Interview: Zoran Jacev, president of Transparency Macedonia

It is hard for the citizens to realize their right to access to information

The president of the civil society organization Transparency Macedonia, Zoran Jacev, in the middle of September attracted public’s attention by presenting the results from the public opinion survey on access to information. In Macedonia the Law for Access to Information is still in a phase of preparation and at the same time 41% of the surveyed citizens do not know yet that their right to information is guaranteed by the Constitution. Jacev, in this occasion, points out that “there is almost no authority in the transition countries that is immediately and at any time ready to bring laws that will harm its comfort in ruling”.

Did you expect with the realized survey to get results that have undoubtedly attracted public’s attention?
Yes, we did, because every day we contact with the citizens that come to our information center, where they are given help if being victims of corruption and bad rule. Some of the results have really surprised us, for example those that have shown that 41% of the respondents do not know that they have a guaranteed right to access to information by the Constitution, that is, almost every second person in Macedonia does not know that he/she has a right to such access. On the other hand, the number of citizens who have not asked for information from the state administration is really defeating and we expected their number to be really bigger. We were mostly defeated by the fact that 74% of the respondents that were not given information did not do anything further. It means that the administration in such cases can do whatever it wants with the citizens.

With the survey we wanted to see the number of the citizens that would use the Law for Access to Information as means to realize their rights. We found out that a great number of citizens have difficulties realizing this right and it is due to a number of objective and subjective reasons. The objective reasons are the insufficiently precise process through which the request should pass, the insufficient number of engaged people, unorganized structure that is to accept and process the request. We consider that there is a lack of an organized system for communication with the citizens, there is not a person that as a representative of institutions, for example, of ministries, would give wanted information to the citizens. An objective reason is also the inefficient keeping records for information, that is, there is not a mechanism for giving and subliming the necessary information. We consider the self-censorship of the employees in the institutions to be a subjective reason in the process itself. It is one of the key things, they give only the information they have to give. Secondly, there is the habit to function through connections. People firstly ask themselves if they have connections anywhere and then they look for information. This is where we can search for the reasons why institutions are not open.

Why did you carry out the survey in this period of the year and in this moment of social living?
Above all, we have an obligation towards the Finn government within the project “Strengthening the responsibility in the Western Balkans” that has simultaneously been carried out for three years in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia. There is no coincidence with the actual events in the country, the time has simply come to do this survey.

Where is Macedonia in the region at the moment according to these results?
In relation to this topic, at the end of September, there will be a conference where the given results will be compared. I do not think there should be some big differences between the countries. Croatia has just adopted the law, Bosnia and Herzegovina already has it, but I do not believe there will be any difference in the institutions’ relation towards citizens. There might be a difference in the experience in communication with the institutions, in comparison with Bulgaria and Slovakia, because the law has been applied in these countries for quite a long time and the civil society organizations that lobby for this right and monitor its implementation are very active.

Will the results be submitted to the Ministry of Justice?
Yes, but in order to have a better insight in the so far influence of Transparency in the field of work of the Law for Access to Information, we should know that so far we have made analysis of the international standards that are valid for this region and we have printed them as a sublimate. We have also made a comparative analysis of nine legal texts for access to information and on the basis of this we have prepared a draft-law text. We have previously signed a memorandum for cooperation with the Ministry of Justice in preparing the Law for Access to Information. That legal text was supposed to be completed by the Government until its final adoption, however, it has not been done yet. I think that the authorities with their self-censorship have reduced the draft-law and have decreased the anticipated members. OSIMF has translated and sent the text for an opinion from the international organization Article 19 and the Council of Europe, that have sent references and suggestions that are quite completely same as ours. We would like to build in their references and clarified text.

What can be further expected with the work of the draft-law?
Two things might happen. We have been contacting the Ministry of Justice since the beginning of the year, but they objectively have a problem to put the text on the Assembly’s agenda. I am afraid that it can be passed quickly, without the necessary dispute, so its quality will be called into question. After this survey I announce that we will organize tribunes where we will take part together with the interested civil society organizations to bridge the gap and by the time the Law is passed, we will have offered a ready text. The Government might have time and pass it through a procedure, but if we see that it has not been put on the passing list for next year, it is not excluded that we and a part of the civil society organizations will accelerate the whole procedure itself. It is good for the image of the state to pass the law. There is a need for enlargement of the civil society organizations that work on access to information and we have already discussed with OSIMF and Pro Media to work on a common strategy. There is unnecessary and too big competition in the civic sector in this area and we can also work together, which in my opinion will bring good results.

How long would you wait for the law to be passed?
I cannot set a deadline, but at the moment the plan is being prepared for passing laws next year. Unless they put it on the passing agenda, we will push. The outcome is the same, either we will push or we will face the fact that we will have a problem with deadlines from international organizations. Most probably, the Republic of Macedonia will impose a deadline for passing this law, answering the EU questionnaire. Round tables that we are planning to organize will have an aim to purify and financially accord with the law and they will be organized in cooperation with the Council of Europe office in Macedonia. We are also planning to organize an international conference where domestic and foreign experts would give their accordance for the legal text. We consider this process to be an incubator for passing the law and if we, with this project, as partners of the Ministry of Justice, succeed in influencing the Law for Access to Information to be passed, then it will encourage other civic organizations to take part in passing laws. Our attitude is that where good things are done, regardless of the fact who is in power, it should be supported and helped. This country has to use its own quality potential, regardless of the fact if it is in the governmental or civic sector. It is the only efficient way for the reforms to be carried out efficiently and with quality. We think that the draft-law is a solid legal text that needs to be completed and acceptable as such. It is necessary to define the access to information, who has access to it, what are the exceptions, what is a secret proclaimed by law, which procedures the request has to go through, who is to reply, what is the institution’s responsibility and which institution will implement the law. We are proposing a state commission to be formed, comprising either party independent experts or, if it is not possible, the composition to be balanced independent – to contain representatives from the power and opposition. It would take care of regular implementation of the law and in a role of a secondary organ it would decide upon assumptions for access to information.

It is not simple to make a law, some things are for the first time regulated by it, but it will simply have to be passed, because it is one of the key laws for good rule of the country and preventing corruption. 94% of the citizens in the survey have shown that they would like the access to information to be regulated, 99% of them say that the access to regulation should be regulated either without any restrictions or with restrictions. At least 68% of the respondents think that the access should be free, but regulated by a law.

Is it in favor of the present leading cadres not to pass the Law for Access to Information?
The political cadres that in a certain moment are in power without exception refrain from passing “problematic” laws that can limit the freedom of ruling. It sometimes happens that such laws are passed towards the end of their mandate, so that they can be used to limit the rule of the next power. There is almost no authority in the transition countries that is immediately and at any time ready to bring laws that will harm its comfort in ruling. The Law for Preventing Corruption is an example of a law passed at the end of ruling of one political group. One of the main reasons why such law is not passed is violating the ruling comfort. And the second reason is the existence of so many laws that wait to be passed and are considered to be important, priority, laws that enter the group of laws from the application of the Ohrid Agreement, decentralization.