Nestlé, water and Human Rights

Nestlé's Chairman of the Board, Peter Brabeck

Apparently Nestlé has successfully lobbied that water should not be declared a universal Human Right. At first, this sounds like one of those all-too familiar stories of evil-corporation-wanting-profits-at-the-expense-of-everyone-else. But if we look at the issue of Human Rights and how they relate to a natural resource like water, we must also recognise that Human Rights, by definition, can only exist vis-à-vis other human beings. 

Rights and duties are two sides of the same coin, and one side cannot exist without the other. Human Rights are dependent to others fulfillin their duty to respect those rights. There are no Human Rights with respect to external things outside of direct human control. Indeed, no amount of appealing to a Human Righ can by itself present you with water if you live in a place void of said natural resource.  Therefore, there can be no a priori "right" to water.

By the same logic, however, a private entity like Nestlé should have no legitimate claim to water or air or, for that matter, any other readily accessible natural resource. How can a public good like Law sanction the appropriation of a naturally occurring phenomenon for the benefit of a single interest? And what kind of morality could accept an individual or agent monopolising that which nature, in her infinite wisdom, has provided for everyone? 

We should therefore distinguish between Human Rights — the upholding of which is predicated on everyone fulfilling their duty to not harm those around them and help those in need — and Environmental Rights — that is, everybody having equal access to our natural environment. If the natural resource would otherwise remain inaccessible and those extracting do so at significant cost to themselves, then they should be allowed to recoup their costs, perhaps even accruing some profit as a result their initiative. But in any natural surrounding, what is there readily to be taken by anyone should remain so, a public good for all involved. It would be indefensible for a company like Nestlé to be allowed to claim any property right over a naturally occurring water.

Regarding a Human Right to water, however, to adapt a feminist joke: does a person still have an inalienable right to water if he/she is alone in the desert? Well, that would depend, wouldn't it, on the availibility of a source of said precious elixir of life. If there is none, there are only two ways that any of us could quench our thirst: the first is to move somewhere else with more access to water; the second is for others to deliver this necessity to us.

The question, therefore, is not whether there is a Human Right to water, which there isn't.  A better question would be: do human beings always have a duty to protect other humans? In other words, is it in fact the responsibility of the community to ensure that everyone's needs are met, regardless of where they are located? The answer to this turns out to be a moral choice — and if the answer is "yes, we do have such a duty to help", then to what extent should that inform our national budgets and foreign policies? 

On Boris and Party Politics

So, Boris Johnson has been selected as the Conservative candidate for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. Parachuted into Parliament would be a fitting description as the Tories have won the last thirteen Parliamentary elections in Uxbridge. And now with Boris – arguably the nation's favourite politician – on the ticket, the Tories' winning run in this North West London constituency will almost certainly continue.

Boris' volte face

I used to be a big fan of the bumbling but equally charismatic Bojo. His seemingly unrehearsed soundbites and unguarded soliloquies are usually entertaining, often even rapturously funny. Boris seemed to stand in stark contrast to the Play Doh politicians dominating politics these days, those forked tongue politicos like Cameron and Blair, whose actions and policies are based on political expediency, rather than what's best for their electorates. Their kind are perhaps best described by Groucho Marx's famous quip that "those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

Alas, during the London Mayoral election, Boris promised, solemnly vowed and committed to not stand for Parliament should he be elected. Each statement, as of yesterday's news, he has now broken. This puts him firmly in the same group of charlatans as Cast Iron Dave or "When-it-Becomes-Serious-You-Have-to-Lie, Junker." Boris broke his explicit promises for personal, political gain. As a result, for the remainder of his term Londoners will be getting a part-time Mayor – which we did not vote for – while, if his candidacy succeeds, Uxbridgers will get a part-time MP (that, of course, would at this point be their own fault). The only ones to really benefit from his duplicity are Bojo himself and the Tories, who gain the gold dust that is brand Boris for their general election campaign.

But what I really wanted to write about here is not two-faced-Boris. Instead, I wanted to focus on our party political system of governance. My questions are: what makes Boris a suitable candidate for Uxbridge and South Ruislip in particular? Wouldn't he be better experienced to represent his home borough of Islington or even Oxford, where he spent his student days? Other than Heathrow, which is located in the Uxbridge constituency and of which he no doubt knows plenty (wanting to close it down in favour of his vision for an estuary airport, Boris Island), how invested is he in Uxbridge and South Ruislip? Moreover, what knowledge or experience does he have of life there, of the particular issues and challenges faced by its inhabitants, that make him the prime candidate to represent them at Parliament?

The incumbent MP, Sir John Randall, was born in Uxbridge, which surely classifies him as being au fait with the ins and outs of this corner of Greater London. Also, one of the candidates shortlisted by the Conservatives to replace Randall was Simon Dudley. Mr Dudley, currently councillor for Maindenhead-Riverside, actually lived in Hillingdon, Uxbridge, for 18 years. One would think this time and experience would be a considerable advantage on the CV when applying to represent the area? Or how about another shortlisted candidate, the current Deputy Leader of the London Borough of Hillingdon council – yes, that Hillingdon, the one in Uxbridge – David Simmonds? Surely both of these gents had more knowledge of the constituency, along with a real personal connection and even investment in the area, than the candidate elect Boris? Had they not more merit to represent this particular seat?

Party Before People politics

But herein lies the crux of the matter, merit wasn't the decider in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, contacts were. The two better qualified candidates wouldn't have served the interests of the Party as well as the blonde bigwig that is Boris. After all, the point in Party Politics is not what is best for the electorate – who our representatives purport to serve—but what is best for the Party. The Party is where our MPs (independents excepted) allegiances truly lie. It is the Party who they really serve. Party political power, and retaining it—that is what defines the UK's current version of democracy.

Boris himself extols the Athenian virtues of meritocracy, quoting, for example, Pericles on the ideals of Athenian democracy: "preferment for office is determined on merit, not by rank but by personal worth." But could Bojo honestly argue that, as a part-timer with virtually no previous connection to the place, he is better qualified to serve the interests of Uxbridge than a full-time councillor with years of expertise gained from working for its people, for their interests? Or is he better qualified than a councillor who has 18 years of living experience in the constituency in question? I would be interested in hearing his answer.

Indeed, what has happened in this case is power being handed to an outsider at the expense of those more deserving. It is but a slightly democratised version of the kind of feudalism created by the Norman king William the Conqueror (1028-1087). In order to consolidate his grip on the newly conquered lands, he too parachuted to the castles and important posts of 11th century England his personal friends and loyal vassals who would bid his will come what may.

Of course, a big difference to Norman England is that Boris still needs a majority vote before becoming a Member of Parliament, but we live far from a democracy based on merit where every one has an equal opportunity to stand for election and lead their community. Our Party Before People system is more akin to the People's Republic of China or Iran, where the Communist Party or Guardian Council respectively chooses the candidates that can be voted for. Thus, a chosen few effectively weighs the outcome of the election so that only preselected candidates have any realistic hope of winning.

Of course, in England anyone can put themselves forward as an independent candidate, but the political machinery of the main parties and the block voting power they will hold in Parliament make it all-but impossible for independents to be chosen for Government or really affect the country's political agenda. So, in reality, being parachuted into a safe seat, as has happened to Boris, isn't that different from a feudal monarch filling seats with his trusted minions.

Government is no place for musical chairs 

Another, slightly tangential, example of our Party Before People system of democracy is that calculated and cynical act of political expediency over long term electoral benefit which we call the reshuffle. The reshuffle this past summer, for instance. saw the replacement of several Cabinet Ministers with newcomers. Perhaps the most high profile position that was shuffled about was that of the Education Secretary.

Now, leaving aside Michael Gove's policies, my question is, who benefits most from this reshuffling? Is it the UK education system, which gets a new boss in the form of junior Treasury minister, Nicky Morgan, with no professional experience of the education sector and only a year to learn the ropes before then being replaced with another newbie? Or the Conservative party, which can make political capital by getting rid of the more experienced minister, but one that had made powerful political enemies, and potentially get more women votes in the process? While politically expedient, reshuffles just cause brain drain, disruption and a need to retrain. It is difficult to see any advantage here for the electorate.

It would surely be more beneficial in the long term if each party had to outline in their manifesto, in advance of a general election, those ministers who would hold each Cabinet post for the duration of the Parliament (provided there was no gross misconduct or such, of course). But that would take away from the Party an important tool, ever so useful for calibrating their machine toward electoral success, regardless of the effects on the public interest and the work they are supposed to be doing.

Other ways

Another quote from Pericles via Boris: "We rightly dwell today on the imperfections of Athenian democracy; and yet no modern democracy is perfect." Indeed. Would that we could govern our communities like, for example, the nomads in Ladakh, high up in the Himalayas. Here the villagers elect a leader for one year and one term at a time. The elected leader then does their best to guide the community's choices and work before relinquishing the job—often quite happily, as it happens—to the next leader. In the film Stone Pastures, we see this form of democracy in action and the responsibility and pressure it puts on the bearer. In Ladakh at least each and everyone has a chance to lead the community and there is no Party dictating who is eligible to run or who people can vote for.

Or, another example Boris would certainly be aware of, the Ancient Athenian political system. Even with such unjustness as only allowing men of property to vote and stand for public positions, it did have at least one distinct advantage to the "democracy" that we experience: there were no political parties.

For those allowed to take part in political decision making, the citizens, it was one-man-one-vote. There was no preselection, no pre-agreed block voting. Athenian democracy also had a secret weapon against corruption, the Kleroterion. This lottery machine was used to form juries and select citizens to state offices. It made block voting virtually impossible by randomizing the group who would be allowed to take part in any particular vote. Our system, on the other hand, with its institution of party "Whips", whose job it is to ensure that party members vote according to official party policy, actively promotes Party Before People politics.

That great sage of the Athenian age, Plato (427-347), correctly identified that true democracy was more suitable for relatively small city states because the sheer logistics of decision making required to govern a large population would necessitate professional politicians. The expertise of "Politics" would become more important than governing or knowledge of the area or the electorate or the portfolio... This is because politicking is more useful for securing an election and therefore one's job.

Enter our form of representative democracy, as in Uxbridge, where the pro-politician gets the leg up from the Party machine ahead of candidates with proven local expertise.

Shifting power from the Party to the People

Now, warts and all, our system in the UK is still a good way on the road to a meritocratic and equitable political system, but here are a few thoughts on how to reduce the incentives of Party Politics in favour of accountability and long term benefits for the electorate:

1. Political Parties should not be allowed to appoint candidates. Instead each candidate must garner a certain percentage of "thumbs up" from the electorate they hope to represent (today's technology would make such crowd-sourced mandates easily achievable—eg see here).
2. Each candidate should have a demonstrable connection with the constituency they are hoping to represent, through birth or throughliving there or working there.
3. Each party should be required to assign Cabinet posts before general elections.
4. To receive a Cabinet portfolio, ministers should have demonstrable experience of the department or industry in question.
5. Reshuffles should not be allowed, unless some crisis (war, death, proven corruption or misconduct, or such) necessitated it.

Just a few ideas that could make political parties more accountable, increase the amount of professionalism (real world, not politico) in government and incentivise longer term thinking, rather than focusing on how to get voted back in.

The current political system is calibrated in favour of political parties rather than the demos, which should be addressed immediately. Our semi-feudalist democracy serves political parties and vested interests first, and only second the electorate. We should aim for true democracy that would serve the interests of everyone, and give each and every one of us the possibility to lead our communities. Candidacy to lead a community should not be based on contacts, it should be based on merit.

***

UPDATE: Guido Fawkes brings us this similar story of Labour parachuting their chums into Parliament, ahead of local candidates.