Kathmandu Post

Editorial»

The right to dissent

JAN 30 -
Security personnel on Sunday took Dhankuta-based journalists under custody for four hours. Though four hours isn’t a long time, the act in itself is in breach of the fundamental right to free speech and protest, and therefore condemnable. The 36 journalists had gone to the Dhankuta Festival, where Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai and former Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa were present, to protest the government’s recent decision to keep 140 types of information secret. The revelation came a few days ago, but the review was likely planned some time ago. One of the major intentions of the revised Right to Information Act is seemingly aimed at curbing media and non-political influence on the masses, and consequently, that journalists in Dhankuta stood united against the revision in Dhakuta is to be praised.

But the way in which the security personnel handled the case is unacceptable. The Federation of Nepali Journalists’ district chairman and secretary were even said to be manhandled. Both the new RTI Act and that journalist were held under custody for protesting, are worrying.

Further still, these acts are undemocratic. The right to information, unless regarding matters of national security, is a human right for all citizens.  Likewise, the right to protest is not only a human right, but an inherent characteristic of a democratic society.  If a group of journalists can’t feely protest against an undemocratic government decision, it is infringing upon the rights of citizens to protest government action and decision. The right to protest is a perceived human right arising out of a number of recognised other human rights. It follows along the rights to assembly and freedom of press. In Nepal, these rights have, in times of democracy, never been infringed upon. What is worrying most about the four hours of custody that the 36 journalists in Dhankuta faced is that it may not be the last, but the beginning of a new trend. Protest against the RTI Act is not only a fundamental right, but also borne out of the understanding of the grave implications of this Act, which could curtail further freedoms of speech, media, and civil society.

It should be understood that government decisions for the most part, are also public interest issues and that naturally, there will be public concern over them. Withholding decisions and information is wrong. At the same time, attempting to curb public dissent over a government decision which has already been made public is equally, if not more, undemocratic and completely against the spirit of the Jana Andolan of 2006. It was the belief in the need for free speech, access to government, and equality through all tiers of society that rendered the movement a success. To compromise on any of these, regardless of what supposed stability or ease it might bring, is not justifiable. If information is kept secret, or action is taken against people’s movement, then it must be justified to the concerned bodies, and in most cases, to the public. The government and its organs cannot afford to make such unilateral decisions, especially at such a volatile time in the country’s transition process.

Posted on: 2012-01-31 08:21

---