" `...You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.'
 `But the plans were on display...'
 `On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.'
 `That's the display department.'
 `With a torch.'
 `Ah, well the lights had probably gone.'
 `So had the stairs.'
 `But look you found the notice didn't you?'
 `Yes,' said Arthur, `yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying `Beware of The Leopard'."
 - The Hitch Hikers' Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams

Douglas Adams captures the frustration encountered by many of us at the often baffling process involved in attempting to gain access to information. It is the work of the Access to Information Programme (AIP) to take the information out of the locked filing cabinets and put it on display in broad daylight for all to see - or at least to mend the stairs and fit a new light bulb in order to make the journey a little less arduous. The Exectuive Director of the AIP, GERGANA JOULEVA, spoke to The Sofia Echo's LUCY COOPER about freedom of information in Bulgaria.

ESTABLISHED in 1996, the AIP has been campaigning for nearly 10 years on issues relating to freedom of information. I asked Jouleva what some of the programme's biggest triumphs have been to date.

"There have been several periods in the development of the AIP, in which every period has had its own triumphs. We started with the campaign for the Freedom of Information (FOI) law. In this first period, our triumph was the adoption of the law. For a period of two years, the AIP was the leading organisation in the public campaign for FOI legislation. It was a very nice period for us, because we were travelling around the country meeting a lot of people and discussing the law. Simultaneously, we had discussions in our office with lawyers representing different parts of Bulgarian society; human rights lawyers, lawyers specialising in commercial law. In 1999, we produced an Access to Information legislation paper and presented it at an international conference. Simultaneously the Government prepared the first draft of the Access to Public Information Law.

These two years were very exciting for us, with lots of meetings and public events connected to the law. The adoption of the law was a triumph for us. It was adopted in June 2000 and was implemented in July 2000.

Maybe because of our campaigning during this period, the first case when a citizen requested information from the Ministry of Culture came a week after the law came into force. The first court case was two months after the adoption of the law; it was an appeal against a decision by the director of the tax administration.

"The second important period in our activities was the implementation of the law. We had some small triumphs concerning this too - successful decisions when people requested information, favourable decisions by the Supreme Adminstrative Court on appeals.

"And of course a triumph, or success, of our organisation is our international recognition. First, in 2002, the AIP organised a FOI litigation conference. We invited people from the Central and Eastern European region - from the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary - and also from other continents - from South Africa, the Open Democratic Advice Centre, people from Mexico, and from India, the Commonwealth New Rights Initiative based in New Delhi. All these organisations are very active in the area of FOI. It was the idea on the last day of the conference to establish a FOI advocates network. I think this was a very big success for our organisation because it was primarily our idea to invite our colleagues from other countries to establish this network and disseminate information.

"This year, in March, the AIP received the Templeton Award for promoting freedom, ethics and values and also for being an Institute of Excellence. For me, these awards are really a triumph and success, in that they are international recognition of our work to advocate better freedom of information, legislation and implementation and for more transparency of the government in our country."

Connected to these triumphs are the problems and challenges that the AIP has had to overcome and continues to face. "Of course, every week we have some small successes, some no so big successes, and some disappointments," says Jouleva.

"All these years since the establishment of the organisation up until now, of course we have had a lot of problems.  Maybe the biggest problem is the culture from former times, of secrecy, of a mentality of a closed society, because everybody who knows former socialist Bulgarian society knows that it was a very closed society. It is only in the past 15 years that people have started to travel, to have the chance to see what is happening in other countries. In former times, it was only a small group of people who had the opportunity to travel, and it was mainly people who were connected with the government. So, this creates a culture of a closed mentality. I think that this is one of the biggest problems to overcome in the implementation of laws such as the freedom of information.

"It is not only the culture of the administration, because people in administration have changed - a lot of young people now work in the administration - but also of citizens who have to override the attitude to administration as something very far away from them. This is a long process and of course it takes time and a lot of effort from civil society. I think that now it is important to have education on issues such as human rights from the very beginning, from primary school."

Jouleva, a sociologist by profession, illustrates the existence of this `culture of secrecy' with an example of people's thinking shortly after the end of communism in Bulgaria. "I remember when we prepared a paper in 1998.We conducted a survey of specialists - journalists and lawyers - on the basic standards of freedom of information legislation. The results were very interesting for me, of course I was expecting this, but it was clear that the majority of journalists, about 60 per cent of the sample that we interviewed, believed that when people requested information that they had to explain the reason for requesting this information - a legitimate interest. That's why I think that this is all part of that mentality, that closed society and a culture of secrecy. This characterises not only Bulgaria; other former socialist countries are the same. Our colleagues from developed countries, such as the United States for example, say that this is similar to the culture of secrecy that characterised the times of the Cold War, which is connected with things such as fears of spies, which was reflected in the administration's classification of more information."

However, it is not only the legacy of this `closed society' that FOI campaigners have to deal with. In our post-9/11 society, the focus is shifting to rights concerning the individual.

"Now we have the same developments," says Jouleva, referring to those of the communist era, " connected with the era after 9/11, which is more influenced by the connection between the freedom of information and personal data protection."

Getting Personal

The AIP's lawyers were involved in the preparation of the law concerning personal data protection which was adopted in 2002. "Of course, this is connected with freedom of information," says Jouleva, "as it is one of the exemptions of freedom of information." The AIP's work in this area now focuses mainly on the definition of `personal data'. "As an organisation which advocates FOI we are interested in having a more clear definition of `personal' in the Personal Data Protection Act because at the moment it is a vague definition, it is too broad. The definition is translated from the directorate as `social identity'. This is too broad - what is `social identity'?"
"Bulgarian access law is not-so-good, but-not-so-bad," laughs Jouleva. "We have a good procedure, but not very clear definitions. But I think the definitions may be developed in the process of implementation."

The practical implications surrounding the shadiness of the category of `social identity' often pertain to information concerning public figures.

"When journalists requested information on public figures, there were several refusals on the basis that it was personal data connected with social identity. But this depends upon your understanding of social identity."

Jouleva gives the example that if you understand social identity as including social position, then this would lead to the conclusion that the names of ministers fall under the category of protected personal, and agrees that this is a crazy notion.

"We have cases in which for example, upon the request for information about a business trip of the ministries, we have had a decision that this is the personal data of public figures, and of course it is impossible to interpret it this way. I think this is one of the biggest problems, because this personal data protection legislation is relatively new in Bulgaria, from 2000, I think there is bad interpretation. In democratic societies when a person goes into public life, such as politics, she or he has to know that they will have to be more transparent."

Transparent Promises of Government

Transparency has become a watchword in Bulgarian politics and politicians are all too aware of the need to be seen to be being transparent. However, all too often the prioritising of transparency is just that: transparent; a ploy to attract votes, devoid of any real substance.

"In the pre-election period we had several radio shows discussing the topic of access to information and transparency as a policy, and introducing party problems in different parties. But, in general there isn't a party in the Bulgarian political sphere which is very active in access to information. All of them put transparency as important, but nobody has a clear and detailed programme of what they are planning to do on access to information. This was our main criticism to all political parties, because five years is enough time to have some experience and recommendations, even from the annual report of the Ministry of Administration, and to put into the political programme some issues, because this law is not only one of the laws, it is the basis of democratic society, it is the basis of public participation, it is the basis of anti-corruption activities. But nobody from the political sphere has a detailed explanation as to what they plan to do about the implementation of the law, only in terms of general transparency. They say they will work for a transparent government, but how? We have the law now, we have problems in the implementation of the law; that's why political parties, from our point of view, have to have some clear understanding and plans as to how they will override these problems."

It is this practical aspect, the concrete implementation of the law, that forms the core of the AIP's work.

Testing the Law with Concrete Cases

"It is always good to work on the cases, and it is more effective from the point of view of the campaign. That is why when we started our work, we started to work on the cases. I think it is one of our strengths as an organisation. We don't concentrate only on theory, we always try to practice these standards and to see how it works in concrete cases. At the moment, we have a lot of litigation cases. Every month we have about 20 cases that people bring to us."

The AIP provides free legal help in all cases, but has had to develop criteria on which to take on cases for litigation. "Public interest is a major part of the criteria, or testing the law, for example, to test a definition in the law that was not very clear," says Jouleva, but stresses the fact that the cases the AIP represents are all real cases that are brought to them, not cases the AIP has put forward for the purpose of testing the law.

Some high profile cases in which the AIP has been recently involved include the appeal for access to the contracts in the cases of the Trakia Highway concession, the buying of Microsoft software on the state budget, and deal between the Government and the Crown Agents.

"Maybe Crown Agents is the best company in the world," say Jouleva, "but we requested the contract between the Government and this company because it is important for society to have clarity about these big contracts, which are bought from the Bulgarian budget.

If Microsoft is so good, if Crown Agents are so good, what is the secret in this contract? These are test cases with these contracts. It has to be clear for our Government - it is not important which party is governing the country - that the Government contracts with companies have to be public. Why do we have access and publicity for the small contracts, but not for the big contracts with the Government? The court decides that Microsoft is not obliged under Bulgarian law. This is understandable, but our government is obliged under Bulgarian law!"

Jouleva sees this process of continuing to request information, despite refusals, as vital to the development of the freedom of information and democratic society as a whole.

"I think people have to be active on this. Freedom and democracy are not things you can buy, you must be active and exercise your rights. From the general point of view I think we have had a lot of developments in Bulgaria, positive developments. Of course, sometimes pessimism comes into play, sometimes we are not very happy, but in general, Government bodies are becoming more and more open and things that were under question five years ago are no longer question, but of course we must do our work constantly."
This work involves awareness raising events such as Right to Know Day on September 28 at which a golden key was awarded to the organisation that had helped the access to information cause, and a golden padlock to the individual or organisation that had hindered it, and a `tied key' for the funniest decision to withhold information. Previous recipients of the padlock and tied key, include respectively the National Agricultural Fund, which had not answered a single APIA request since the adoption of the act in 2000 and a department of the Ministry of Justice for issuing the funniest decision to withhold access to public information.

The work seems to be paying off. National polls in 2000 showed that only three per cent of Bulgarians knew about their rights to the access of information. Last year this statistic was up to 21 per cent.

The stairs may be rickety and the light dim, but more people are managing to find their way to the filing cabinets, whose locks are being gradually prised open.

For more information visit the AIP's comprehensive website: www.aip-bg.org