|
ZIMBABWE is in a quandary. Put bluntly the government needs money in order to kick start all sectors of industry and improve provision of social services.
So the official thinking is that it’s best to sell off resources and privatise parastatals.
This is the line that the government has been pushing recently when it announced plans to begin unbundling parastatals to foreign investors.
This was temporarily shelved due to the global recession. But only temporarily.
A wholesale of Zimbabwe’s resources and the privatisation of its social services will be a quick fix that ultimately leads to disaster. We only need to look into our history of structural adjustment while at the same time learning from regional experiences of privatisation to see why.
The Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (Esap) of the 1990’s was Zimbabwe’s baptism of economic fire. The World Bank and IMF’s buzz words of “liberalisation” and “privatisation” were so far-reaching that even primary school children joked at the time that “Even Sadza’s A Problem”.
Through removal of trade barriers, tariffs and subsidies Esap was supposed to make Zimbabwe more competitive and prosperous. Through “commercialisation” of parastatals Zimbabweans were expected to receive better services.
In fact, the opposite happened as a period of de-industrialisation began. Industry was no longer allowed any state support while workers became more impoverished with the average worker in 1995 twice as poor as in 1980.
Wages as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) fell from 57% in the 1980s to 45% by 1995. During the first phase of Esap manufacturing’s share of GDP fell from 20% to 16%. Spending on social services was also vastly reduced in line with World Bank policy.
The liberalisation agenda benefited foreign corporations that were able to flood Zimbabwe with their goods as well as benefiting local elites involved in unproductive speculation. As usual the poor suffered and found no benefits in the World Bank’s liberalisation policy.
The commercialisation drive begun by Esap has been revived recently in Zimbabwe. “Commercialisation” means turning what should be a social service for all into a commodity with a price tag.
This has been done with the Zimbabwe National Water Authority (Zinwa) and more recently with the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority (Zesa). Zinwa in typical fashion took over the handling of water provision from local councils and began charging exorbitant bills while not repairing the existing infrastructure.
This led to a successful campaign against Zinwa — part of the movement for access to water — where in October 2008 the Zimbabwe Coalition on Debt and Development presented to government 4 000 signatures on a petition protesting against Zinwa’s incompetence. Zinwa’s control of water provision was subsequently reversed.
Electricity has also become a site of struggle as Zesa recently sparked an outcry as it began disconnecting poor people’s homes in Bulawayo because of their failure to pay ridiculously inflated bills. Such commercialisation of basic social services is laying the ground for all-out privatisation.
South Africa is a key example of the effects of the privatisation of social services. The ANC came to power in 1994 on a groundswell of popular support and optimism.
Yet despite the Constitution claiming that “everyone has the right to sufficient water” the ANC soon reversed this as it launched its World Bank-supported GEAR economic policy in 1996 which turned water and other services into commodities, not rights.
Municipalities began the process of privatising water and Johannesburg City Council handed the running of their water to French multinational, Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux. Poor communities were hit hardest as Suez increased tariffs by 55%. This privatisation drive has been reproduced across South Africa resulting in over 10 million people having their water disconnected and over 2 million people evicted from their homes due to so-called “cost recovery”.
The effects on the urban poor have been devastating as diseases abound including outbreaks of cholera in places such as KwaZulu Natal. Incredibly the poor are asked to pay more than the rich as their tariff increases are much higher. So while corporations enjoy cheap water it’s the poor who foot the bill.
This unjust situation has produced considerable community resistance epitomised in the Anti-Privatisation Forum (APF) which was formed in order to oppose privatisation.
The APF has been part of community struggles which have seen the “water warriors”, as protesting residents have been labelled, resisting water disconnections and fighting against the installation of pre-paid water meters.
These struggles against water privatisation and poor social service delivery have erupted across South Africa. The country now has more protests per capita than any other country in the world.
So why would Zimbabwe want to import such a disastrous policy? Unfortunately the very same World Bank that imposed Esap currently advises those in government that shape our economic policy.
Yet if we are to learn from our past then we would see that Zimbabwe’s foray into liberalisation hurt the poor and only benefited local elites. South Africa’s experience shows us the nightmare of full-blown privatisation as profit comes before people.
Ultimately Zimbabwe needs new politics where communities participate in decision-making and budget–making processes instead of the top down, profit-motivated approach.
There is a new discourse amongst global social justice activists: it’s one about “the commons” where water, electricity and the like are all seen as something that should benefit everyone as opposed to being something to be commodified and sold.
If we don’t start seeing social services as part of “the commons” that should benefit all then say hello to a new generation of “water warriors”.
BY CDE FASTO
 |
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form