To Fight Corruption, Egypt Needs a Freedom of Information Law

New Article Submission

Thank you for your interest in Jadaliyya. We welcome all submissions. The most significant requirement is for Jadaliyya submissions to be analytically compelling and offer a perspective or argument that has not been covered at length either on Jadaliyya or elsewhere. Because of the volume of submissions, well-written pieces are prioritized. Length is flexible, 1000 to 2500 words is the average range. However, we will accept longer pieces. Once submitted, several members of the editorial committee will review your piece and one of them will inform you of the decision.
Author Details
Article Details
Select Countries
Select Keywords
Select Topics
Only RTF, Word, and Pages documents accepted.

Recommended image size: 762x800 px

Location of each image should be indicated in the text of the article via a square bracket caption that includes: (1) a description of the image; (2) the photographer/designer and source of the image. Please note we only use images you as the author have the right to use, which usually means those of your own creation or those published under Creative Commons. Alternatively, you need specific permission from the copyright holder.
Please read the Release Form and provide an electronic signature [your full name] below to confirm that you accept its terms
Required
Hyperlink words in your article if they refer to links on the internet. We encourage more, rather than less, links (try to avoid footnotes—embed them as hyperlinks if possible)

Article added successfully.

Pages Menu BETA
May 21, 2012 Egypt
[Protesters stormed state security building on 5 March 2011 to uncover information collected in secrecy about activists and political opposition. Image by Mohamed Abd El-Ghany/Reuters] [Protesters stormed state security building on 5 March 2011 to uncover information collected in secrecy about activists and political opposition. Image by Mohamed Abd El-Ghany/Reuters]

To Fight Corruption, Egypt Needs a Freedom of Information Law

By : Mark Salah Morgan and Sahar Aziz

Egypt is going through a period of enormous promise through citizen empowerment. For the first time in the country`s history, citizens are electing their president through a relatively fair and free process. While there are genuine concerns about the conduct of the elections and the conditions governing them, the mood in the streets is electrifying, as people from all walks of life feel vested in their country’s future. Despite the bumpy post-Mubarak transition, Egyptians deserve to be acclaimed for their perseverance and commitment to democracy.

But for Egypt to achieve sustainable democracy, many reforms remain to be implemented. The most important of which is public access to information that permits meaningful government accountability. Without accurate information, Egyptians cannot adequately stop the rampant corruption debilitating the nation’s economy and political system. Nor can the media serve as an effective check and watchdog on government abuse.  

Secrecy is anathema to democracy. Government dealings shrouded in secrecy were central to Mubarak’s modus operandi, and ultimately led to pervasive corruption and widespread embezzlement of state resources. As detailed in a recent report by the Egyptian American Rule of Law Association (EARLA), Freedom of Information Legislation: Best Practices for Egypt, the country must enact freedom of information laws that guarantee citizens access to information about the government`s dealings and spending.

For centuries, the norm has been prohibition rather than access to information. Indeed, the law stymied transparency—leading to unchecked and undetectable corruption. A survey conducted just prior to the 25 January revolution by the Egyptian Information and Decision Support Center (IDSC) found that more than 94 percent of Egyptians believed corruption was a serious problem in their country, and 70 percent believed corruption had increased from the previous year.

Such perceptions were reinforced by media reports exposing corrupt land sales, corrupt licensing deals, and embezzlement by prominent members of the former National Democratic Party (NDP) government who amassed staggering wealth. For this reason, a freedom of information law would be an indispensable tool in the effort to bolster government transparency and increase investor confidence in Egypt’s economy. With the country`s foreign currency reserves dwindling rapidly, and with an economic crisis looming, anti-corruption measures are no longer a luxury. They are imperative in this critical juncture in Egypt`s history.

At least 90 countries worldwide have enacted freedom of information laws—over half of them within the last fifteen years. Although Egypt’s circumstances are understandably unique, best practices from countries with similar profiles and predicaments offer valuable lessons.

\"[Protesters\"\"The most common flaw in freedom of information laws is the exclusion of entire agencies and classes of information based on overly broad national security claims. India’s experience provides one such cautionary tale. Legislators excluded some public bodies entirety from the scope of the law, resulting in the unintended concealment of important information that exposes corruption. India’s freedom of information law excluded intelligence and security agencies for the purpose of protecting sensitive security information. India’s government abused this exemption when advocates sought information regarding corrupt practices within India’s Central Bureau of Investigation—the government categorically denied the request even though it was unrelated to national security.

These days, the Egyptian parliament is debating the passage of Egypt’s first ever freedom of information law. Three separate bills have been proposed that vary in degree of restrictiveness. A coalition of human rights organizations and journalists led by the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) have submitted an exhaustive bill that incorporates international best practices. A second bill submitted by the nonprofit United Group is considered a middle of the road bill that is not as restrictive as the government’s bill, but at the same time does not go far enough in ensuring exemptions cannot be abused by the government. Unsurprisingly, the Egyptian executive branch has proposed the most restrictive draft law that would exclude national security agencies from public scrutiny. Supporters of the draft law raise the specter of national security in order to intimidate the population into giving up their right to information about their government`s dealings. But in light of Egypt’s appalling record of torture and disappearances of political dissidents, excluding the security agencies would be a fatal blow to human rights in Egypt.

Currently, parliament is debating which bill should be the starting point for parliamentary deliberation. Based on the experiences of India and other developing countries, as highlighted in a recent report Freedom of Information Legislation: Best Practices for Egypt, Egypt would be well served to adopt the bill proposed by civil society organizations. To effectively counter endemic corruption, the law must be comprehensive and coupled with the appropriate and adequate enforcement mechanisms to allow for meaningful transparency.

Egypt`s new law should also require non-public bodies engaged in public functions to comply with freedom of information laws. Because private companies are increasingly assuming roles traditionally performed by government, requiring them to disclose information is necessary to achieve full transparency. Some argue, however, that requiring non-public bodies to comply may discourage private investment in those functions due to the costs of compliance. Ultimately, Egyptians must weigh the significant gains from reduced corruption, which promotes private investment, with the inconveniences of record keeping and reporting imposed on the private sector. 

To promote greater confidence and trust in government, Egypt’s parliament should also require the executive branch to voluntarily publish a broad range of information to Egyptian citizens. Among other things, disclosures should include operational information relating to the activities and procedures of government agencies, lists, registers, databases, and budget information. Salaries and other benefits of government officials should also be disclosed publicly.

The disclosures must be available in a format readily accessible to Egyptians. The experience of Mexico is informative. Because Mexico has a 93 percent literacy rate and an internet penetration rate of almost forty percent, consolidating affirmative disclosures on a web site is cheap and effective. Even though Egypt’s literacy rate is 66 percent and internet penetration rate is twenty-six percent, a staggering 60 percent of Egyptians are thirty years old or younger, and wide-spread use of the internet occurred throughout the revolution on Facebook and Twitter. For that reason, posting affirmative disclosures on the internet in Egypt may also prove effective, especially as Egypt considers implementing programs to expand internet access throughout the country.

Freedom of information laws can easily be nullified by overly broad exemptions. Thus, exemptions should be narrowly tailored to prevent its circumvention by agencies. Poorly crafted exemptions could lead to an over-classification of information as exempt, leaving Egyptians in the dark about their government’s dealings. Thus, only when information harms specified interests, such as national security or privacy interests, and such harm outweighs the public’s interest in having the information, should the information be exempted.

Without an independent and multi-tiered review process, freedom of information laws are futile. A three-tier review process contemplates initial review by a senior official within the agency where the information is being requested, intermediate review by an independent oversight body, such as an information commission, and judicial review to serve as a check against corruption and incompetence within an agency.

Egyptians have the right to be involved in the affairs of their government. Not only does access to information enhance Egyptians’ participation in government, but it also sets Egypt on the track towards a more equitable and prosperous country. For the Egyptian revolution to succeed, knowledge must trump ignorance.
Tags
Jan 9, 2012 Lebanon
Maya Mikdashi By :
Maya Mikdashi

American Elections Watch 1: Rick Santorum and The Dangers of Theocracy

One day after returning to the United States after a trip to Lebanon, I watched the latest Republican Presidential Primary Debate. Unsurprisingly, Iran loomed large in questions related to foreign policy. One by one (with the exception of Ron Paul) the candidates repeated President Obama`s demand that Iran not block access to the Strait of Hormuz and allow the shipping of oil across this strategic waterway. Watching them, I was reminded of Israel`s demand that Lebanon not exploit its own water resources in 2001-2002. Israel`s position was basically that Lebanon`s sovereign decisions over the management of Lebanese water resources was a cause for war. In an area where water is increasingly the most valuable resource, Israel could not risk the possibility that its water rich neighbor might disrupt Israel`s ability to access Lebanese water resources through acts of occupation, underground piping, or unmitigated (because the Lebanese government has been negligent in exploiting its own water resources) river flow. In 2012, the United States has adopted a similar attitude towards Iran, even though the legal question of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz is much more complicated and involves international maritime law in addition to Omani and Iranian claims of sovereignty. But still, US posturing towards Iran is reminiscent of Israeli posturing towards Lebanon. It goes something like this: while the US retains the right to impose sanctions on Iran and continuously threaten war over its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran should not dare to assume that it can demand the removal of US warships from its shores and, more importantly, should not dream of retaliating in any way to punitive sanctions imposed on it. One can almost hear Team America`s animated crew breaking into song . . . “America . . . Fuck Yeah!”

During the debate in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum offered a concise answer as to why a nuclear Iran would not be tolerated and why the United States-the only state in the world that has actually used nuclear weapons, as it did when it dropped them on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- should go to war over this issue. Comparing Iran to other nuclear countries that the United States has learned to “tolerate” and “live with” such as Pakistan and North Korea, Santorum offered this succinct nugget of wisdom: Iran is a theocracy. Coming from a man who has stated that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, that President Obama is a secular fanatic, that the United States is witnessing a war on religion, and that God designed men and women in order to reproduce and thus marriage should be only procreative (and thus heterosexual and “fertile”), Santorum`s conflation of “theocracy” with “irrationality” seemed odd. But of course, that is not what he was saying. When Santorum said that Iran was a theocracy what he meant is that Iran is an Islamic theocracy, and thus its leaders are irrational, violent, and apparently (In Santorum`s eyes) martyrdom junkies. Because Iran is an Islamic theocracy, it cannot be “trusted” by the United States to have nuclear weapons. Apparently, settler colonial states such as Israel (whose claim to “liberal “secularism” is tenuous at best), totalitarian states such as North Korea, or unstable states such as Pakistan (which the United States regularly bombs via drones and that is currently falling apart because, as Santorum stated, it does not know how to behave without a “strong” America) do not cause the same radioactive anxiety. In Santorum`s opinion, a nuclear Iran would not view the cold war logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as a deterrent. Instead, the nation of Iran would rush to die under American or Israeli nuclear bombs because martyrdom is a religious (not national, Santorum was quick to state, perhaps realizing that martyrdom for nation is an ideal woven into the tapestry of American ideology) imperative. Santorum`s views on Iran can be seen one hour and two minutes into the debate.

When it comes to Islam, religion is scary, violent and irrational, says the American Presidential candidate who is largely running on his “faith based” convictions. This contradiction is not surprising, given that in the United States fundamentalist Christians regularly and without irony cite the danger that American muslims pose-fifth column style- to American secularism. After all, recently Christian fundamentalist groups succeeded in pressuring advertisers to abandon a reality show that (tediously) chronicled the lives of “American Muslims” living in Detroit. The great sin committed by these American Muslims was that they were too damn normal. Instead of plotting to inject sharia law into the United States Constitution, they were busy shopping at mid-western malls. Instead of marrying four women at a time and vacationing at Al-Qaeda training camps in (nuclear, but not troublingly so) Pakistan, these “American Muslims” were eating (halal) hotdogs and worrying about the mortgages on their homes and the rising costs of college tuition. Fundamentalist Christians watched this boring consumer driven normalcy with horror and deduced that it must be a plot to make Islam appear compatible with American secularism. The real aim of the show, these Christian fundamentalists (who Rick Santorum banks on for political and financial support) reasoned, was to make Islam appear “normal” and a viable religious option for American citizens. Thus the reality show “All American Muslim” was revealed to be a sinister attempt at Islamic proselytizing. This in a country where Christian proselytizing is almost unavoidable. From television to subways to doorbell rings to presidential debates to busses to street corners and dinner tables-there is always someone in America who wants to share the “good news” with a stranger. Faced with such a blatant, and common, double standard, we should continue to ask “If Muslim proselytizers threaten our secular paradise, why do Christian proselytizers not threaten our secular paradise?”

As the United States Presidential Elections kick into gear, we can expect the Middle East to take pride of place in questions pertaining to foreign policy. Already, Newt Gingrich who, if you forgot, has a PhD in history, has decided for all of us, once and for all, that the Palestinians alone in this world of nations are an invented people. Palestinians are not only a fraudulent people, Gingrich has taught us, they are terrorists as well. Candidates stumble over each other in a race to come up with more creative ways to pledge America`s undying support for Israel. Iran is the big baddie with much too much facial hair and weird hats. America is held hostage to Muslim and Arab oil, and must become “energy efficient” in order to free itself from the unsavory political relationships that come with such dependancy. Candidates will continue to argue over whether or not President Obama should have or should not have withdrawn US troops from Iraq, but no one will bring up the reality that the US occupation of Iraq is anything but over. But despite the interest that the Middle East will invite in the coming election cycle, there are a few questions that we can confidently assume will not be asked or addressed. Here are a few predictions. We welcome additional questions from readers.

Question: What is the difference between Christian Fundamentalism and Muslim Fundamentalism? Which is the greater “threat” to American secularism, and why?

Question: The United States` strongest Arab ally is Saudi Arabia, an Islamic theocracy and authoritarian monarchy which (falsely) cites Islamic law to prohibit women from driving cars, voting, but has recently (yay!) allowed women to sell underwear to other women. In addition, Saudi Arabia has been fanning the flames of sectarianism across the region, is the main center of financial and moral support for Al-Qaeda and is studying ways to “obtain” (the Saudi way, just buy it) a nuclear weapon-all as part and parcel of a not so cold war with Iran. Given these facts, how do you respond to critics that doubt the United States` stated goals of promoting democracy, human rights, women`s rights, and “moderate” (whatever that is) Islam?

Question: Israel has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them in the past. True or false?

Question: How are Rick Santorum`s views on homosexuality (or the Christian right`s views more generally) different than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad`s or King Abdullah`s? Can you help us tease out the differences when all three have said that as long as homosexuals do not engage in homosexual sex, it`s all good?

Question: Is the special relationship between the United States and Israel more special because they are both settler colonies, or is something else going on?