[ad_1]
The right to information remains an open question, both in the past and today, and should be of vital importance to the whole society. Of course, the Institute for Access to Information, Transparency and Personal Data Protection (INAI) has its lights and shadows. In any case, it is important to defend the right to information in its current institutional act, which is more than the INAI. Let’s take a look.
First. At the same time, the right to know is fundamental and essential to the exercise of other human privileges recognized by the Constitution and the law. Unfortunately, currently a small part of society is interested in more than just questions of accountability and public oversight, so the so-called civil society and the press are the only public that do so. They are concerned about the future of this right and the institutions that encourage it. This first generation right has been able to become part of the perception and concerns of a population that is not interested in politics, in what the government is currently doing or not doing in Mexico.
It is undoubtedly absurd to create an autonomous body to protect every classical human or social right. However, this irrationality no longer makes sense if one considers that the right to know is relatively new in the country and that critical thinking (i.e., a behavioral pattern of questioning, verifying and comparing data) has been formed in the country. Information that a person has obtained in any way, and what is worse, he does not know that he can know many other information to optimize the quality of his life) is a commitment for a few. It is worth stating here that the meaning of obviousness is relative and that with the emergence of rights related to personal data protection brought about by information technology and the Internet, it is necessary to return to the original reasons for this unique right.
Second. Knowledge is a tool that empowers people. The more knowledge there is (the relevant data and what it means), the greater the ability to defend human rights. If people (the vast majority) knew how many weeks they contributed in the IMSS, ISSSTE and how to consolidate them, if they knew how much they have in their retirement savings account, if they contribute in the aforementioned IMSS or ISSSTE, if they verified if their specialist (whether from the public or private sector) has the respective professional license and is duly certified, and many other specific information that access to public information can provide, things would be different. When people are used to knowing more, the right to information can no longer be withdrawn.
INAI and the guaranteeing organizations of the states have organized millions of courses, congresses, conferences and weeks on the most diverse topics, but the fact is that they have not changed the behavior of the majority of Mexicans regarding the different uses of this right. .
This is not my personal assessment. It is a verifiable fact of reality that people do not care about INAI because they do not know what they do not know (this is the starting point for understanding all redundancies). Undoubtedly, in the new institutional design of the Mexican State, many practices stipulated in the legal framework are at odds with the best international standards. It is good to make major reforms. But in this process, among other things, there is the right to know what needs to be protected and promoted.
Third. One thing must be clear: there will be no transparency march. It lacks a social base and is therefore sacrificial. We will have to call on the well-trained and well-informed managers of 4T and Morena to insist on reason. The right to know will not be spontaneously internalized into the attitudes and values of Mexicans. If the INAI and its similar bodies in the states do not achieve this, then even less will happen if this task remains stagnant. Unlike the route taken so far, it has succeeded in convincing a minority (in percentage terms), but it has failed to achieve its fundamental mission, which, combined with other factors, is why the country is in this predicament.
I remember that 23 years ago, when I had the opportunity to travel to several developed countries to learn about their own experiences, I could not find more literature on this subject. They told me: it is natural and not a topic of discussion. In Sweden, for example, one of the fundamental laws in the constitution is the law related to transparency, adopted in 1766. From a distance, it is obvious that it was already discussed at the time and that no one questioned it in 2001. Problem. Today, more than 22 years after the approval of the first federal transparency law in Mexico and the first local law in Sinaloa, Mexico is witnessing a similar situation, but the reality has not fundamentally changed. René Bejarano, Ricardo Monreal, Arturo Saldívar and Javier Corral and other critical thinkers should talk about how we can use what we have to change ourselves for the benefit of the country.
________________________________________
@evillanuevamx
ernestovillanueva@hushmail.com
[ad_2]
Source link
