Email : nbrao@cmsindia , info@cmsindia ; Website : cmsindia

Media, Civil Society and RTI

CIC, 3rd Annual Convention3 – 4, November 2008, New Delhi

Presented by Dr N Bhaskara Rao, Chairman CMS

Email : [email protected], [email protected] ; Website : www.cmsindia.org

2

CMS Transparency Unit

Ongoing studies on RTI

Governance issue based studies

Advocacy with stakeholders – media, civil society, policy makes,

implementers, etc

Capacity building across

RTI campaigns

Corruption studies –citizen

3

CMS-Good governance

Citizens charter 1993

Social Audit 1993-98

Transparency studies

Transparency Review

Right to Information specific contexts

Tracking news media

Citizens & corruption surveys

Capacity building among Civil Society groups

RTI implementation / effectiveness – 2008 survey among BPL hh

4

CMS India Corruption Surveys

Unique methodology – P+E+E

2001 Vigilance week of CVC

2002 Metros corruption & citizen

2003 Cities

2004 Urban India

2005 Urban-Rural; PEE; HH+Users;

2007 With focus on RTI/ IT use

2008 paying for votes

5

Awareness about RTI Act among BPL hh – (2008)

State BPL hh

(%)

State BPL

hh (%)

Andhra Pradesh 13.0 Maharashtra 6.9

Arunachal Pradesh 4.5 Manipur 13.0

Assam 10.3 Meghalaya 0.6

Bihar 1.4 Mizoram 12.0

Chhattisgarh 4.1 Nagaland 14.1

Delhi 5.0 Orissa 3.8

Goa 1.2 Pondicherry 8.0

Gujarat 4.4 Punjab 2.7

Haryana 2.7 Rajasthan 5.7

Himachal Pradesh 2.9 Sikkim 2.7

Jammu & Kashmir 4.5 Tamil Nadu 6.7

Jharkhand 5.0 Tripura 0.5

Karnataka 12.8 Uttar Pradesh 1.4

Kerala 10.7 Uttarakhand 8.4

Madhya Pradesh 4.9 West Bengal 1.4

Source : CMS

6

RTI Act & Citizen Charters (2008)

(percent)

RTI Act Citizen Charter

Heard about 10 6

Also knew about it 6.7 2.5

BPL hh

Source : CMS

7

Sources for Awareness about RTIAct among BPL hh (2008)

Source In Percent

Newspaper 32

Television 21

Friends/ Campaign 26

Radio 9

Government 9

Politicia n/elected representatives 1

Source : CMS

8

Percent of those aware who had applied under RTI Act (2008)

(BPL households)

State BPL households State BPL households

Andhra Pradesh 1.0 Mizoram 0.2

Arunachal Pradesh 0.2 Madhya Pradesh 0.3

Assam 0.2 Nagaland 0.4

Biha r 0.1 Orissa 0.2

Chhattisgarh 0.8 Pondicherry 0.2

Delhi 0.1 Punjab 0.3

Gujarat 1.5 Rajasthan 0.6

Haryana 0.3 Sikkim 0.2

Karnataka 0.4 Tamil Nadu 0.2

Kerala 0.6 Uttarakhand 0.1

Maharashtra 0.1 West Bengal 0.8

Source : CMS

9

Services for which applied for

  States

Hospital Services Chattisgarh, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh

PDS Chattisgarh, Guajart, Kerala, Rajasthan, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh

Education Chattisgarh, Gujarat

NREGS Chattisgarh, Gujarat, Rajasthan

Banking Services Gujarat, Punjab

Services

Source : CMS

10

Summing up

Yes, number of applications increased, not so the applicants

Yes, rural applications have increased marginally,

Yes, more “disposed”, few responded

Yes, awareness increased, but how to go about is limited

Too few women applicants and female centric issues

More applications were for selfish end/grievance

Relatively more use where ever civil society was active.

Even more where there was collaboration with news media.

11

So far…RTI is availed by

Mostly by men

Mostly by those in powers

Mostly by those in metros

More for personal reasons

More for service matters

More by the same

More for individual grievance

12

Why hesitation?

Doubts/ despair about implementation continues

Centre / State Governments yet to promote the Act

Political parties / leaders, too, have not yet

Commissions also, not going beyond press meets / civil society

interactivity

Contempt of SICs towards civil society groups

Even more disappointing is academics – at all levels

13

The best bet to consolidate RTI and take forward

Active citizenry, individually and groups

Civil Society activism

Pro-active News media

Civil Society + News media work together

Includes academics / educational stream

Independent ongoing tracking in districts

Beyond awareness; Write back, talk back

Together with social audit, citizen charter

14

An Opportunity to news media

Enhances credibility

Helps go beyond, substantial reporting

Scoops, scandals; and leads for follow up

Irrespective of seniority in journalism

RTI route as good or better than sting

Pro-active coverage, revelations, redressal, systemic

Easier, no costs – all that needed is concern

Regular features, not just reporting judgments of Commissions

15

Networks of Civil Society

A far more effective theme for sustained community service

A better route for redressal too

Networking civil society / voluntary groups for reinforced

Rope in research input academic support for focus, effect

Clearing house responsibility – judgments, appeals,etc

16

Information Commissions

Proactive initiatives - reach out, enforce

Next round of Commissioners

One civil society activist in each

Periodic open house sessions – regionally

More serious concern for suo-moto disclosure

Partner with news media/ civil society groups

Recommendations to State Government about implementation?

Comprehensiveness of annual reports.

17

Issues of Good Governance?Expected Outcomes of RTI

Transparency in public offices/services

Responsibility/ accountability and more Responsive Govt. offices

A more decentralized governance

Decline in Corruption involving citizen and at other levels

Participative citizens – willing with feed back/ complaints, suggestions.

Ease in seeking and efficiency in the delivery of public services

18

Challenges for 4th Year

Seriousness of Governments

Promotion,

prompt response,

More individual – depend response

Suo-moto initiatives – computerization – networks

Active involvement of academic world, sustained role of political parties

News media coverage - follow up & partnership

More revelations, not redressal

Discussion in Assemblies of annual reports

We need more indicative criteria for implementation

The figures being put out by Commissions be made reflective

19

Research Issues :Effects / What Difference RTI has Made

Tracking its use – who, where, what, when, how

Who is taking advantage of the Act, what difference it is making

Which section is benefiting or for whose advantage

Activating – the poor, the far off ones,

Better efficiency of targeted schemes, utilization of allocations

Mind set of service providers, PIOs,

Implementation of various (dormant) laws

Credibility of bureaucracy, decline in work loads, delays, etc.

Let us make RTI a turning point and also a tipping point…

21

Thank you…