It seems that rarely a day goes by when the media is not reporting on yet another local crime. In the past robberies, assaults and murders were all events that occurred in “other” places, but sadly they are now happening here with an alarming frequency.
The Cayman Islands Government is in the process of installing a network of CCTV cameras in the hopes that they will help deter criminals and detect crimes. This approach has also famously been adopted in the UK where it is estimated that over 1.5 million cameras track the movements of people each day. Although in use there for over 25 years the controversy over its effectiveness and impact on privacy continue to be debated. The government here will soon have the capability to watch us more closely, but a more pressing issue might really be if we too should be watching them?
In George Orwell’s classic novel, 1984, he describes a totalitarian society in which the government, aided by pervasive surveillance, has near total control over its citizens. Today, with the use of CCTV, some of these fictional concepts have materialised. The idea to reverse the roles and “watch” government is not new. Much like in Orwell’s fictional world, government, if left unchecked, tends to evolve toward more control, which in itself is reason enough for why it should be watched. Access legislation, such the Freedom of Information Law, provides the public with a tool to monitor the work of their government.
The benefits of FOI are sometimes misunderstood and often downplayed but are very important for Cayman society. The objects of the law are to reinforce and give further effect to certain fundamental principles of democracy, namely government accountability and transparency. FOI also enables the public to gain the necessary knowledge it needs to be able to more effectively participate in national decision-making issues.
Cayman’s FOI Law provides that “every person shall have the right to obtain access to a record other than an exempt record”. In order for this to work effectively it must be based on the premise that legislative exceptions are applied narrowly, and based on specific and identifiable harms that are outweighed by the countervailing public interest. The default is clearly on the side of openness.
That being said, a sound deduction is that if a public official is providing a public service the reasoning, rational and cost of that service should be disclosable to the people. After all, politicians and public servants are accountable to the people.
An open government helps to reassure the public that they are being led efficiently. English reformer Jeremy Bentham believed that “the more strictly we are watched, the better we behave.” This ideology can easily be extended to government. Transparency makes office-holders more accountable by making information about their performance more public.
While CCTV may or may not help to prevent crime, public scrutiny is a natural deterrent to maladministration. It is a way to ensure that government is acting correctly and in accordance with its obligations to the country. Knowing that their actions and decisions will be analysed will certainly help to promote ethical and responsible behaviour among politicians and civil servants alike.
Only a government with something to hide should fear access legislation. Yes, governments often complain that FOI costs too much to maintain, requires too much manpower and can be exploited by the media. We need to be mindful of where these complaints are coming from. Access regimes can take many years to embed into a society, especially where historically governments have worked under a veil of protection and secrecy. Change can be difficult and it takes time. Bureaucrats may need to improve their overall approach to decision making and records management, but this will almost inevitably result in significant savings – both in time and money. The mindset of the public also needs to change. If the FOI Law is not used, it cannot possibly be an effective tool for change.
In ancient times, it was God alone who watched us. We were governed by a system of moral and ethical codes. Today, technology has evolved and our ability to gather information and maintain control has grown exponentially. While government will soon have an enhanced ability to watch us and gather information through the use of CCTV, in a democratic society this cannot reasonably be a unilateral development. The real question is not if our government needs to be watched, it is who will watch them if we don’t?
Pasha Delahunty is the Operations Administrator and Registrar of Hearings for the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Related Videos
