The promises of transparency reached the excess. The candidate Rodrigo Chaves offered broadcast live the sessions of the Governing Council, an error already admitted by the agent and in his opportunity marked by The nation. Chaves emphasized the promise in a debate to make a difference with José María Figueres, but ended up agreeing with him long after the elections, given the claims of various sectors for non-compliance.
But the administration, from day one, has gone far beyond reneging on that offer. Only ten months into the exercise of power, transparency is one of the most degraded values at all levels of government, as evidenced by the cascade of convictions for violating free access to information and freedom of expression.
The sessions of the Governing Council are not public, but now the minutes They don’t say anything either. They are a simple enumeration of topics covered. In the autonomous institutions, there is not even access to the minutes. The National Insurance Institute (INS) declares secret discussions of public interest with the alarming justification of avoiding the generation of “noise”, as happened with the decision to increase salaries in the institution. We know this because the Constitutional Chamber ordered the release of the minutes after an intense struggle between the INS and the press to keep the secret.
At the Atlantic Slope Port Administration Board (Japdeva) they deny the information because a provision of its internal regulations seems to authorize secrecy, regardless of the constitutional guarantee of free access to data and documents, not to mention legal provisions.
In less than a year, the number of outrages resists any comparison with previous governments. Almost none have escaped convictions for illegally withholding information, but few have suffered as many. If the offer of transparency reached the excess during the campaign, the government exercise has not even respected the minimum.
Now, from non-compliance, the administration began to mock, not only the right of everyone to obtain information of public interest, but also the authority of the Constitutional Chamber and the investiture of a deputy. Ariel Robles, a legislator from the Broad Front (FA), asked for information about the government’s advertising campaign and, as usual, did not receive it. The deputy filed an appeal for amparo and, as was to be expected, the magistrates unanimously won it. Until then, nothing deviated from the unfortunate routine of opacity of the administration.
The unusual thing happened when the government complied with the order of the high judges. The Presidential House gave Robles information incomplete and illegible. The advertising schedule it can be used to reward complacent media and punish critical publications, as has happened in our country and could be happening. For this reason, the deputy’s request goes beyond the supervision of spending and touches on the protection of fundamental rights. For this reason, the clear will of the Executive to avoid the publication of public data is also worrying.
The deputy announces new efforts before Chamber IV, but the Legislative Assembly should take an interest in the case. The impairment of the right and the investiture of a legislator falls on all the others. Congress must also pay attention to state investment in advertising, especially now that the National Radio and Television System (Sinart) is in charge of it “democratize” the pattern and “optimize the use of public resources dedicated to the communication of the State.”
