November 22nd, 2009
 

365Gay Agenda Blog

Ruby-Sachs: What South Africa’s Water Trial Can Teach Us All About Health Care

By Emma Ruby-Sachs, 365gay blogger 09.03.2009 10:36am EDT

collecting20water20siy

As the debate rages on about health care, issues of basic rights and essential services are the focus of much discussion. Just what should our government provide for us? If services are provided, how much should each citizen get?

In South Africa today and tomorrow, the Constitutional Court will be looking at exactly those questions. And their conclusions will be instructive.

When I lived in Cape Town and Johannesburg, the most shocking difference, and there are a lot of differences, was the lack of water fountains. We expect, in North America, to pause on our bike ride or run by a standing tap to fill up our water bottles. Practically speaking, those without homes, can do the same – ensuring that, of the many ailments plaguing our poorest citizens, dehydration won’t be top of the list.

In the southern part of Africa, water is a scarce resource, kind of like trying to find a knee surgeon in rural Illinois.

When the Apartheid government crowded Black South Africans into townships to provide cheap labor for the adjoining white neighborhoods, water was provided free to every home. Fifteen years after Mandela’s victory, water is sold, at a profit, to most township homes. Those who cannot afford to pay are provided with just enough water per month, per household to flush the toilet a few times a day.

Those cholera outbreaks that make the news every few months are no accident. They are the product of a government that decided essential services don’t need to be provided for free.

Well, residents of Johannesburg grew tired with the lack of government support and brought a legal challenge to the water privatization scheme. In the lower courts, their argument for government-provided essential services has been accepted. We will soon see what the high court has to say about free basic water for all.

South Africa’s constitution is very different from that of the United States. They have the tools to demand essential services in court and we are left with political wrangling in Washington. But the argument is the same.

If the government abandons the most basic needs of its population, the result is widespread disease and death. It may be cholera in South Africa and swine flu here in the North, but the consequences will be dire.

Let’s hope that the Constitutional Court and the U.S. court of public opinion come to the right conclusion and accept responsibility for essential services.


Login or Register to comment.

or Login with Facebook:

  • Drewski Said: September 4th, 2009 at 12:40 am
    • Emma, a little more info would’ve been helpful. From what I’ve found in about 15 minutes, the suit was brought against Johannesburg Water. This is a stock company with the city of Johannesburg as its only shareholder. This kind of structure is routine in Germany for a variety of public services (transit, water, district heating all come to mind), and it’s not damning in itself. this case is about extremely disparate approaches to billing for the same service in the same city. (In Jo’burg, the city has already acknowledged that its pay-after-use meters on businesses and in white areas are far more prone to nonpayment than the ones which were in black areas. The company installed prepay water meters only in a part of Soweto, a former apartheid township, after Soweto rejoined Jo’burg.)That isn’t the same as the water war in Cochabamba, Bolivia (which involved both domestic class and economic politics as well as contracts with multinationals) nor the many places around the world where companies like Veolia bring clean water at a price which may be too high for most to benefit from it. The case is not unlike the enviornmental-justice approach over the LA high school built on a former oilfield–a specific portion of the population being subjected to a drastically different and unfavorable standard, and that population being easily identified by class, language/culture, or visible minority status. The Johannesburg case would almost certainly win on these grounds, but when it comes to establishing a legal precedent for a right to government services, please recall that the standard established by the South African government is that everybody (connected to a water main) is entitled to 25 liters of water per person per day, based on a household of eight. That’s enough to drink, cook, flush the toilet and wash with a washcloth–it doesn’t come close to absolute privation. I wish this case were what you present it to be, but I find nothing to bear that out–and my sources were sympathetic to the cause.

  • James Withers Said: September 3rd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
    • Bruce,

      We heard you the first time. No need to repeat yourself. We are working on it. Thanks for your patience.

      James

  • Bruce Said: September 3rd, 2009 at 11:10 pm
    • the Poll of the week has been on for a month or so? WTF!

 
Login

Register
Lost your password?


or Login with Facebook