More declassified docs

More documents have been declassified, but the debacle surrounding the declassification underlines the importance of making all documents available to the public, away from the politicking that has surrounded the bridge controversy.

The controversy was unnecessary. If the documents had been public from the start, the current Prime Minister's position would have been, by and large, uncontested. The secrecy was what fed the controversy, what gave the former PM the opportunity to claim wrong-doing by the current administration.

A similar debacle resulted from the Approved Permits issue. Something became an issue because of secrecy. Had the secrecy not existed, there would have been no controversy.

So there are two options for the PM to prevent a recurrence of this scandal. He can employ a clarivoyent. The fortune-teller will be able to tell him, in advance, which documents need to be declassified to prevent political challenges to his position. Or he can declassify as many documents as possible.

While the seer option has undoubtedly got more class, the comprehensive declassification of documents relating to contracts and tenders is more likely to yield results. The question then is who decides which documents are revealed, and which documents should remain classified.

The current system puts control of the documents under those most likely to have reason to keep them classified. This undermines the credibility of information when it is released as well as minimising the possibility of detecting corruption.

Credibility is undermined because the release of information can be politically timed, material can be hidden and it is possible not to release all pertinent information. It may be the truth and nothing but the truth, but the general public have no way of telling whether it is the whole truth, or not.

The information, complete or otherwise, can also be manipulated for maximum political advantage. And it will only be released if it is in the interests of the person who decides on the declassification. This is particularly obvious in the dispute over sand, sovereignty and the crooked bridge. Dr M's allegations fall flat when Abdullah has released the information. Partly because we are all convinced that he would not have released it, if it had been in any way incriminating.

At the same time, there is some information that should not be made public as soon as it is gathered. For example, if there is a police investigation on, it's in society's best interests that the police can keep it secret. At least while it is going on.

So, again, who gets to decide what information should be made public and what shouldn't? In the UK, this is the job of an independent Information Commissioner. If a member of the public is denied access to information, and they aren't happy that the reasons given are valid, they appeal to the Commissioner. The Commissioner will investigate the validity of the secrecy. If it is for one of the reasons defined by law as being allowed, the information remains a secret. If it is being withheld for personal interest or gain, the information is released. Short-term bad publicity gives way to long-term accountability and respect.

The Information Commissioner is also given the power to fine individuals for NOT releasing information. This means that if you refuse a request for information, and the Commissioner is not satisfied that you had valid reasons for withholding the information, you, personally, can be held responsible. There is no passing the buck. If you have to get the request approved, then the person denying the request is responsible. This also implies a default setting of 'transparent', because you can be punished for secrecy.

If this was put into place, through a freedom of information act, it would be a major step towards combatting corruption, but it would also safeguard the PM from malicious yet unfounded attacks on his administration.