Of toilets and self determination

We’ve seen a number of incredible programs during our time in India – projects that focus on income generation, sanitation and microfinance. But with every amazing story of individuals overcoming odds I’ve been struck by the states seeming abdication of responsibility for its citizens’ wellbeing. Social enterprises are meant to remedy the ‘market failures’ that impinge on society. However, those ‘failures’ that we witnessed: failures of gender equality, public health, sanitation, nutrition, etc. are within the purview of government (and NGOs), not enterprise; the failures that we’ve seen are failures of government, though they may have been compounded by market forces. Social enterprises are thus born to remedy conditions where successive governments have proven unwilling or inept. Social enterprises’ laudable efforts highlight the failures of the state and excuse its incompetence. Rather than seeking the systemic change necessary for functional, responsive government, many have taken the responsibilities on for themselves. This kind of initiative implicitly subscribes to the ideals of neoliberal empowerment: One is capable and responsible for determining one’s own wellbeing.

Mel Gray in her critique of the strengths perspective notes that empowerment is, “essentially grounded in the (neo)liberal notions of individual responsibility” and eschews almost any notion of collective responsibility. Liberal constructs place the burden of governance and thus wellbeing on the individual’s participation within a democratic system. Neoliberal constructs equate economic participation with democratic participation. Thus, the acceptance of welfare is tantamount to an individual abrogation of responsibility in a democratic society. Such notions excuse the state from responsibility to its citizenry and the collective from responsibility to its members.

Indeed, some social enterprises recognize the shortcomings of government and attempt to organize their employees/ members/ clients into politically substantial entities. BAIF in rural Maharashtra encourages its collectives to take up political issues locally and regionally. It remains to be seen if such efforts will have substantive results when the Indian political system has shown itself corrupt and unresponsive.

India’s leaders have been promising cures to a host of social ills and failing to deliver on such promises since the dawn of independence in 1947. Narendra Modhi and the Bharatiya Janata (BJP) were propelled to power in recent elections largely because of the Congress Party’s corruption and incompetence.  The public is primed for solutions to India’s long standing problems, and sanitation is of prime importance. As the Economist recently pointed out, Gandhi himself said that sanitation is more important than any revolution. On cue the BJP has promised to install 5.2 million toilets by September – nearly one every second. On another front, the Gates Foundation, an organization founded on the principles of combining social good with entrepreneurialism, created a joint venture with the government of India to develop “next generation toilets”; such toilets will be designed to provide sanitation to the 2.5 billion globally without current access to it. Even with all of the new toilets someone will still need to convince the populace to use them: Deep cultural aversion to such vitreous conveniences impede their adoption, even when access isn’t an issue. Unicef recently produced a campaign encouraging Indians to “take poo to the loo”.

Sewer systems have historically been initiated and funded by local governments (the Indus Valley Civilization show evidence of such systems from as far back as 2600BC).  Finally, it seems, it takes the efforts of international organizations and governments to provide the holistic, systemic changes necessary for the larger social good; sometimes the individual needs some help determining where best to find relief.