Privatisation of social sector was a blunder
MUCH as there may be merit in the privatisation policy of Zambia, especially for the business sector, it must be stated here that to do so for the social sector, was a big blunder.
It is reasonable belief that governments anywhere in the world first see to it that the people’s needs for social services such as water, shelter,
sewerage, roads and energy are satisfied. It be in the classical, medieval or modern times this has been the yardage of good governance.
During the Greek and Roman civilisations, elaborate mazes of water delivery systems, such as aqueducts, were constructed to furnish the city states with adequate and permanent water supply.
In modern times, wars have been fought between nations over water rights.
With this background, it is not difficult to see that a society without water is as good as dead because there is substance in nature.
Water delivery and supply to any community is a costly affair. No single person can achieve the task because it is a communal project of extensive infrastructure.
It is for this reason that only governments are better placed to mobilise people and resources to plan and construct the vital infrastructure to deliver this resource to the people.
And because water is life itself, it is imperative, therefore, that everything must be done to make it available. This is where the government comes in. It is a social responsibility for governments to ensure that their citizens have unlimited access to water.
This is a sovereign duty of governments to perform in order to satisfy the needs of the people.
If we all can agree on this, it leaves one in great difficulty to accept that a government can abrogate this responsibility and pass it over to the private sector.
Although the Holy Book states in Romans 13:1-7 that governments are God ordained, this goes with responsibilities.
While the citizens are urged to pay their taxes to the governments without fail, the latter is expected to martial those resources and apply them for the common good of society. Such is the equation.
When governments levy tax upon their citizens, it is presumed that they will use those resources to uplift the living standards of their people. One such basic need is water. This element is the lifeline of all forms of life. This is a commodity which must be available in abundance. But sadly for Zambia, we are now going into 40 years of independence and we cannot say that we have attained full sufficiency of safe and abundant water for the citizens.
It pains to come face to face with the reality despite the abundant rainfall, the numerous lakes, rivers and streams abounding in the country, the successive national governments seem to have miserably failed this matter satisfactory.
For example, Kafue River is just down the road, but Lusaka, the capital city, does not have sufficient water.
Take the case of Livingstone. It sits right on top of the Zambezi River, which has never dried up since before Our Lord Jesus Christ descended to earth. This town, only three km away from the river, still has no stable supply of water.
Soon after the first National Development Plan, then president Kenneth Kaunda, using the then current statistics, realised that Lusaka, as a capital city, would grow by leaps and bounds.
Without wasting time, he called into action the construction of the Kafue-Lusaka water pipe line. What would Lusaka be today without this lifeline.
But already, it is growing inadequate. Reason? Forward planning stopped, not because of lack of resources, but because a new era of experimentation had dawned. And one such experiment was privatisation of the social sector.
Systems in institutions of local government which were responsible to deliver quality services were disrupted through reforms. Similar experiments went to sectors such as education, health, local government and so forth. With the nation’s reduction in the gross domestic product (GDP), budgetary allocation to social sectors even became smaller.
It is these structural changes in the governance style orchestrated by the Chiluba government and the wishful thinking that private sector through the free market system and will inspire growth in the delivery of social services and raise the living standards of the people which have blurred the vision for clear development goals, effective implementation methodology of the affected sectors.
I put it to you that water supply and reticulation, which involves huge financial resources can never be managed by the private sector, which is predicated upon the profit motive doctrine. Are the now water and sewerage companies able to solve this problem, if I may ask?
It is quite obvious to all that population has grown markedly in the past 20-25 years since independence. Urban drift has adversely affected the utility delivery of the local authorities whose mandate to perform for the people has been removed by the privatisation policy.
Quantitative analysis of public utility functions has long been abandoned. And an orderly application of solutions to urban and rural problems through proper planning is virtually non-existent. Nobody knows any forward planning any more. Urban and rural problems are now being attended to in Fire Brigade Style.
By proper planning is meant putting in place a medium and long-range development plan for water and sewerage provision to the population of the towns and cities. Such a comprehensive plan is derived from population studies, neighbourhood sizes and density statistics on daily water requirements, total yearly water requirements for all towns and residential development, et cetera.
To put together all this data and come up with a clear and comprehensive utility plan, requires high technical and professional staff who must project it into an operational document fit for development investment application.
I put it to you that the private sector is not in a position to expend its resources into research, plan formulation and strategic physical planning and development. The private sector would rather use existing infrastructure, place its hard gotten resources into declared profits and dividends for their shareholders.
To expect that the various water and sewerage companies will be community and socially friendly, is tantamount to wishful thinking.
Private sector, by its nature has no social responsibility. It is never accountable to society, only cosmetically.
It can never be voted out of business. It is not obliged to wear a human face. Under such a scenario, how could the Chiluba Government assent to such a measure as are the ones that hold the inescapable sovereign duty to fulfil the social demands of their citizens.
This is the mandate they must carry and exercise with resolve and determination, through a long range comprehensive development plan, for all is not simply a privilege but a right for all, not just a few.
The Bible talks about the citizens submitting to the authorities, encourages them to pay tax without question. This should be so because without adequate resources governments will fail to run the affairs of the country. But it is expected and understood that governments will apply such revenue to the betterment of society.
And for the Chiluba Government to have privatised the utility sector was in my view tantamount to the most serious abrogation by government of its sovereign responsibility to its citizens.
The new Deal Government must examine all aspects of privatisation and see if the people can rescue some of their rights such as the right to abundant, safe, clean water, which must flow freely to all citizens with a minimal charge only to cover the cost of delivery.
It is not too late for this Government to undertake a complete review of the privatisation policy. Let us take stock of what government should control on behalf of the citizens, otherwise its mandate and raison d’ętre or reason of being can legitimately be put to question because there is no sovereignty without responsibility.
Just as citizens must desist from dissension, governments on the other hand should avoid abstention of their responsibilities to provide a good life for the people. And in this case, good social services and clean water is not simply a privilege but a right.
What then is the way forward? Government should step back and examine once more its overall responsibility to the people. When concerned of this task, the following suggestions come to mind:
• For the private sector, a deliberate policy of indigenous empowerment such as obtains in Zimbabwe and South Africa must be put in place.
This could greatly diffuse the embarrassment to the Government of wholly owned foreign companies running away when it suits them.
• Additionally, such a policy would give power back to the people. As for the social sector, because local government means the people to have a say in the affairs of their communities.
• There should be a comprehensive reassessment of water and sewerage delivery in all communities with a view to redefining water capacity consumption and rehabilitation of water and sewerage infrastructure. Ideally, water should be a free commodity for all citizens. No one should profit by it. Central government must insist on clear development plans by all water and sewerage companies.
Those plans should indicate medium and long range expansion plans based on population dynamics of each city, town or community.
Implementation targets and project monitoring is a must. But in all these, central government is being called upon to get involved in order to rightfully exercise its sovereign responsibility to the people of Zambia.
(The author is a former deputy permanent secretary, National Commission for Development Planning)
