We have identified seven commonly heard arguments against access to information,

We are sure that there are more, but most of them will be connected to these:

• It will cost too much
• It will add yet another burden to an overworked environment
• It will make it impossible for the government to make decisions if all discussions are made public
• It will undermine national security
• It will damage commercial secrecy and scare away investors
• It will encourage officials to work in less efficient, secretive ways to avoid getting caught out by the new law
• The public won't understand the information when they get it

It will cost too much

Reply:

Of course, there are costs to setting up an access to information system, but if it is well designed it will bring many savings from increased efficiency.

Studies from countries with access to information systems show that the real costs after taking the benefits into account are fairly low. Indeed, it may be that an access to information law actually saves money in the long term.

Back to top

It will add yet another burden to an overworked environment

Reply:

In fact, it is fair to say that the introduction of an open information regime and keen record management systems will result in a far more efficient bureaucracy over time.

When governments are required to make their records accessible to the public, they must start keeping their records in better order, which results in their whole apparatus working more smoothly and increasing their efficiency.

Back to top

It will make it impossible for the government to make decisions if all discussions are made public

Reply:

An open government will be more likely to make better decisions rather than fewer decisions. It is important to clarify that by 'government' we mean not just the government of the day but the whole unelected apparatus of state as well. When governments are required to disclose information in the public interest, they are more conscious of the importance of record keeping. This means that there is more information available to them in decision making processes which, in turn, results in decisions that are more informed, rational and sensible.

Back to top

It will undermine national security

This is one of the most frequent arguments used by detractors of free access to information.

In fact, as it is further detailed in the Arguments in favour of access to information, it can be argued that national security is better enhanced by broader access to information, for the following reasons:

• In many countries the various agencies responsible for 'national security' may in actual fact spend a lot of their time undertaking surveillance, harassment and repression of political opponents of the government. Therefore, freedom of information will also help to keep national security agencies focused on the proper business at hand.
• Often, when governments refer to national security, they mean the security of their own grip on power. Without freedom of information, secretive governments might warn of plots and conspiracies organised by enemies, or even threats of invasion in order to keep popular opposition at bay. But paradoxically, this may even create a backlash, since the lack of transparency can foster frustration among their people and promote political instability in the country.
• An access to information law may actually help to tackle the causes of conflict within a country. Some groups, for example, may feel that they are being unfairly treated by the government or that another social group is being treated better, so an access to information law can help reduce tensions by allowing people to scrutinise decisions personally.

Back to top

It will damage commercial secrecy and scare away investors

Reply:

On the contrary, it is acknowledged that an open and transparent State builds confidence in international investors, whose foreign capital can make a significant contribution to growth. Besides, lack of transparency in the public administration, i.e. in the way governments allocate budgets to public procurements for basic infrastructures, allows corruption to thrive and consequently discourages foreign investment. Transparency is integral to minimising the risks of financial crises, a point that was clearly illustrated by the Asian crisis in the late 1990s and the collapse of corporations such as Enron. It has been increasingly recognised that one of the prerequisites for the development of robust and sustainable markets in the long-term is good governance, founded on the rocks of reliability, predictability and accountability.

Back to top

It will encourage officials to work in less efficient, secretive ways to avoid getting caught out by the new law

Reply:

In fact, a good access to information law will require adequate training of public officials charged with its implementation and will make them more accountable to the public by introducing sound and transparent mechanisms of supervision of their activities.

Back to top

The public won't understand the information when they get it

Reply:

A more open style of government encourages people normally alienated from the public sphere to participate in discussions and makes them more knowledgeable about the issues that are most relevant to them. It is also important to always remember that the public has a right to information which it should always be able to exercise. Access to information encourages a democratic culture that goes far beyond the checks and balances that formally constitute a functioning democracy. After all, how can people choose between election candidates in accordance with their own beliefs and values if they do not have information about those candidates; the details of their previous track records, their proposed commitments or who funds their party? In order for people to test and formulate their own political views they must be exposed to, and have the right and opportunity to take part in, vigorous public debate.

Back to top