Open Government Partnership - Armenia

India enacted its Right to Information Act at about the same time as the UK's Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000, and campaigners in both countries have much to learn from one another.

India's act is more powerful than its counterpart in the UK, particularly in its use of penalties for delay or non-compliance. Officials who fail to supply information, or delay, face a personal fine of 250 rupees (£3) a day. The UK act gives officials a host of reasons to refuse information on the basis of various exemptions; this provision was strongly and successfully opposed by citizens in India.

There is greater provision in Indian law for access to information from private companies, including those running outsourced agencies. One example of information obtainable in India that would not have been possible to obtain in the UK or the rest of Europe was when a subsidiary of Monsanto was forced to reveal information related to trials of genetically modified crops, which the company had claimed was protected by commercial interest.

The Indian fight for a right to information law emerged out of a series of struggles for survival by poor people. One challenge was to get payment of a statutory minimum wage for people working in the public sector. My organisation, for the empowerment of workers and peasants, called the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), unearthed startling discrepancies between official records and what was actually happening, including dead people's names being added to labour lists, people being entered as working in more than one place at the same time, and people who had never done manual work listed as manual workers. In one landmark hearing, 40 "ghost" workers were discovered. Their money was being pocketed by corrupt middle men. Disclosing records has significantly controlled such blatant fraud and malpractice.

The right to information law has enabled people to ask important questions about government and has unearthed fraud, corruption and poor governance, including, for instance, the Adarsh housing scam in Mumbai, and the marking of university finals in Delhi. It has, ultimately, begun the vital task of redistributing power in a democratic framework.

Over the past three decades of my work with poor rural communities, one of the days I remember most clearly was in 1996, in a town called Beawar, in central Rajasthan. It was the 33rd day of agitation by the MKSS for the Right to Information Act. I remember a lawyer looking at the bedraggled group sitting in protest and saying, with sympathy and cynicism: "This is a good issue. But you will not win this battle. You are asking a corrupt system to voluntarily expose itself. It is impossible. But carry on." That was in 1996 and we got the national law in 2005.

The MKSS has maintained its grass-roots focus, but also keeps in touch with international debates. It is part of the steering group for the Open Government Partnership, a global initiative set up in September 2011 by eight founding governments – Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, South Africa, the UK and the US – in order to make governments more transparent, effective and accountable.

It is important for leadership to be shared, and to learn from practices in both the north and the south. From participatory planning in Porto Allegre in Brazil and Kerala in India, to the powerful truth and reconciliation process in South Africa and a thriving community radio movement in Nepal, many countries in the south are redefining and reinventing vibrant forms of democratic participation.

Aruna Roy

• Aruna Roy is a founding member of MKSS, which is supporting the Open Government Partnership conference in Brazil. The Guardian's Public Leaders Network is the digital media partner at the conference. 

Source: www.guardian.co.uk/