Govt Plan To Privatise Water A Serious Gamble
Marshall Bwanya
Government’s recent plans to privatise water provision in Harare, Bulawayo, and Victoria Falls has sparked widespread concern.
Presented as a solution to the failure of local authorities to provide reliable water services, the proposal has drawn criticism from civic groups and experts alike, who argue that it risks undermining constitutional rights while exacerbating inequalities.
Local Government minister, Daniel Garwe, recently announced that the government had received unsolicited bids from five local and three international companies to take over water provision.
The claim that the bids were unsolicited must, in any case, be taken with a pinch of salt. This being Zimbabwe, a deal to fix the tender could have been corruptly hammered out already.
The minister framed the privatisation as an innovative model where private companies would engineer, procure, construct, manage, and finance water systems.
However, critics have warned that privatisation could reduce access, inflate costs, and create monopolies that prioritise profits over public welfare.
Exploiting a Crisis
Zimbabwe’s water crisis, marked by years of underfunding, mismanagement, and corruption, has left many urban residents without access to clean water.
Wealthier households have turned to private boreholes or informal water suppliers, while poorer communities rely on communal boreholes or unsafe sources.
This desperation provides fertile ground for what political and socio-economic analyst Takura Zhangazha describes as “disaster capitalism,” where crises are exploited to justify transferring public resources to private hands under the guise of efficiency.
The privatisation model aligns with neo-liberal policies that emphasise market-driven solutions, often at the expense of equity and accountability.
Private companies entering the water sector stand to benefit from tax exemptions and concessions, further privileging profit over equitable access.
Governance Failures and Corruption
Critics contend that privatisation is an evasion of government accountability rather than a genuine solution to the water crisis.
Precious Shumba of the Harare Residents Trust (HRT) has pointed out how central government interference in local authorities has weakened their capacity to manage public services.
Instead of strengthening governance structures, privatisation could create opportunities for politically connected elites to profit.
Our government has a history of awarding unsolicited bids, a practice that raises concerns about transparency.
Zhangazha argues that this approach risks enabling the emergence of “water barons” private entities with monopolistic control over water provision.
Such monopolisation would allow private companies to dictate pricing, potentially putting water out of reach for low-income households.
This scenario directly contravenes Section 77 of Zimbabwe’s Constitution, which guarantees every citizen the right to safe, clean, and potable water.
The Human Cost of Commodification
Privatisation risks turning water into a luxury commodity rather than a basic human right.
Private entities, driven by profit motives, are likely to inflate water prices to maximise returns, disproportionately affecting those already struggling with high living costs.
For many Zimbabweans, access to clean water is already precarious, rising costs could force the poorest households to rely on unsafe sources, increasing the risk of waterborne diseases such as cholera and typhoid.
This commodification of water reflects a troubling trend of treating essential public goods as marketable products.
By prioritising profits, such policies undermine the principles of equity and sustainability, leaving the most vulnerable populations at risk.
Alternatives to Privatisation
Instead of privatisation, the government could focus on strengthening public institutions to address systemic inefficiencies.
Investing in infrastructure, curbing corruption, and fostering transparency in the use of public funds are essential steps.
Community-led water management models, which have been successful elsewhere, offer a viable alternative by prioritising local needs and ensuring accountability.
Shumba echoes these sentiments, calling for a more people-centred approach to water provision.
“What is needed is not privatisation of public services but integrity of public institutions so that performance management is strengthened to curb corruption and wasteful expenditures.
“The current failures in urban local authorities are driven more by partisan policymaking at both the national government and local authorities’ levels,” said Shumba.
The Ideological Battle
The debate over water privatisation reflects broader ideological tensions about the role of the state in providing public goods.
Critics argue that the government’s approach prioritises market forces over human rights, a shift that undermines the state’s obligation to protect its citizens.
Water provision should remain a public responsibility.
With improved governance and capacity-building, state-run systems can provide affordable and equitable access to water.
The solution lies in reforming public administration, not outsourcing it to profit-driven entities.
The privatisation of water in Zimbabwe is a perilous gamble that risks deepening inequalities, compromising public health, and violating constitutional rights.
While the government claims privatisation will address service delivery failures, the evidence suggests it will prioritise profits over people, leaving the most vulnerable at even greater risk.
To resolve Zimbabwe’s water crisis, policymakers must reject profit-driven solutions and adopt sustainable, equitable approaches that uphold water as a public good.
Strengthening public institutions, ensuring transparency, and investing in infrastructure are not only pragmatic solutions but moral imperatives.