Managing information at any level requires a lot of sensitivity. As higher animals with IQ and EQ, humans tend to predict the probable response from the other party before passing on information.
I remember the kind of game that my father used to play with me when I was a kid. Whenever he was embarking on a journey, he devised every means to trick me into not following him. He knew that if he told me that he was traveling to spend some days, I would cry out my ass in order for him to take me along.
He was already sure of what the response would be if he informed me of his journey. Instead of telling me that he was traveling, he would just tell me that he was to deliver a message to someone and be back that same day.
This is a clear case of subjectively keeping information from someone to prevent an envisaged reaction. This is how the government operates when it comes to sharing information with the populace.
The government would sit and vet every piece of information. The ones that could lead to resentment from the people are removed.
They give licenses of operation to the traditional media outlets, and they try to control their activities. Social media came to deliver the people from this subjective style of passing information to the people to a large extent. The Nigerian government has tried unsuccessfully to control social media, but the people resisted.
The interest of the government in doing this is to keep their bad dealings from the knowledge of the people. If the people are aware of everything going wrong, they could challenge the leaders.
However, I think that the government wouldn't be so dramatic in keeping information away from the people if they were doing the right thing. A clear conscience fears no accusation.
Going by the prompt question, I will say that I am in support of the people knowing almost everything. From economy, agriculture, health, and education, the populace should know everything that happens in the country.
I remember the time of Ebola. The delay in passing the right information made people bathe in salt water to avoid contracting ebola. In such a case, the government should be prompt in informing the people about what is at stake. In the other sectors mentioned, it is important to earn the trust of the people by giving them the right information, whether it's sweet or bitter.
Trust is earned by proper management of information and not by painting white and black while expecting the populace to trust the system.
The only sector in which I would maintain some reservations is security. The people should know some things in security while some things are kept away for the betterment of society. Information about the operation of the security personnel shouldn't be the business of the people to have knowledge of. However, the true state of the situation security-wise should be revealed to the people so that they can understand when progress is being made.
I am aware that it is a tactic to demoralize the enemies and boost the confidence of the people when some lost battles are kept from the knowledge of the people. I don't think it is good to engage in outright falsehoods of declaring victory where there was none. Some people have been manipulated to believe that they are safe in their residential areas but unfortunately would get attacked after getting the clean bill of health from security personnel. If the people are aware of the nature of the problem, they would celebrate the security personnel when a genuine victory is recorded.
To achieve success in securing society, the support of the citizens is required as much as possible. They should be carried along in a way that would not jeopardize the fight against insecurity.
In conclusion, the citizens deserve to know more than 90% of what is happening in the country. The few exceptions are in the security sector, as explained earlier.