It is a progressive truism that business, the engine of prosperity, job-creation and economic growth, can only flourish in a society where the flow of information is free and unfettered by undue state control. Without the assurance that financial data is not manipulated, that vital information is not being suppressed and that government malfeasance is not being concealed, it is virtually impossible for the private sector to make the long-term, strategic investment decisions that are essential to its survival.
It is the innate tendency of all governments at all times and in all places to lapse, whenever possible, into the suppression of information that may be deemed sensitive or simply inconvenient or embarrassing. Often it is only an inquiring and free media, along with a vigilant civil society, that stands between the closed society and the right of access to state information that is so properly protected in South Africa's Bill of Rights.
Apart from its inherent iniquity, the broad provisions of the Bill fly in the face of our modern technological ability to spread information rapidly across the world, beyond the reach of any government's attempts to censor or conceal. Thus, Twitter is making a nonsense of British courts' attempts to suppress the names of celebrities who have taken out super-injunctions, while WikiLeaks has demonstrated the impunity with which confidential state documents can be released to a curious public.
We know, too, that the recent revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East have been fuelled and spread by use of the social media, in a way that has confounded the authoritarian and all-controlling regimes.
Globally, experts agree that complete censorship of information on the Internet is virtually impossible to enforce. Sources cannot be traced, material cannot be removed from sites and anonymity guarantees unmediated free speech.
I am told that China employs some 30 000 'Internet policeman' to monitor the worldwide web and search engines such as Google and Yahoo. I do not believe that is the kind of society envisaged by those who wrote our Constitution and encoded the liberties that make us a free people.
That freedom is not an abstract notion cherished by idealists. History has taught us that throughout the world, nations with more economic freedom are wealthier than nations with less economic freedom. There are no wealthy nations that have little economic freedom. And there is no economic freedom where the free flow of information is restricted and the liberty of the media is circumscribed by law or trepidation.
Contrary to what many in Government seem to think, a free and inquisitive press (be it printed or electronic) is often a stronger guarantor of transparency than any purported checks and balances that may be built into the Protection of Information Bill.
Consumers, too, have a right of access to information under the control of public authorities in order that they may make decisions and exercise choices on an informed basis, in the knowledge that they are being protected against goods and services that are hazardous. Pick n Pay's maxim of consumer sovereignty is based on precisely this principle, as we have learnt over many years that the modern citizen demands maximum disclosure about the safety, origin and contents of what we sell. Moreover, government itself has acknowledged this through the passing of the Consumer Protection Act.
Every businessman knows the truth of this and should therefore be profoundly alive to any threat to the free availability of information held by the state or any of its agencies.
The Protection of Information Bill represents precisely such a threat: it not only imposes restrictions on access to government information, but proposes unreasonably harsh prison sentences for those who violate it, refuses to recognize the ethical foundations of whistle-blowing, denies a public-interest defence to those who seek to publish wrongdoing, and entrusts the decision as to what should be defined as secret to unaccountable functionaries.
It should be of concern to the business community that any perceived limitation on media freedom will be negatively viewed by the international markets on which we rely for investment and confidence. Foreign investors require the assurance that we are serious about combating corruption and waste, that government affairs are transparent and accountable and that economic data are readily available and reliable. In the absence of these features, South Africa's reputation as a destination for foreign investment will suffer, as will our reputation as a state that is governed by the rules of openness and accessibility. Certainly the international businesspeople with whom I interact regularly are astounded that our government, built on the strongest principles of democracy, should even be considering such a thing.
Just as we must work to safeguard the freedoms that are enshrined in our Constitution and protect the independence of those institutions established to protect them, so we must oppose those who seek to prevent access to vital information in the name of a spurious definition of national security.
The time for business in South Africa to speak out jointly and severally is now; this is one genie that cannot be put back into the bottle.
