Reparations Part I

"No wonder the sun never set on the British empire, because even God couldn't trust the English in the dark"

—Dr. Shashi Tharoor, MP

Having been writing this blog thus far I'm left with a pressing question: now what?

Through my research, it's become increasingly apparent that the concepts of race, water and power in South Africa are incurably entangled. Time and time again a positive feedback loop traps water users in a seemingly endless cycle of poverty. Poorer citizens have less access to water, so it's harder for them to advance in social standing, so they stay poor, so they have less access to water, and so on. And this loop was ignited by colonialism, especially British apartheid policies that continued past independence, placing the needs of white citizens above those of black citizens. These policies pushed black citizens into the periphery, creating wealthy, well-supported spaces reserved only for white people. While governmental policies have been slowly trying to remedy this loop, water inequality is still rampant. One study by Cole et al. tries to quantify to what extent water inequality exists in South Africa, and draws a clear divide between urban and rural water users, stating that: "While 65% of urban dwellers have piped water in their dwelling, 34% of those living on farms and only 8% of those living in traditional/tribal areas have this level of access. Ninety per cent of people with piped water in their dwelling live in urban areas, indicating that the type of housing is not the main barrier to water access, but rather the geographic location" (Cole et al.). They go on to apply these statistics, describing that the study is "particularly useful in South Africa as spatial inequality was entrenched in the 1900s by the very limited service delivery to the ‘homelands’ (territories set aside for black inhabitants as part of the apartheid agenda of racial segregation) and low-income urban and peri-urban areas. At the end of white minority rule in 1994, 20% of households had no access to piped water but this varied from 1% to 98% across municipalities" (Cole et al.).

Severe water inequality in South Africa undeniably traces its roots to the British. So is Britain responsible to fix it? I think the answer is a resounding yes, but clearly the question has more nuance. How do they fix it? Why haven't they fixed it yet? On a moral basis, the obligation is apparent. But what's the best way to achieve this justice? As a moral philosopher would ask, should they work towards restoring the status quo ante or compensation in proportion to harm (Mackenzie et al., 111)? Do they pay money to the government? Directly to individual people? How do they ensure that that money gets used to the fullest extent? Or maybe a better approach is to build water infrastructure directly rather than giving money? In that case how do they incorporate local knowledge and voices to determine the best application of new water infrastructure? I don't know the answers to these questions, and broad, philosophical questions don't lead to answers, they just lead to more questions. In my next post I want to look at a concrete example of reparations being paid, and try to judge the efficacy of their methods. In the meantime, here's a video I watched of a speech by Dr. Sashi Tharoor MP, where he argues in favor of Britain paying reparations. I can't recommend it enough, he is a very captivating speaker. He applies the concept to India, but most of his arguments apply to any formerly colonized nation:

Resources:

Mackenzie et al., Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy

 

https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2017.111

https://youtu.be/f7CW7S0zxv4