THE frequent and flippant invocation of unspecified security threats in all manner of instances and situations has the potential of reducing a very serious concept to a derisive punchline or nothingness. More insidiously, such allegations can help create a climate in which the public’s right to information is deliberately and unnecessarily curbed. A controversy that erupted over data on electoral rolls to be used in the upcoming general election has cast fresh light on a culture of unnecessary and potentially troubling secrecy in official quarters. The central allegation in the faux controversy is vague but can appear sinister: so-called leaks to the media of electoral rolls data suggest that information critical to a free and fair election can be or has been tampered with. The allegation, made by the ECP in a letter to Nadra that was made public by a recently removed senior official of Nadra, was quickly sucked into the political discourse, where it was turned into rumour and conspiracy about alleged attempted election rigging.

Can the public dissemination of electoral rolls data amount to a security threat or breach? Surely not. The electoral rolls are meant to be scrutinised by the public before they are finalised. That is how the ECP assembles up-to-date and comprehensive voter lists. Moreover, aggregate data on the electorate is of intrinsic public interest, with information on the number of women and non-Muslim voters, for example, used to help widen the net of registered voters. Perhaps the ECP could make an argument that Nadra is not authorised to release certain data, or that a violation of procedure and protocol occurred, but such missteps, if they do take place, hardly merit allegations of threats to national security and the sanctity of the electoral process. Most damagingly, the ECP appears to have been unaware of an amendment to election laws that explicitly gives a candidate the right to request the election rolls to be used by the returning officers and presiding officers. Simply put, the ECP alleged a security threat where none is apparent and wantonly cast doubt on the integrity of the electoral process.

The problem is not limited to a few unnecessarily secrecy-prone ECP officials. Invoking national security is routine for officials who seek to shield the public from information the public ought to have access to. The reports of several important commissions have been withheld over the decades. Economic matters, population statistics and agreements with foreign states are frequently deemed too sensitive to be made public. The effects on scientific study, policy debates and informed decision-making are likely significant. But there is also the effect of the government and the state and its institutions making themselves unaccountable to the very people that they are meant to serve. A culture of secrecy is a culture of impunity. The state must shed its old habits.

Published in Dawn, June 20th, 2018