#6 - Commodifying Water: Disregarding Rights C

Evident from the previous posts regarding the gendered impacts of water privatisations, it is clear that the resulting inefficiencies of such schemes are generating resentment and motivating political activism. While Action Aid and the TGNP work to remove the burdens imposed upon the individuals they represent, a wider question regarding justice is in need of scrutiny. Tanzania and Namibia, two democratic governments who are responsible for supporting and advancing the livelihoods of the citizens under its rule, have failed to provide accountability for violating a series of national and international laws pertaining to the rights of its citizens. It is addressing these violations and then questioning the efficacy of water privatisation to alleviate marginalisation which will be the focus here.

The standpoint taken in this blog with regards to this issue is that any good, service or freedom which is a necessary prerequisite in allowing for the enjoyment of other rights, should itself be deemed a right (Donald and Ruiters, 2005). Under this definition, water access should be an inalienable human right for it holds the propensity to allow for the enjoyment of other rights and freedoms, which are reinforced by constitutional law. In South Africa, such socio-economic rights are actually entrenched alongside more common civil and political rights for they understand the necessity to respect, protect and promote access to water so that other civic and political liberties can be enjoyed (Budds and McGranahan, 2003). While there are binding national and international legislations promoting the respecting of rights and advancing of individual welfare, often countries are signatories of, but, do not respect these legislations. Tanzania, Namibia and South Africa are all signatories of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which aims to ensure equality and non-discrimination for women and the preservation and promotion of the lives of children, among many other things (CESCR, 2003). Unfortunately, the actions of these governments with their water industries stands as a stark rejection to these Covenants and works to impinge on the rights, freedoms and capabilities of their citizens. Ultimately we find, there is a need to refocus the sights at which governments look down, promoting more utilitarian principles which will advance male and female livelihoods across these countries.  

In light of the failings of privatisations, more should be done to guarantee the rights of individuals living across Africa. Governments face difficulties in attracting investors for private utilities, regulating these services as well as addressing the constraints affecting service delivery, access to the poor and ownership (Bayliss, 2003). Hausman et al. (2006) suggests that the actions of government and their policy decisions should be judged on principles of morality and the consequences which they have. In this regard, while we assume the government's of Tanzania and Namibia acted with philanthropic intentions, the outcome of these policies are detrimental to individuals rights and utilities.

The putative relationship between democracy and utilitarian thinking lays the foundations for government's aiming to maximise the welfare of their citizens. Unfortunately, pursuing utilitarianism carries with it its advancing strengths, but also the denigrating weaknesses of this philosophy (Riley, 1990). Utilitarianism aims for, to cite the old chestnut, the greatest happiness, for the greatest number. With the need to readdress certain privatised water industries in Africa, one needs to understand what will provide this happiness. The key facet of this thinking which is applicable here is the need to support higher pleasures. As Bentham appreciated, we are all governed by pains and pleasures and the moral and legislative system needs to account for this. When distinguishing between these binaries of experience and hoping to maximise welfare, current attitudes to water privatisations are not enough. To elucidate this, I draw from a well known counter-example to Bentham's utilitarian (Sandel 2012). 

During the rule of the Roman Empire, Christians were persecuted in grand Colosseums for the entertainment of hundreds of spectators. From a utilitarian perspective this behaviour should be permitted for it provides entertainment and happiness for the masses, however at the suffering of the one Christian martyr. Libertarians and Moralists would condemn this behaviour saying it is a fundamental violation of the rights of the martyr. So what is the right thing to do, ethically? 

The examples from Africa's water represent a similar ethical scenario, albeit less extreme. While the government stands to benefit from the fiscal austerity derived from water privatisations, and the fortunate are still able to access water, both derive significant utility from this privatisation. But, that leaves in question that of the marginalised. Mills purports a solution to this dilemma. He suggests there is a level of minimum utility for the minority and marginalised which cannot be violated when implementing policy for it represents an imposition on justice and is thus categorically anti-utilitarian (Sandel 2008). Within the Colosseum, a similar minimum utility is being violated. While the waves of privatisations in African water industries were strongly stimulated by a need for fiscal austerity, the violation of justice through cutting off water supplies and inflating tariffs, consequence of privatisation, sees the utility of the minority individual drop below this acceptable threshold. Mills promulgates that pursuing justice, when held against utilitarianism, exists as a higher pleasure as it collectively benefits social utility. In the long run, existing in a progressing society which respects justice and individual rights will provide the greatest utility and the higher pleasure for all (1859). In light of this, their is a responsibility of both the private and the public sector, whether nationally or multi-nationally, to ensure that the rights of this marginalised minority are respected. From this approach, whether the solutions lie in re-nationalisation, or an alternative approach, the water industries in Africa should recalibrate to be premised upon these three utilitarian principles: access to water to be an inalienable human right protected by guarantees, a free minimum lifeline of household water to be established and reinforced, and the policy of water-cut offs to be prohibited.