A recent article in the New York Times about India’s Right to Information law made me incredibly happy, because the power of this law demonstrates how law can be used to empower poor and marginalized parts of the population.
Law is often vilified. By Americans, but also around the world. The common cartoon of a lawyer is this: a greedy corporate lawyer who preys on everyday citizens in order to get rich. The law is also the subject of much hatred; people feel like they are drowning in paperwork and penalized unnecessarily. But India’s right to information act is a testament to the fact that the law is not always bad - and that in fact, it can be a powerful force for good and for social change.
Because of this law, the Indian government is required to respond to requests for information from individuals from all classes and parts of society. Now, villagers can file requests to find out why they didn’t receive a grant they were eligible for, or why a road hasn’t been built in their town despite promises from the government. And often, it seems that the government doesn’t just respond to the request for information, but actually takes action to solve the problem. By filing a request, a villager can now get her grant or find that the long-promised road is finally being constructed in his community.
The NYT article argues that although the law is beginning to empower the poor to hold their government accountable, it isn’t especially effective in fighting corruption. While filing a request for information about a service that the government hasn’t delivered upon has caused the state to improve service delivery, it hasn’t truly addressed the root of the problem. Officials who steal or divert money from the state’s coffers into their own bank account, public servants who simply aren’t doing their job, and other government leaders are not being held accountable for their actions. Corruption continues because there are few consequences. The state is improving the provision of services, but hasn’t been able to reduce instances of corruption as they occur in the first place.
Ultimately, this law is a very promising first step, and seems to be a measure that can be implemented in other democratic developing countries (I say democratic because I suspect a large part of the law’s success in India is due to the thriving nature of the country’s democracy and the politically active populace, along with the government’s desire to actually serve its people - sadly absent in most dictatorships).
Yet, such right to information laws should be implemented alongside a strong focus on some punitive measures for corrupt officials - whether it is a large fine, removal from office, or even a term of imprisonment. Without consequences and the enforcement of such, corruption will continue to persist — but the ultimate sad irony is this: in a society where the state bureaucracy is known to be so corrupt, even enforcing the rule of law and clamping down on corruption becomes nearly impossible because of the inefficiencies endemic in the justice system as well. In such a climate of corruption, the implementation of the right to information law in India seems to be a triumph worth celebrating.
