In a Le Monde op-ed, members of the Ma Dada association's board condemn the persistent opacity of French institutions regarding public information access requests. They note that, despite a 1978 law and a 2020 constitutional recognition, 75% of 3,000 queries on their platform went unanswered. This 'ostrich policy' hinders public policy evaluation and citizen debate on key issues like the environment or health.
The Ma Dada association, focused on public life transparency, responds to recent controversies over elected officials' mandate expenses, such as spending on luxury clothing, perfumes, or children's items. These cases, though legal, do not obscure what they see as a deeper scandal: the illegal refusal of public information access by most elected officials and administrations.
The right to administrative documents access dates back to 1978, with the establishment of the Commission d'accès aux documents administratifs (CADA), which assesses potential secrets that could oppose free access. Its origins trace to Article 15 of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, stating that « society has the right to demand accountability from any public agent for their administration ».
In 2020, the Constitutional Council elevated this principle to constitutional status. Yet, Ma Dada's data paints a grim picture: out of 3,000 expense note requests on madada.fr, the majority end in refusal. In 75% of cases, administrations remain silent, legally equivalent to an implicit refusal after one month.
This opacity, dubbed an 'ostrich policy', often stems from political calculations or a lack of transparency-oriented administrative processes. It prevents citizens from evaluating public policies and forming informed judgments on critical topics like the environment, health, or education, particularly as municipal elections near.
