View previous stories
	The Covid-19 pandemic and populist discontent by IPS Journal, Minority Rights Group, agencies   Dec. 2021   The revolt against reason, by Robert Misik.   The diagnosis of a ‘split’ in society is commonplace today — societies are shaken by discord and divisions are intensifying. The claims differ in details but on some basic assumptions, there is usually agreement.   First, there are increasingly testy disputes, largely along a traditional left-right axis but sometimes deviating from it. ‘Culture wars’ break out over gender issues, racism and anti-racism, immigration and who belongs to the ‘us’ — even lifestyles. Pundits talk about societies breaking into hostile ‘tribes’.   There is also a degree of unanimity in the analyses about alienation from the conventional political system — anger that ‘they are not interested in us at all’ — especially in underprivileged segments of the population, including the old working classes but also the marginalised lower middle class and the ‘underclass’.   Those who are victims of growing insecurity feel that they can no longer rely on solidarity: ‘You can’t count on anyone anymore.’ Many people say ‘I just look out for myself now’ in a depressed, negative individualism. These social milieux are then particularly appealing to right-wing populists and extremists who proclaim: ‘Yes, no one listens to you — but I am your voice.’   Representing the ‘left behind’   This is a particular challenge for progressive political parties: the social democrats, the Labour Party, the American Democrats, the vast majority of traditional labour and left-wing movements.   On the one hand, left-wing parties have a great deal of sympathy with popular revolts against ruling elites and systems of chronic injustice — indeed, for many decades of their existence, they were the bearers of them.   Yet, on the other hand, in the eyes of many who turn away in disappointment, they themselves are part of that detested ‘elite’. Even if they — the parties — see themselves as part of the solution, many of their potential voters see them as part of the problem.   This is by no means to say that the supporters of right-wing, anti-system parties are primarily part of a working-class that has become politically homeless — but they do also come from this group. Those who are under economic pressure, who struggle with job insecurity, who are confronted with stagnating wages and who generally see themselves as ‘losers’ of economic transformations easily feel politically unheard, no longer represented, disrespected and left behind as innocent victims of injustice.   I have analysed all this in my book The False Friends of the Ordinary People, including how right-wing populists appeal successfully to the traditional ‘values’ of the working classes.   The left-wing and progressive parties have, of course, already recognised the problem and are responding to it in a wide variety of ways: shifting to the left, managing a gradual course correction, or dissolving into hopeless debates about strategy.   The fact that the German social democrats went into the recent Bundestag election campaign with the slogan ‘Respect’ is due to this diagnosis, and at least it led to the SPD regaining first place and the chancellorship.   It is remarkable that, while different countries on different continents have strikingly different political cultures and traditions, these discourses and rhetorics are astonishingly similar.   The structural transformation of debate in the public sphere — through the internet, blogs, and ‘social media’ — of course contributes massively here and yet this is often dramatically underestimated.   Scepticism and conspiracy   These days, however, the diagnosis of ‘polarisation’ is being invoked almost daily in a specific context. That is the anti-virus regime, with the disputes over lockdowns, rejection of vaccination, denial of the pandemic or its danger and the rise of conspiracy theories. This, too, is global, but there are nonetheless notable national differences.   In the United States, opposition to measures to contain Covid-19 is a common slogan of the radical right under its front figure, the former president, Donald Trump. In other countries, this is less pronounced.   Scepticism and rejection of modern medicine — and thus of vaccination — also varies widely. Portugal has a vaccination rate of around 90 per cent and Denmark 87 per cent but, of the traditionally ‘western European’ countries, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland have the lowest rates. They stagnated for a long time at just around 65 per cent.   These countries have far-right and right-wing populist parties mobilising against vaccination. The same groups which score points on the ‘culture war’ issues — claiming to be the voice of the common people, the ‘regular guy’ — are now saying: the elites, the government, want to poison you with a vaccine. They are establishing enforced vaccination, a ‘corona dictatorship’.   They are bought by Big Pharma, street mobsters of sinister world rulers. And they are exploiting an invented — or exaggerated — disease to destroy freedom and bully the common people.   Given its obvious madness, the astonishing thing is that a not insignificant part of their followers buy into all this craziness. Those who believe the whole radical nonsense are rather few. But a much larger group have doubts about medical science and are less willing to believe the experts than people who pontificate on the internet. What’s happening here?   There is evidently a massive loss of trust in the entire political system, so that many no longer believe anyone perceived in any way to be part of an imaginary ‘establishment’. How alienated and frustrated must they be if they simply don’t believe anything anymore and, on the contrary, are willing to take at face value what they read in some weird group on Telegram or WhatsApp?   Putting the pieces together   Rebellion has traditionally connoted emancipation. But this is a revolt against reason. Especially in the German-speaking countries, where enlightenment rationalism took less deep roots — romanticism with its anti-rationalism rather more — hostility to science is probably even more widespread than in other cultures.   The Nazi movement and its totalitarianism, too — with its penchant for the occult and the obscure as well as its contempt for reason — may have left deeper traces in this respect than one might think.   Progressive and left-wing parties have always been in the traditional stream of the enlightenment, acting as educational movements. But they too have seen simplifications and conspiratorial ideas among their followers: in 1890 Ferdinand Kronawetter described anti-Semitism as ‘the socialism of the stupid guys’ (der Socialismus der dummen Kerle).   Also, the environmental movement, considered by many to be ‘alternative’ and somehow a product of the rebellious ‘counter culture’ of the 1960s, has its questionable traditions. It upholds the ‘natural’ and the ‘feeling’, life in ‘balance with nature’, and has a scepticism of the rationality of science and technology. Natural healing methods, homoeopathy, alternative medicine, and obscurantism of all sorts are quite popular here and are opposed to ‘orthodox medicine’, which primarily wants to cram chemicals into people.   Anyhow, if we want to understand current, extremely weird and yet still unclear events, then we should start to bring these elements together. The alienation from the system of politics caused massive annoyance even before the pandemic and is now making the fight against the pandemic difficult. There is an exasperation with the system on the part of people who — often rightly — no longer feel represented or even noticed by it.   The popularity of right-wing populism and extremism is certainly a revolt with legitimate aspects but in perverse forms. The depth of this loss of trust is also evident in anti-rationalist revolts against management of the pandemic and even against medical science.   Those who fall into the clutches of such an ideology and an entire system of misinformation come to believe ever more absurd things. They remodel themselves, so to speak, and fall into a dynamic of self-radicalisation — which can very soon become truly dangerous.   http://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/democracy-and-society/the-revolt-against-reason-5588/ http://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/democracy-and-society/why-covid-19-misinformation-works-5542/ http://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/democracy-and-society/the-problem-of-political-despair-5573/   Feb. 2021   The Covid-19 pandemic and populist discontent, by Andre Krouwel.   The Netherlands is known worldwide for its ‘polder-democracy’, the deep social and political tradition of consultations with all stakeholders before policies are implemented, making opposition constructive and peaceful. So it was all the more surprising when, at the end of January 2021, riots broke out in eleven Dutch cities after the right-wing Rutte government introduced a curfew to curb high levels of Covid-19 infections in the Netherlands.   The first violence occurred in small religious communities like Urk, a traditional fisher-village in the East of the country. Due to a tight-knit community, large families, a manual-labour oriented economy with much social contact and their refusal to stop church gatherings, its population was hit hard by the pandemic. In particular young ‘Urkers’, known for less pious behaviour during weekends, set fire to the local Covid-testing facility and got into a fight with the police.   In smaller communities in the South – such as Stein, Limburg – intoxicated youngsters also found ‘Dutch courage’ and started to riot against the ‘dictatorship’. Larger cities, like Amsterdam, Eindhoven and Enschede, then followed suit. In the latter, even the local hospital was attacked and riot police had to came out in full force to enforce the curfew. How could it come to this?   Dutch populism   In recent decades, the cultural and economic fabric of Dutch ‘consensus-democracy’ has been unravelling under populist rhetoric that eroded trust in traditional institutions and authorities. Like other populists across Europe, Geert Wilders (Freedom Party, PVV) and his even more extremist populist brethren Thierry Baudet (Forum for Democracy, FvD) argue that preventive measures like a curfew ‘go against freedom’, which was ‘ignored’ by the ‘political cartel’ of government and constructive opposition parties.   On his Twitter account, Baudet fulminated that his party would continue to oppose this ‘absurd freedom-restricting measure’. Such anti-establishment messaging resonates well with the dark coalition of conspiracy believers, anti-vaxxers and the extreme-right that was forged during the corona pandemic.   This coalition peddles their disinformation on social media, creating a toxic mix of discontent and distrust that fuelled the violent protests. While the political right, and even more the extremist populists often portray themselves as the parties of ‘law and order’, they frequently and consistently undermine democratic and constitutional rules, legal authority and freedom of the press.   While condemning the violence in Urk and elsewhere, Baudet and Wilders portrayed the entire political elite as a uniform cartel of ‘traitors of the real interests of the people’ and depicted practical and proven measures such as mask-wearing, shop closures and limits on social interaction as unacceptable restrictions on freedoms and the first step to a ‘dictatorship’.   While at other times the political right shouts loudest to have the police and even army strike down protests, they now portrayed the restoration of law and order by local authorities as authoritarian.   Meanwhile, Wilders and Baudet in particular have been sowing doubt about the seriousness of the pandemic or outright denied the deadliness of the virus circulating suggestions that ‘the statistics cannot be trusted’ and the government is deliberately destroying people’s livelihood.   Needless to say, the populists also blame mainstream media for ‘consciously exaggerating the seriousness of the pandemic’, just like the ‘lies they tell about the climate crisis’. The state and public broadcasters like the NOS are portrayed as ‘state propaganda machines’ rather than a free and critical press.   The Covid-19 pandemic and populist discontent   In a study on compliance with the measures to prevent the spread of coronavirus, my colleagues and I found a clear pattern of political orientations with the willingness to adhere to government regulations, trust in institutions and support for the policies to alleviate economic hardship. The more a Dutch person places her- or himself to the political right, the less likely they are to comply with the measures. While also on the extreme left there is opposition, the hard-core resistance to preventive measures and policies is found on the extreme conservative (and religious) right corner of the Dutch political spectrum.   People with more extremist right-wing and conservative orientations were more likely to think that the economic impact is too detrimental to justify policies aimed at reducing infection rates. In their opposition, extremists link deep-seated economic and political dissatisfaction to resentment against the pandemic measures. A (small) part of the population does not see these measures as a protection for others, but as a further restriction of rights and taking away of freedom. Thus, the Covid-19 pandemic flows seamlessly into populist discontent.   However, a deeper-lying cause for the rise in extremism, populism and polarisation in Western societies is found in economic and social tectonic shifts. Much of the anxieties and insecurities found among broad segments of society results from a power shift to a new, more multicultural generation. These young people are more tolerant towards multicultural society with more fluid and acquired identities.   At the same time, we see older generations – with more static and ascribed identities – experiencing feelings of the loss of status and power. Moreover, they fear there is no longer a solid floor and sense a profound loss of economic security and well-being – after decades of stagnant wages and pensions, cuts in healthcare and other social services.   This ‘squeezed class’ has become mentally trapped between the fear of a further economic collapse and that social progress is no longer possible for themselves and their children. Many of them link economic insecurity – reinforced by the pandemic – with negative attitudes towards (labour) immigrants and refugees. It is a more complex state of mind, but it all boils down to an experience of society and the distribution of wealth as unjust, which is reinforced by a small, puissant and rich upper stratum.   These lower and middle-class anxieties are politically expressed by extremist and populist anti-system movements such as those of Trump, Wilders and Baudet, who conjure up visions of a glorious past when the ‘white’ population was economically and culturally dominant.   Amplified by hysterical and deceitful social media messaging – including micro-targeting of susceptible groups – populists do not formulate actual policies or implement their ideas into practical steps towards helping their followers: their political project exists solely of a constant and ever deepening cultural war against the ‘globalists’, ‘socialists’ and ‘traitors of the real people’. Clearly, this is a recipe for a violent uprising.   While the uprising in the Netherlands contrast sharply to what happened in Washington – very few Dutch people own guns – the sentiments are strikingly similar. Importantly, the group size of hardened opponents of pandemic measures in the Netherlands is still quite small, but the mentality and mind-set that there a ‘war’ is raging and that ‘the country is going in the wrong direction’ is much more wide-spread. Once violent extreme right-wing groups get involved and start organising the angry mobs, as the one that forced its way into the American Capitol on 6 January, we will enter new stage of democratic decline.   * Andre Krouwel is Professor of Comparative Politics, at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam   http://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/democracy/the-next-stage-of-dutch-populism-4963/ http://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/democracy-and-society/the-consequences-of-neoliberal-capitalism-in-eastern-europe-5401   May 2020   COVID-19 and Minorities: A Test for Our Humanity, by Joshua Castellino - Executive Director of Minority Rights Group International   The hold of the pandemic over people and economies across the world highlights two clear messages.   First, while the virus is potent, its ability to kill is weaponised by poor governance, yielding vastly different outcomes in similar circumstances. Egalitarian societies with the best candidate to govern (many women led) have fared better; societies where 'strongmen' seized power based on a rhetoric of fear, find themselves out of their depth in tackling issues that require skill and wisdom.   Second, how you experience the virus remains an accident of birth. While proximity to power and wealth is no guarantee against contagion, the flow of information, remedies and facilities generate different outcomes than for those far from sites of power.   We know the virus will kill many, disproportionally affecting the vulnerable, and societies have been alert to this, ensuring extra protection for the elderly, and those with underlying health conditions. But this is not the only kind of vulnerability that exists.   The last few years have seen our political space filled with the politics of division and hate. The formula is straightforward: find someone different, turn the majority against them, claim the levers of power, access the wealth beyond.   Leaders who trade on division and hate are not new they blight our goriest history pages. Their traction now is driven by two interrelated challenges: exceeding planetary boundaries creating grave existential uncertainties while increasing mechanization and depriving people of livelihoods.   The result is an angry mass unsure of how to survive, easily goaded into hate by powerful interests that generate narratives that speak to their anger and control their actions.   If these interests had solutions to climate change and job creation, the hate may be deemed a necessary, if unsavoury collateral. But they seek control for its own sake, making the most of the 'good times' while they last, not investing in long-term visions seeking to reorient societies to combat new realities.   This politics of hate, creating an us and them stands blatantly exposed by Coronavirus. Entrenched ossified structural discrimination has kept certain communities within our societies beyond the reach of rights.   They may not have shelters to stay home in; may not be able to access life-saving information to prevent spread; may not live in places where social distancing is possible and often live in subsistence conditions where lock-downs will kill them from hunger before the virus.   If exposed to contagion, they face another set of problems: lack of facilities for isolation; desperate imperatives to keep working to feed themselves and dependents; knowledge they will be sent to the back of the queue (if let into it at all) as overstretched health systems prioritize us over them, all driven by hate that has become endemic to societies, permeating mass consciousness.   At Minority Rights Group we have been working hard since the commencement of the pandemic. Our 160 partners globally represent the form of vulnerability I am referring to. They are out of preventative messaging loops due to media reach or language barriers, live in conditions that will not secure containment, are dependent on eking out subsistence from collapsing economies, and are terrified about relying on health systems that will discriminate against them.   Our activists around the world, who in 'normal times' see themselves fighting for system change to ensure the rights and dignity of everyone, irrespective of the accident of their birth, are now striving to pivot programmes to safeguard against the spread of the virus to vulnerable communities.   But there is room for many more to step in and help in generating the collaborative approach our governments seem incapable of articulating.   German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier called it right when he said this virus was a test of our humanity. Coming through it while leaving no one behind is the only route to success, even if this goes against the grain of recent hate politics.   Those leading the health response including the WHO need to listen to minority experiences in designing appropriate preventative guidance.   Telling communities in cramped environments to 'socially distance' is akin to sending out advice about restricting use of private swimming pools: irrelevant if you do not have one.   Generating bespoke guidance incorporating national health authorities, ensuring they administer services without prejudice and cater to different needs, is key to the salience of any advice, utility and adherence, but also in mitigation and eradication efforts.   Organisations such as the World Food Programme and the Red Cross/Red Crescent need to locate vulnerable groups and ensure they feature in their humanitarian efforts.   Governments need to safeguard against stigmatization, pay heed to vulnerability in directing health authorities and emergency services to their side, and ensure that health coverage is not dependent on individual status.   For many this is a material change from the usual blame game, the hollowness of which emphasizes the poverty of skill. Make no mistake, the death toll caused by this virus will come down to governance decisions. If left festering among scapegoated vulnerable communities, its presence will be prolonged creating systemic economic and social breakdown.   It is equally imperative to sensitise the public to document discrimination against vulnerable groups, so organisations can react swiftly, and spread word about this form of vulnerability so we can collectively protect communities in the short term and become conscious of how steadily we have been programmed to fail this test of humanity.   Beyond COVID-19 we must make our voices count in building inclusive societies where narrow identity confines will not determine our collective achievements, and where hate politics is identified as an anachronistic ideology that will not serve us in our collective hour of need when faced with these kinds of crises.   http://minorityrights.org/2020/05/14/covid-test-for-humanity/ http://www.cesr.org/confronting-covid-how-civil-society-responding-across-countries-minority-rights http://www.hrw.org/news/2020/05/12/covid-19-fueling-anti-asian-racism-and-xenophobia-worldwide   * UN Guidance note on countering Covid 19 related Hate Speech: http://bit.ly/2M1hgDs Visit the related web page
	People have the right to know what those in power are doing by COE, Access-Info, Article 19, agencies   Dec. 2020   On International Anti-Corruption Day 2020, a group comprised of leading economists, trade unions and civil society organisations tackling issues from human rights, to poverty, to business integrity, have come together to call for an end to the abuse of anonymous companies.   The UN General Assembly’s decision to hold a Special Session against Corruption in 2021 created a historic opportunity for the international community to address the global crisis of corruption.   The undersigned groups and individuals are united in the conviction that it is of the utmost urgency for the UNGASS 2021 to put an end to the abuse of anonymous companies and other legal vehicles that facilitate cross-border corruption and other crimes. We are calling on the UNGASS 2021 to commit to making centralised, public beneficial ownership registers a global standard.   Companies that exist only on paper, exploiting our legal systems and concealing their ultimate ownership, are tools for the diversion of critical resources needed to advance sustainable development and collective security.   For decades, as scandal after scandal has demonstrated, anonymous shell companies have been used to divert public funds, channel bribes and conceal ill-gotten gains, as part of corruption and money laundering schemes stretching across borders.   Beneficial ownership information – information on the natural persons who ultimately own, control or benefit from a legal vehicle – enables cross-border enforcement and the tracing of ill-gotten assets for confiscation and return. In public contracting processes, it helps in the detection of conflicts of interest and corruption. It also makes it easier for businesses to carry out due diligence, helps them know who their partners and customers are and meet reporting obligations.   A central, public register of companies and their ultimate beneficial owners – in addition to information on legal ownership and directors – is the most effective and practical way to record such information and facilitate timely access for all stakeholders.   We have come together to address government leaders currently preparing for UNGASS 2021 with one voice and one clear message: The “concise and action-oriented political declaration” to be adopted by the General Assembly should commit all countries to establish central, public registers of beneficial ownership as the new global standard.   This should be supplemented with efforts to verify the collected information in order to ensure the accuracy and reliability of beneficial ownership data.   Transparency in company ownership is more than a technical solution to a problem. It is a matter of social justice.   Corruption devastates the lives of billions of people around the world, while its deadliness has become all the more evident during the COVID-19 pandemic and the climate crisis.   With only ten years left to achieve the 2030 Agenda targets, we need decisive reforms to ensure that the resources needed to pay for critical public services such as schools and hospitals are not simply misappropriated and hidden away in tax havens or property markets abroad. Centralised, public registers of beneficial ownership as a global standard is precisely that kind of change. The time for action is now.   http://www.transparency.org/en/ungass-2021-commit-to-transparency-in-company-ownership-for-the-common-good   Dec. 2020   Call to protect EU’s Number One Anti-Corruption Instrument: Open Company Registers!   On International Anti-Corruption Day 2020, 101 leading transparency, anti-corruption and open data organisations along with investigative journalists from across Europe have called on the European Commission and national governments to act to ensure that company registers, including ownership and corporate structure data, are freely accessible and published in open data format.   In an open letter sent today to Thierry Breton, Internal Market Commissioner, and Vera Jourová, Vice President for Values and Transparency, the organisations respond to threats to reduce access to company registers to only very basic data, without the names of owners, when the EU agrees on the details of implementation of the 2019 Open Data Directive.   The letter states that the commitment to open company registers, including ownership and corporate structure data, is the most critical transparency and anti-corruption measure that the EU will adopt in 2020.   “More than $11 trillion has already been spent by governments all over the world urgently responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, and reliable information on who controls anonymous companies is central for identifying where this money goes and for preventing financial mismanagement, fraud and corruption,” said Laure Brillaud, Senior Policy Officer, Transparency International EU.   Addressing the importance of the open company data for investigative journalists, Drew Sullivan, Editor and Publisher of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project said: “The EUs plan to water down the Open Data Directive is a gift to organized crime and corrupt actors. Half-hearted transparency leaves loopholes which invite dark money into your system, undermining democracy, and ultimately promotes plutocracy. As a European directive, you need a rock hard standard that can serve as a bedrock for democracy.”   “High-quality and readily-accessible company ownership information is essential to carry out proper due diligence on potential fraudulent or false companies, and therefore is essential for both governments and other businesses operating in the European space,” said Robin Hodess, Director of Governance & Transparency at The B Team.   Emily Wigens, EU Director of The ONE Campaign, added: “Developing countries lose more than $1 trillion each year as a result of secrecy and shady deals. The public, including journalists and civil society organizations, plays a critical role in exposing corruption and bad deals, so must have full access to open company ownership data for the EU’s company registers to be effective.”   “We see that most big cases of fraud, corruption and tax evasion are uncovered by journalists and civil society. Unrestricted access to these data is essential for these organizations to play their part” stated Serv Wiemers, Director Open State Foundation.   Partial progress has already been made towards this goal, according to Jesse Renema, Senior Project Lead of the Open State foundation: “We are halfway there as the European Union’s 5th Anti Money Laundering Directive (AMLD5), already requires open registers of beneficial owners of companies. To complete the anti-corruption package, it is essential to commit to fully open company registers.”   Addressing privacy concerns, Helen Darbishire, Executive Director of Access Info Europe explained: “When legislators determine – as they have done with the Open Data Directive – that certain data needs to be made public, including the names of company owners, to combat corruption, this has a legal basis and is proportionate and entirely consistent with data protection rules. There cannot be backtracking now because of lobbying by businesses not ready to be open.”   Addressing the concern that opening up company data will have an associated cost for national company registers, Thom Townsend, Executive Director, Open Ownership, stated: “It is evident that the cost of publishing this essential information is minimal compared to the significant economic savings and invaluable societal benefits that accrue from avoiding fraud and corruption.”   Chris Taggart, of the business Open Corporates, added: “This data is essential for entrepreneurs across Europe, such as the business that I run. If the EU is serious about supporting open data for entrepreneurship, they should start with pivotal data sets such as company registers. In a financial crisis and risks of increasing unemployment, the way ahead is to act on the EU’s digital strategy promises and keep this data open.”   The signatories to the letter call for the following company structure and ownership information to be the absolute minimum made public under the Open Data Directive:   Name of the company owner; Month and year of birth; Nationality; Owner identifier; Names of shareholders; Country of residence of shareholders/owners; Company insolvency status; All updates to the information submitted, including the date of the most recent update.   They note that standards have already been set in the UK and Denmark, with the information in these company registers available as open data.   The letter concludes by arguing that the European Commission and Member States should now guarantee full publication of companies and company ownership information as a high-value dataset in implementing the Open Data Directive, under a genuinely open licence without additional restrictions: “Anything less than full publication, would ultimately foster an environment where corruption is allowed to persist. This is the time for more transparency and accountability, not less.”   http://www.access-info.org/blog/2020/12/09/eu-open-company-reg/ http://www.transparency.org/en/news/international-anti-corruption-day-2020-things-can-really-get-better-next-year-ungass-2021   Dec. 2020   People have the right to know what those in power are doing, by Dunja Mijatovic - Human Rights Commissioner, Council of Europe   People have the right to know what those in power are doing. This was the basis on which the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents was adopted more than ten years ago in Tromso, Norway. This Convention is the first binding international legal instrument to recognise a general right of access to official documents held by public authorities.   It establishes minimum rules for the prompt and fair processing of requests for access to official documents, including an obligation for states to secure access to effective and independent review procedures when access is denied.   Under the Convention, all official documents are, in principle, public and can be withheld subject only to the protection of other rights and legitimate interests.   Following the ratification of the Tromso Convention by Ukraine, the tenth state to ratify, it will enter into force on 1 December 2020. This is a much anticipated development as access to official documents is essential for transparency, good governance and participatory democracy and a key means of facilitating the exercise of other human rights and fundamental freedoms.   The right to freedom of information   Although we are living in the age of the information society, in which we are exposed to huge amounts of opinions and data, access to quality information remains hard to come by in many Council of Europe member states.   In this context, I can only stress how important freedom of information requests are. Such requests are mainly used by organisations and journalists to ask questions about the conduct of public bodies.   Without these requests, a number of human rights violations would never have come to light. I am thinking for example about the way migrants are treated across Europe, especially at borders, or the existence of CIA rendition flights to Europe, involving the transfer and secret detention of suspected terrorists.   But the right of access to information is not only about exposing wrongdoing. It also helps to improve the quality of public debate on important issues and heightens participation in decision making, as highlighted in the 2018 Recommendation of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers on the need to strengthen the protection and promotion of civil society space in Europe.   Yet, substantial barriers to the right to information are still in place. One obvious problem is that authorities are not always accustomed to dealing with the public or with journalists in an open manner. Privacy protection safeguards have also sometimes been invoked against freedom of information requests.   Some of the rules governing freedom of information requests can compromise the safety of journalists. In this respect, concerns have been raised that the requirement in some countries for requesters to identify themselves and provide personal data to be able to submit freedom of information requests makes journalists working on sensitive issues, such as organised crime, vulnerable.   For example, it has been suggested that the murder of the journalist Jan Kuciak in 2018 in Slovakia may have been the result of his freedom of information requests, through which he had obtained much of his information with regard to alleged tax evasion and misuse of EU funds.   Transparency of public authorities should be regarded as a precondition for the exercise and enjoyment of freedom of information, which has a bearing on freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.   In a case relating to the authorities’ refusal to provide an NGO with information relating to the work of an ex officio defence counsel, the European Court of Human Rights recognised that in specific circumstances individuals may have a right of access to state-held information, particularly when access to the information is crucial for the individual to exercise his or her freedom to receive and impart information.   Access to information in times of crisis   The right to know is even more vital in times of crisis. Yet, transparency regarding public services and their actions has clearly not been a top priority in Europe.   At a time when a large portion of the population is questioning the legitimacy and the proportionality of the measures taken by governments to deal with the pandemic, when trust in public authorities is declining and people are turning to alternative sources of information, which they deem to be more reliable, the right of access to information has been eroded.   Filtering of information and delays in responses to freedom of information requests have been observed in several member states, and there have been reports of journalists being prevented from asking questions, obtaining information from health authorities or documenting the operations of law enforcement officials.   However, promoting greater openness and transparency in the provision of information by public authorities would not only help to preserve public health, but also to build public trust and confidence in the public health measures and public authorities concerned.   As a means of ensuring access to information in general, freedom of information requests are crucial in fighting misinformation. During times of crisis national security arguments are often evoked to deny freedom of information requests, but it is precisely at such times that trustworthy information from official sources is needed.   Better management of information requests and the implementation of the principles set out in the Tromso Convention prior to the pandemic could have helped to avoid the ‘infodemic’.   Corruption and environmental issues   Access to information is highly relevant in a number of contexts. Opening up archives can play an important role in holding governments to account for their actions or lack thereof and in dealing with the past.   More recently, lack of transparency has also been a central concern where it comes to the use of AI systems in decision-making process. There have been calls for user-friendly public disclosure of algorithms used to allocate welfare payments – which may include an obligation for private parties to be transparent.   Another area where access to information is key is the protection of the environment. In this field, the United Nations Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, commonly referred to as the Aarhus Convention, expands the right of access to information on environmental matters, thus complementing the Tromso Convention.   Rights such as access to information and decision making are the primary tools that empower citizens and defenders to protect the environment we live in. I regret that there are still six Council of Europe member states that have not yet ratified the Aarhus Convention. Ratifying this key instrument is really the absolute minimum.   The right of access to information has a long history on the European continent, which starts with a Swedish law of 1766. But it is only in recent years that most Council of Europe member states have adopted such legislation. The constitutions of several European countries do indeed guarantee the fundamental right to information. Some good state practices also exist. In Estonia, for example, the Public Information Act provides for broad disclosure of public information.   While the vast majority of Council of Europe member states have adopted freedom of information laws, there are still problems with their practical enforcement, such as inconsistent levels of transparency among state institutions or a failure to meet the requirement for proactive disclosure.   Ten states have led the way and will embark on the process of monitoring the implementation of the Tromso Convention.   Once the Convention’s monitoring mechanism is established, as is expected in due course, there will be new opportunities to reinvigorate the right of access to information both in law and in practice.   Now it is up to the Council of Europe member states and non-member states which have not yet ratified the Tromso Convention to do so as soon as possible.   The entry into force of the Tromso Convention today provides a new impetus to make the right of access to official documents a reality for all and for governments to genuinely embrace transparency. They should not miss the opportunity.   http://www.article19.org/right-to-information-around-the-world/ http://www.access-info.org/blog/2020/11/17/council-of-europe-tromso-convention/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories