multiplicity of global commitments with explicit obligations to ensure that
citizens have a legal right to access information held by public entities –
albeit with a narrow selection of widely-acceptable exceptions.
I can cite several such commitments under the thematic
banners of Open Government, Maximum Disclosure, and other undertakings related
to satisfaction of the requirements of what is described as “the public
interest.”
When the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were being
negotiated, for instance, media development groups all lobbied vociferously for
the assurance that public access to information should form part of this global
thrust to pursue a developmental paradigm that was sustainable. Such an
aspiration is now found in Target 16.10 of the SDGs.
There is also the hemispheric Escazu Agreement on Access to
Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin
America and the Caribbean. (As far as I am aware and from the available
literature, T&T, Barbados, The Bahamas, and Suriname are not signatories
to/have not ratified this.)
Among the several uses of this resource is an ability to
acquaint journalists and other citizens with the information they require to
make sense of public affairs. Last week we advised regional journalists that
their investigations need not stop at the point where a public official says
“no” to you - the norm in too many instances.
The MIC had established a regional “ATI Help Desk” to assist
in taking difficult cases several steps further. But even if such a mechanism
did not exist, the existence of an ATI/FOI law in Caribbean countries provides
a theoretical avenue for access.
Both the UNESCO focus on “the environmental crisis” – and
there are those who do not agree that we confront a profoundly serious “crisis”
– and the MIC study establish key linkages between media and civil society
performance and the capacity of people to intervene meaningfully in their
present and future.
UNESCO expressed the challenge by declaring the concept of
sustainable development “in jeopardy”, meaning that “the triple planetary
crisis—climate change, biodiversity loss, and air pollution - along with their
connections to public health issues, the need to strengthen democracy, to
tackle dis-/misinformation on digital platforms, among other issues have become
major challenges for humanity.”
I am not sure whether all of last week’s Caribbean
celebrants understood the gravity of such a declaration by the world body. On
the evidence, UNESCO has not engaged in alarmist hyperbole. Neither has the MIC
overstated the case for greater openness in the management of officially held
information.
In both instances, these ambitions confront a pervasive
culture of secrecy; the right to know being a chronic omission in the practice
of governance.
Take a close look at the issues occupying the news agendas
of the region and tell me in which instance has the absence of open governance
not been at the root of numerous current crises.
UNESCO’s admonition and the MIC work programme could not
possibly have been more on target.
