The post-Cold War world order of the 1990s set the tone with a thrust on transparency in political democratization. The international wave was so strong that developing countries like Nepal were swept along, readily embracing policies deeply engrained in the changed global landscape. International financial and socio-economic development institutions forcefully advocated for extensive transparency in every action and decision of governments, so that citizens could enjoy unencumbered access to information, thereby strengthening democratic values and paving the way for good governance.
Nepal, on one hand, suffered from becoming a mere market for foreign products, which narrowed its export base and severely undermined national economic growth, and on the other, in the name of transparency, state's confidential and secret matters were either leaked or slipped through the cracks. This situation, inevitably, exposed national security to serious vulnerabilities. These two pillars of democratic governance—transparency and secrecy—often pull in opposite directions, but both are indispensable for the effective functioning of government. While practicing them in day-to-day activity of the government, maintaining a logical and practical balance between them had become increasingly essential, due to Nepal’s vulnerable position shaped by its geostrategic location.
There is no denying that transparency enhances the ability and capacity of citizens to rigorously scrutinize the actions and performances of the government, thereby promoting accountability and reinforcing institutional credibility. When transparency prevails, citizens remain well-informed and safeguard against the misuse of state power. In a democratic government, if decisions are taken in camera and the processes remain shrouded in opacity, the values and norms of democracy begin to decay, making pliable ground for the rise of autocracy or even monocracy. With its paramount importance in democratic structure, transparency stands as a keystone of good governance, which contributes to fostering public trust in government. Transparency does not mean being naked, rather, it signifies being decent.
Security realm
Given its inherently sensitive domain, national security always perceives absolute transparency as a latent threat to the nation's survival. Protecting critical and important information, which affects the sovereignty and national unity of Nepal, is basically a matter of maintaining complete secrecy. Within this milieu of national security, there always stands a pressing challenge in striking a sensible balance between openness and confidentiality. There was a time when tensions frequently arose between information seekers and information providers.
Many times, information seekers were compelled to knock on the door of the National Information Commission. Only after issuing the formal directives by the Commission, the concerned officials provided the requested information or documents. In a few cases, the Commission has also imposed a fine on those officials who did not comply with its directives. This situation brought two institutions—the Commission and the concerned ministry—in a state of tug- of-war.
Later, all the ministries classified certain official documents as confidential. In response to such decisions, information seekers raised questions about the intentions of the government. They alleged that the government's motive was to hide information—an affront to democratic values and constitutional rights.
In a democratic system, transparency empowers citizens to consistently scrutinize government actions, which helps reduce corruption. Transparency is not merely a tool for good governance, rather it is a democratic necessity. In view of this, transparency in government operations, particularly in areas such as procurement, service delivery, decision-making for the welfare of citizens, is indispensable. In the pursuit of openness, the government’s decisions must not be compromised with national security.
At one side, there is a constitutional right to information, which unequivocally states that ‘every citizen shall have the right to demand or receive information on any matter of personal or public interest’. On the other hand, its restrictive clause stipulates that ‘no person shall be compelled to disclose information that is required to be kept confidential by law’. There is a thin and delicate line between these two versions that should be distinguished through a patriotism-oriented interpretation. While disclosing the sensitive information, all concerned must give paramount consideration to the national interest and national security imperatives. National security policy is the umbrella policy encompassing all sectoral policies, such as industrial, economic, agriculture, health and education policies.
National security operates in different realms—basically with internal and external threats, intelligence operations, defense, internal security, sensitive national issues, and diplomatic negotiations. Premature or excessive disclosure can jeopardise national interests. Such an activity weakens the nation in particular. It must be taken into mind that in such a situation, secrecy can not be a choice but a necessity.
Some of the government’s responsible persons have developed a tendency of being vocal, believing that their respective ministries are superior to others and that their policy decisions need not comply with the national security policy. If such a mindset prevails, the entire government’s line ministries cannot work in unison in pursuit of national interests. No ministry can function in isolation, rather, a collective and coordinated effort must be reflected in their working styles—avoiding the repetition of past mistakes.
In order to cultivate a culture of responsible governance, officials must be trained to discern the 'fine line' between transparency and secrecy. Their ethical conduct, reinforced by professionalism, should guide them in identifying the delicate boundary. A mature working culture is a must to understand that these two are not adversaries but rather complementary gears serving different purposes.
