What can Bahria Town deliver that the entire establishment of Rawalpindi’s Cantonment Board cannot?

Water for one.

And not just the water, but also other necessary municipal services namely solid waste collection, clean and well-lit streets, planned urban development, and security.

The Rawalpindi Cantonment Board (RCB) is responsible to supply water to all residents, but that seems not to be the case. The water-starved residents grudgingly purchase water from private suppliers who deliver a tank of 6,000 litres for 800 to 1200 rupees. A family of six persons in a seven marla residential unit can gulp a tank in a week, thus ending up with a monthly water bill of up to 4,800 rupees.

A few weeks spent in the Rawalpindi Cantonment earlier this year helped me understand the disconnect between the residents’ (taxpayers) expectations and an administration that lacks imagination and initiative.

Newspaper reports suggest that the RCB collects 70 million rupees in water service charges, but spends 210 million in supplying water, which many residents find insufficient or completely lacking. The RCB administration would like to increase water service charges to recover delivery costs.

A 1998 Census revealed that access to potable water in the Rawalpindi Cantonment was far worse than that in areas served by the Rawalpindi Municipal Corporation.

—Source: Population Census Organisation. Census of Pakistan (1998). Graphic drawn by Murtaza Haider.

Given the economies of scale, which suggest that service delivery costs decline with an increase in the number of consumers, the RCB can deliver piped water at much cheaper rates than the private operators who individually can serve a few dozen clients at best, using the inefficient tankers.

In 2012, the RCB proposed to increase water charges such that a seven marla residential unit would pay 300 rupees per month. Why are consumers willing to spend more in private water supply (4800 rupees per month), yet refuse to pay adequate, yet much cheaper, water service charges (e.g., 300 rupees per month) to the RCB for improved water supply?

The residents are not reluctant to pay more. Their willingness to pay is clearly established from what they pay to the private operators. The answer lies in the lack of trust. Residents do not the trust the RCB to improve the water supply in return for higher service charges.

The vicious cycle of taxpayers’ lack of trust in municipal authorities, and the less than adequate funds raised from service charges is behind the slow, yet very predictable, collapse of municipal services across Pakistan.

The RCB is not an exception, but symptomatic of the urban rot in Pakistan.

Over in Rawalpindi’s Bahria Town, the residents no longer fret about power, water, and security.

They pay for the electricity and water they consume. Given the savings resulting from the economies of scale, the residents of Bahria Town enjoy collective savings in utility bills and enjoy an urban lifestyle that saves them from the hassles of chasing water tanks and the stresses caused by noise and pollution, and the fears emanating from the lack of security.

One wonders why things work at one place, but not the other.

Why the same urbanites after relocating from the Rawalpindi Cantonment or the City to Bahria Town pay for the services they consume, do no litter, and try to preserve the public good?

Why the same households who steal electricity in the City become willing and compliant subscribers in Bahria Town?

Why immigrants who do not follow traffic laws in their home countries become law-abiding drivers after immigration?

Enforcement may be the reason for compliance in places like Bahria Town.

Those who litter are fined and they cannot talk or intimidate their way out of paying fines. They cannot bribe utility workers in Bahria Town to help trick the electricity meters. If one pollutes or cheats, the neighbours report the miscreants to authorities because as citizens they would like to preserve the common good.

The trust between the consumer and the service provider is also the reason why consumers readily pay their dues for guaranteed services in return.

Have you ever wondered why those who steal electricity duly pay the hefty tuition fees charged by private schools? The consumers trust the school operators to deliver education services in return for the tuition fees they collect. That trust is missing with the municipal authorities.

The public sector operators have a trust deficit even with those consumers who willingly pay for the services they consume from the private sector. The apathetic municipal governments do little to earn the taxpayers’ trust. The municipal service providers, being a monopoly, are remarkably uninterested in providing quality services to their clientele.

Visit the offices of a municipal service provider with a water complaint to experience firsthand the sorry state of municipal governance across Pakistan.

The consumers are also not without fault.

They are mindful of the increasing costs of everything else they consume, but fail to see the urgency for higher user fees for municipal services. By refusing to pay the nominal increase for municipal services they have contributed to the near collapse of municipal finances in urban Pakistan.

In so doing, the consumers have not only denied themselves the opportunity to enjoy basic municipal services, they have also ended up paying higher charges to cartels that run water supply and power back up systems.

How to win back the trust?

In such circumstances, the onus is on the RCB (and other municipal authorities elsewhere) to win the trust of the taxpayers.

A public relations campaign in the print and news media can be a good starting point to illustrate how the RCB can save the residents money by delivering better water supply services at a fraction of the exorbitant costs charged by the private operators.

This must be accompanied with a charter of rights for the taxpayers who can expect guaranteed water supply in return for higher service charges.

The lack of trust could be addressed if communities across the urban landscape organise to communicate and negotiate with municipal authorities.

Community groups are much more likely to be heard by the clerks running the municipal governments.

Organised communities can in fact have an intelligent dialogue with the municipal authorities to understand the costs of municipal service delivery and have a say in how user fees are generated and spent.

These important tasks cannot be left to political leaders because they have no interest in resolving matters that relate to the welfare of masses.

When was the last time any political or religious party stood for a charter of citizens’ rights that guarantees a minimum threshold for municipal service delivery?

It is not the destiny of urban Pakistan to be a rotting place.

The planned enclaves in Bahria Towns suggest that, given an opportunity, quaint urban lifestyles are possible in Pakistan.

What we need is for communities to self-organise and the municipal governments to strive to earn the trust of the communities that they are mandated to serve.