By Richard Sambrook
Next week 100 delegates from around the world will gather in London to discuss making their governments more transparent and accountable. But they face hard questions on reconciling open government with free speech - and living up to their progressive rhetoric.
The London summit marks the second anniversary of the Open Government Partnership, when eight founding countries — now grown to 60 — committed themselves to greater transparency. With civil society organisations they are working on radical reforms including access to information, budget transparency, anti-corruption measures, public service delivery measures and more.
However, unless you follow the movement closely you may not know about the partnership, the commitments or the track records of the signatory countries. A global survey of journalists suggests most of them have never heard of the OGP - even though 70 percent of those answering came from partner countries.
Further, it revealed a schism between the media and governments on the issue. The survey (227 respondents from 52 countries) suggested overwhelming support for greater government transparency and accountability - but deep scepticism about politicians’ ability to deliver it. The survey was part of a report commissioned by the Omidyar Network to bring a media perspective into the discussions.
It reveals that a poor track record by some member countries on free speech and media overshadows their commitments. Respondents expressed concerns about proposed restrictive media legislation in South Africa, intimidation of journalists in Turkey, the recent media law in Hungary, the banning of newspapers in Tanzania, and media policies in a number of other OGP countries. Those surveyed found it hard to see how a commitment to greater openness was served by restricting the media.
And the revelations about NSA and the UKâAos Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ, the agency responsible for signal intelligence) surveillance overshadowed discussion of government openness. Fairly or not, details of the secret surveillance of citizens stand in stark contrast to promises of more open accountability and undermine rhetoric about transparency.
It highlights a deep contrast in views between media and governments regarding the “open” agenda. Journalists define themselves in opposition to government and see transparency as a means of identifying and curtailing corruption and poor performance. Governments see transparency as a way of encouraging better governance, and see the media as a way of promoting civic engagement.
Even in the US, let alone less democratic countries, this relationship between media and government is tense. Earlier this month, a report from the Committee to Protect Journalists in the US criticised the Obama administration’s failure to deliver on promises of greater access.
Guardian News
