Poolitical Legacies in WASH infrastructure

A perspective on water and sanitation that I find particularly interesting is its relevance to the idea of dignity. When I started googling, it appeared that there is much more to this than I initially expected and sanitation itself has a deeper, darker history. Having previously discussed the political nature of WASH discourse, this blog post will explore the inequalities in WASH infrastructure that too have been undeniably been shaped by colonialism. 

I give a shit, do you?

If you had to openly defecate as your only option, how would you honestly feel?

Awkward? Embarrassed? Humiliated?

You're not the only one. The quote "sanitation is dignity" which encapsulates well, the idea of physical hygiene being linked to moral hygiene and the feeling of dignity and morality. Perhaps the reason for this is linked to the colonial (and racially motivated) legacies that have shaped development processes over time. 

The separation of filth and smell from the body/house has been used as a social marker throughout history, meaning that water technology and infrastructures have been seen as a symbol of progress. With all the important benefits of sanitation, this is a good thing right? Not necessarily. 

The Colonial Legacies of WASH 

Sanitation has a complicated and highly political history. At first, access to centralised sewage systems were a luxury afforded only by affluent households - predominantly in Western Europe and North America. Where settler colonialism occurred in Africa, countries such as South Africa experienced racially motivated urban planning which led to pipes and systems being installed disproportionately, and sometimes exclusively in residential areas. 

Essentially the ideas of "progress" associated with WASH infrastructure have failed Africa's urban population as a result of racial segregation and the exclusionist placement of pipe technologies,

The inequalities in WASH infrastructure

Figure 1: Informal Water Vendor. Source: CNN

Sanitation inequalities that persist today have thus come into existence as a result of post-colonial governments failing to disengage from colonial land use planning. This further exacerbates the struggles of the urban population as the absence of proper and suitable sanitation infrastructures has proved opportune for informal (and often exploitative) water vendors. 

In the Mathare slum of Nairobi, water vendors can make profits of up to 99% by selling water of poor quality to customers who have no other alternative. Meanwhile, the population dependent on them can be spending as much as $44 a month which is almost on par with the minimum wage of $47.

Urban citizens are the most reliant on vendors, not least because of the lack of storage facilities, but also the lack of future promise in improving their conditions. Landlords are absent and politicians are often the beneficiaries of those paying for such urban housing, meaning that they have little incentive to improving their living conditions. By purposefully "underdeveloping" urban areas to maintain a high stream of revenue for the beneficiaries, perhaps the urban poor and doomed to be entrenched in the poverty-trap that so disproportionately impacts them. 

What does this actually mean? 

The legacies that underpin WASH infrastructure essentially privilege the hegemony of Western development which proves unfair for the urban population in areas such as Mathare. Where economic opportunities have arisen from the failure of public services, surely there is much reflection and work to be done?

Despite being framed by bureaucrats as purely apolitical and technical matters of infrastructures, the fact remains: sanitation and its associated problems have always been intertwined with politics.

Next week I hope to continue this post and expand on some of the legacies I have discussed today and explore the physical manifestations of such in the context of Cape Town, South Africa.