Introduction
The issue of human rights has featured prominently in many legislative processes and constitutions across the globe. One of the outstanding concerns revolving around people’s liberties is the public’s right to know. Different declarations have identified the right to information as a fundamental human right that all governments need to take seriously. Unfortunately, the nature of this subject remains divisive since governments across the world tend to have their unique objectives to promote national security. Elsea identifies governments as bodies formed by the people to protect their interests (12). These aspects offer a glimpse of the nature of this topic and why it remains a source of contention in many countries. Since the ultimate aim of any government is to maximize security, the process of withholding sensitive information needs to balance the security concerns of the nation and the rights of the citizens.
Position Regarding the Public’s Right to Know
Although Article 10 of ECHR and Article 19 of the UDHR declare that members of the public should be allowed to receive timely information about government actions. However, some loopholes exist whereby such a decision could have negative consequences. In the United States, many agencies acknowledge that the public should be allowed to seek and access federal government records (Roztocki 172). The passage of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of 1967 has led to this right. Under this law, all government agencies and organizations are required to provide timely information to citizens upon request. However, some issues will always remain divisive and capable of jeopardizing national security issues when they are exposed to members of the public.
The stability of a country will depend on the measures different agencies undertake to maximize national security. Tamunosiki observes that governments should be able to undertake projects and identify them as classified when they intend to safeguard citizens’ lives (67). Some government activities are directly linked to national security. Any decision to disclose them could allow terrorists and criminals to interfere with such activities and eventually affect the country’s security. Under FOIA, the government has the power to withhold any form of information or data if the ultimate purpose is to protect the interests of the greatest majority or the nation (Roztocki 176). The utilitarian theory by John Stuart Mill would support this ethical reasoning since it permits actions that will protect the needs and maximize happiness for the greatest majority. It becomes a powerful framework for helping analysts address this issue from an ethical perspective.
Some scholars have presented additional insights regarding their position on this ethical issue. For example, Elsea states that outlined exceptions concerning the question of information and the right to know are valid and acceptable (16). This happens to be the case since they help protect international relations, foster national defense, and promote the notion of public interest. Some of the data the government withholds could be aimed at protecting personal information. Tamunosiki reveals that they are critical exceptions aimed at safeguarding the rights of whistleblowers (69). These ideas explain the direction in which this ethical dilemma should take. Based on this information, journalists should be able to strike a perfect balance and engage in reporting practices that have the potential to promote national interests.
Opposing Views of the Selected Position
While the government is compelled under the existing laws and declarations, the move to withhold some kind of information from members of the public is unethical and creates room for engaging in activities and projects capable of affecting the welfare of the population in the long term. In a congressional report by Elsea, it occurred that most of the initiatives the government identified as classified revolved around the creation of weapons that could kill entire populations (4). Some of the existing exceptions were also being misused in different countries to protect the personal interests of a small number of topmost leaders. For instance, the loopholes in law could be blamed for allowing some private citizens to engage in actions that could amount to money laundering and corruption.
The malpractices committed in the name of classified information have made it impossible for many countries in the developing world to remain poor due to corruption and ineffective governance. In the past, most of the declassified reports have revealed that the government works on lethal projects and experiments that could affect lives, such as the creation of weapons of mass destruction. Article 19 of the UDHR stands out as a powerful document intended to address this ethical question with finality (Sharma and Bhadauria 611). Since the government needs to engage in actions and projects aimed at safeguarding the interests of the people, any form of information should be available and shared with them promptly (Alguliyev et al. 3). However, these realities explain why the identified topic is divisive and remains one of the ethical dilemmas that citizens and governments should address from an informed perspective.
Sporting the Proposed Position
The available evidence is strong and capable of supporting the fact government should disclose any form of information to members of the public. The issues of corruption and dangerous project show clearly that leaders rely on established policies and laws to promote personal interests while putting their citizens at risk. However, the question of national security appears to carry more weight when it comes to the question of the public’s right to know. Past case studies have shown conclusively that some types of data and information should not be made public since they might do more harm (Elsea 7). For example, the move to disclose personal information to members of the public could jeopardize the overall security and freedom of the individual.
It is also evident that constitutions are designed in such a way that they strike a balance between public and private information. Additionally, classified information regarding an ongoing security project needs to remain secret until the intended objectives are eventually realized (Elsea 8). Failure to do so means that the targeted enemies could get additional information after the decision is made to disclose the intended project to the public. Consequently, the involved parties will find it hard to complete the initiative, thereby affecting the overall security of the nation. In the recent past, cases of terrorism have been recorded in different parts of the world. The government has been relying on existing laws to engage in a wide range of activities aimed at safeguarding and protecting the nation against any form of foreign attack (Alguliyev et al. 5). These undertakings are sensitive and should not be shared with members of the public. When the government is aware of the demands of the public, the most important thing is to remain involved and focus on specific activities that could contribute to improved national security.
Due to the nature of the existing opposition and the demand for complete disclosure, the government must capitalize on the existing policies to only pursue what serves the interests of the people. Such a strategy will ensure that more citizens are supportive of all actions and projects even if they remain classified or top secret. The moral theory of deontology supports such a decision since it permits actions whose foundations or intentions are right. By applying such considerations, chances are high that more people will be in a position to address this ethical dilemma with finality.
Conclusion
The issue of sharing every kind of information with members of the public remains sensitive and capable of affecting the interests of both citizens and governments. From the above discussion, it is agreeable that some individuals support a scenario whereby nothing is hidden from the public. However, the argumentative process has revealed that any government must protect its interests and promote the safety of the people it serves. Consequently, there is a need for nations to have additional laws allowing their agencies to withhold sensitive information to balance the wider security concerns of the nation and the rights of the citizens. This strategy is evidence-based and capable of ensuring that some of the classified issues or projects are never known by the enemies of a given country. Such a move has the potential to empower and ensure that most of the targeted citizens are free to achieve their maximum potential.
Works Cited
Alguliyev, Rasim, et al. “Information Security as a National Security Component.” Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective, vol. 30, no. 47, 2020, pp. 1-18.
Elsea, Jennifer K. The Protection of Classified Information: The Legal Framework. Congressional Research Service, 2017.
Roztocki, Narcyz, et al. “The Role of Information and Communication Technologies in Socioeconomic Development: Towards a Multi-Dimensional Framework.” Information Technology for Development, vol. 25, no. 2, 2019, pp. 171-183.
Sharma, Mohit, and Sanjiv S. Bhadauria. “Right to Information: Pros and Cons.” International Journal of Advance Research and Innovative Ideas in Education, vol. 3, no. 6, 2017, pp. 609-620.
Tamunosiki, Ogan V. “John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism: A Critique.” International Journal of Peace and Conflict Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, 2021, pp. 65-76.