Should there be Open Data in Lebanon?
By living in today’s world, the individual is monitored and recorded in datasets that contain most, if not all, information about the person. However, it is important to note that not all populations can obtain this information and it then veers to the question of democracy in a country, like Lebanon, and whether it is a positive or negative. This also poses the question of whether a person should have access to the information that is being documented about them and how they should make use of it.
Access to information is necessary in a democracy (Peled and Rabin 2011, Mendel 2003, Bishop 2009). All in all, data should be inclusive as it allows different societies to function and, therefore, should be accessible, but if a country gives data access to its people, how can it be of use? The promises that come with open data is that it provides more growth and efficiency to different communities. These include betterment in health systems, traffic organisers, environmental problems, and general local services. For example, if there is an issue, such as a risk of a disease spreading, it will become easier to track the route of the problem through health records, and then prevent it.
In particular, Lebanon’s opening of data could be of many uses to tackle the ongoing problems that affect the population daily. Firstly, the environmental issue in the country can be dealt with by finding the root cause of pollution in the country, such as the garbage thrown into rivers. Populations can report problems from examination of their tap water, or question where their green groceries are grown and if they are safe to consume. In addition, Lebanon’s problem of mass deforestation can be resolved by identifying areas where more trees should be planted to approach the issue.
Additionally, the growing matter of traffic and congested roads throughout the country can be dealt with by pinpointing the problem areas, and then suggesting and working on building other routes as well as finding what can be done to the layouts already on the ground. This can also be done through restructuring the blueprint of, for example, the new buildings to be built. This is through building underground parking lots for people to park off the roads and not cause any more traffic jams on the road.
Moreover, open data may also have more personal uses for people who need to identify lost family, and families who need closure for losses from past wars. This applies to the lives lost during the Civil War of 1975 to 1990 in Lebanon. In 2019, the families of the missing or kidnapped still do not have knowledge of what happened to their family members and in need of justice for their cases through the investigation of what might have happened, and to hold accountable the people responsible. The information about those lost family members, however, needs to be obtained through this open data.
In the case that the situation is not dealt with or dismissed, open data helps the owner hold the politicians or organisation accountable for their lack of effort, as they have evidence for the case. The citizen should be allowed to help in decision-making. Resultantly, this encourages participation from the citizens for them to express meaningful perspectives to create the model government policy. Through this process, the people can provide feedback and indicate the problem areas and suggest improvements. Furthermore, citizens need information to offer complete participation in society. This involves knowing their right and obligation to the state and to the other citizens. On the whole, this aids the countries policies as it takes into consideration the opinions of the people as well — a crucial point as it is the citizens living in the country, after all.
On the other hand, there still remains the exclusion of other minority groups in a nation such as Lebanon. For example, the Palestinian refugee camps, like the Shatila camp, still have inadequate resources and live in unpleasant conditions even after all the data collection. In fact, there is an excess amount of data collection in the Shatila camp, but it just goes to show that, if data is not accessible for the people of the camp, there will be no improvements. Shatila residents have grievances, including the fact that the excessive data collected on them annually does not aid them in any way, and should be inclusive of the people so that the problems are resolved. This conveys the inequality in data representation.
There are few reasons as to why data collected about the people should be withheld from the people themselves. Through people’s participation, there can be growth in a country and the efficiency of the system of government. Therefore, there is no justification for the refusal of providing information for a good cause, unless, the intent is malicious or destructive.
