National Security versus the People’s right to know

-- By ClaireCaton - 12 Mar 2021

National security can be defined as the safekeeping of a nation as a whole, which is regarded as a duty of government. It has also been described as the ability of a state to cater for the protection and defense of its citizenry.1 In order to protect the full exercise of citizens’ rights and legitimate national security interests, it may be necessary for a state in some circumstances to keep certain information secret. However, the words “national security” are sometimes conveniently invoked as a means of shutting down the flow of information and debate. The Australia–East Timor spying scandal and the Pentagon Papers can both be an instance of when “national security” have been conveniently brought forth by the government.

The concept of "the people’s right to know" has been generally approved as a basic concept in democratic societies. If the people govern through their representatives, then it naturally follows that they must know what their government is doing in order to be well-informed rulers. It is justifiable that the citizens have a right to know government business.

National security as a duty of the government and the public’s right to know are often viewed as pulling in opposite directions. There seems to be an inevitable tension between a government’s desire to keep information secret on national security grounds and the public’s right to access information held by public authorities.

Where do we draw the line between national security and the public’s right to know? What is the scope of information about the government that should be kept secret from the people, for how long and why?

Section I. Information is the currency of democracy

A. Guaranteeing freedom of the press is guaranteeing the public’s right to know

In 1970, political activist Ralph Nader claimed a “well-informed citizenry” to be the “lifeblood of democracy” and wrote that “information is the currency of power”. Later, the proposition was condensed into “information is the currency of democracy” and often used by transparency advocates to lobby for openness in government.2

The citizens are those who are governing. They would be the ones entitled to decide for example when their nation faces questions on whether to persist in military activity, whether to amend their energy policies, or how to deal with disaster relief. A common ground of knowledge for the citizens of a country and capacity to reason are important and this can be achieved through a country’s education system. But correct reasoning needs truthful information. Restricted access to relevant information would impede their deliberation, thus jeopardizing the democratic system.

B. The citizens’ right to know how their government is protecting them

It is interesting to note and disquieting to think that the government apparatus has control over the matter of the "people’s right to know" or is the only one largely responsible for restricting this right. The notion that a very few people would decide what is good for us to know and what is good for us not to know appears utterly non democratic. It seems reasonable to say that responsible government secrecy requires a democratic process of oversight. But there is an inherent paradox here. In order to decide if an information is better kept secret, we should have an idea of what the information is about. But then it wouldn’t be secret information anymore. Even if the citizens have a role to play in deciding what kind of information can be kept secret, they will never know the content of what they don’t have access to.

Section II. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of the people

A. Guaranteeing freedom of the press is guaranteeing the public’s right to know

National security is not only something that affects the well-being of the citizens. It also involves their safety, their security, and their freedoms. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right to access information seem to be closely related. To guard against excessive government secrecy, Congress enacted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 1966. The Act is the first comprehensive attempt to promote public access to government documents. Nevertheless, amongst multiple conduits for information and all kinds of ways to educate themselves, it is through the press that most of the citizens get their information, and most Americans will never file a Freedom of Information Act request. The right to access information regarding the government, the administration, and their actions, is therefore essentially useful for journalists who want to inform the public.

B. The citizens’ right to know how their government is protecting them

But this right to access information related to government actions it is just as much important for the ordinary individual in the private sphere. The ordinary citizen, by claiming access to information held by a public administration, would be either exercising its right as a citizen to participate in public affairs or overseeing the political institutions with the wish to improve the economic and social development of his country. On a more personal and individual scale, the citizen’s wish to protect his property, his health, his privacy, would be linked to his right to know how he is being governed. The right to access administrative or government information should therefore not be a right restrictively granted to the media. The transparency of the state and of all public persons is crucial for the needs of democracy and good governance. It is all about the citizens’ right to know how their government is protecting them.

Conclusion

A government that is accessible to the public is necessary to a functioning democracy. Nonetheless, governments’ honesty, integrity and transparency shouldn’t mean full disclosure under all circumstances. To protect legitimate national security interests, including the people’s freedom and rights, it is conceivable that certain information can or should be confidential. There really are military secrets that should not fall into the hands of dangerous people. Striking the right balance seems to be the most challenging.

1. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/national-security-versus-global-security

2. https://theconversation.com/the-right-to-know-vs-the-need-for-secrecy-the-us-experience-40948

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, ClaireCaton
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.