Whistleblowers hunted by those who fear them

Whistleblowers everywhere share a common trait. They are heroes to some, but have to escape from others who are hell-bent on hunting them down. America’s Edward Snowden is on a worldwide flight, but Thailand’s Supa Piyajitti, deputy permanent secretary at the Finance Ministry, seems cornered in her own country, a brave state official trapped under the heavy perception that anything that stirs the political dust must be related to the national divide.

The Senate Committee on the Economy, Commerce and Industry has issued a statement condemning any harsh action taken against government officials. That follows the Finance Ministry’s decision to set up a committee to investigate Supa, who in her capacity as chair of a sub-committee on the rice price-pledging scheme has heavily criticised it. She revealed that the scheme could incur a loss of over Bt130 billion for the 2012-2013 harvest season. This is no longer a shocking revelation as far as the rice scheme is concerned but, coming from a senior government official, the Yingluck Shinawatra administration was rattled.

Supa was removed from the sub-committee and then re-appointed in the wake of public support for her stance. That, along with attempts by the Senate committee to protect her, are a good sign, but barely so. Thailand has been so torn asunder by the political divide that whistleblowers are often seen as being “part of a conspiracy”. Increasingly, claims about corruption will first meet with scepticism and then be dismissed as politically motivated.

Who would want to be a whistleblower? Predictably, Edward Snowden has become a wanted man after accusing the US authorities of large-scale invasion of privacy through a top-secret spying programme. Like Julian Assange before him, Snowden is a hero to some and a traitor to others. The recognition and the fame, or notoriety, cannot compare with the trauma of being branded an enemy of the state or, in some cases, the world.

When so-called advocates of democracy launch a manhunt for a whistleblower, it’s ironic at best and hypocritical at worst. The ability to tolerate and endure all kinds of criticism is the only way to differentiate the advocates of democracy from those they proclaim to abhor. There is no other way. Clamping down on, or intimidating, critics should be left exclusively to dictators.

Democracy allows one person to rightly stand up against millions if, say, he or she has all the evidence to support his or her belief. In fact, democracy ensures that person’s right to speak up even if he or she only has doubts about something that concerns a community or nation’s wellbeing. This can make life difficult for governments, but democracy must be embraced as a whole package, not selectively.

Whistleblowers are thorns in the side of all “democratic” governments, but that’s the price to pay if you want to embrace democracy. Those governments might claim they are open enough to criticism, and say how “lucky” the critics are compared to people rendered absolutely voiceless in other countries. That is a wrong argument, simply because you can’t compare democracy with dictatorship. Allowing normal criticism does not prove a healthy democracy; the moment of truth only comes when people like Snowden or Supa stand up and speak out. They represent democracy’s real challenge, because giving people the right to vote is easy, but coping with the unpalatable truth is difficult. Dealing with those pointing the finger at you and saying, “This is not democracy,” is even harder.

Snowden and Supa are voters whose tax money is spent by their governments. They have every right to question or voice concern when governments that spend their money and that came to power through the democratic rights they exercised do something that concerns them. Democracy is as simple as that. To politicians elected to power through its principles, the rest of the package can be as tough as nails and as hard to swallow.