Introduction

With the development of new information and communication technologies the right to communicate assumes new dimensions since it is almost impossible to fully participate in the globalized world without it.   South Africa held its first democratic elections in 1994 and has subsequently returned to the international arena.   Its citizens can therefore rightly expect to be able to participate in all that this return offers, not only politically but also economically and socially.   Telecommunications are vital to make communication on this scale possible.   In recognition of this fact, the newly elected government developed policies and enacted legislation to ensure that the telecommunications sector and specifically the sole fixed line service provider Telkom provide South African citizens affordable access to the telecommunications infrastructure whilst providing acceptable levels of service.   However, it has become soon clear that Telkom has misused its monopoly in the market place. Not only has it led to a failure to provide an effective communication infrastructure in South Africa, but due to this monopoly in the marketplace South Africa has ended up in being on of the most expensive countries in terms of the cost of telephone communications. Telkom furthermore increased in profit margin substantially in the last couple of years and has cut it labour force by more that half. This paper, based on the assumption that we all have a right to communicate, will investigate, for a justice perspective the current policies of Telkom as well as the effect that it has on the people of South Africa.

The paper is structured in the following manner: First the right to communicate is discussed with reference to the role of telecommunications giving effect to this right. Second, the South Africa situation is described with regard to the policy of its government to provide telecommunications infrastructure and the implementation thereof to date; both the history leading to the current situation and the current situation are covered.   Last, the social injustice that this situation creates is critically examined against the background of the right to communicate. The analysis is based on John Rawls’ two principles of justice as well as Sen’s capability approach.

B. The right to communicate

In this part of the paper we argue that communication is an essential human process that makes both individual expression and societal structure possible.   ICT has made it possible to communicate beyond the distance that one’s voice carries to reach the entire globe by means of modern inventions such as e-mail. In the global information economy communication and access to information also implies access to different socio-economic and political activities (for example, buying online). We therefore make the point that human rights needed to be updated to reflect these developments.

Whilst it is necessary to entrench this right legally it is not, however, sufficient. Justice requires that those ensured of this right must also be enabled to effectively make use of it. This implies that the technological infrastructure must be made available and accessible.  Furthermore, merely putting the technologies in place is also not sufficient; the technologies must also be socially appropriated in order to serve the society.  

C. The current situation: Money talks, not people

After arguing that the right to communicate is a basic human right we focus in the next part of the paper on the current situation regarding telecommunication in South Africa and how this negatively effects this basic and important right in South Africa. Based on a background description we conclude that the situation regarding the right to communicate as well as the telecommunication policy and infrastructure development in South Africa is unjust.

In dealing with the background information we focus on the following issues:

• Telkom being the sole telecommunication operator in South Africa since 1991.
• The creation of market monopoly – resulting in a increase of their profit margin from   R1,7 billion in 2003 to R9.3 billion in 2006.
• The injustice to their own workforce. From 2001 – 2005 Telkom (irrespective of their profit margins) laid of more than 50% of their workforce – as they put it – to be more efficient.
• The injustice to the people living in South Africa. Telecommunication cost in South Africa is currently one of the highest in the world. We elaborate on the outcry of the public against these high cost – with hardly any effect.
• How this is in contrast to the vision of the newly elected government in South Africa (elected in the first democratic election in 1994) regarding the right of all South Africans to have affordable access to a telecommunication infrastructure.
• The question why the South African government still has a 37, 7% share of Telkom.

D.  A case for social justice: from Hellkom to Telkom

In the third part of the paper we analyze this situation from a social justice perspective based on the premises that the right to communicate is a basic human right. We base our analysis on three categories of justice namely distributive, contributive and communtative justice which are derived from the two core principles of social justice defined by Rawls (1971).

We focus on the following in dealing with these three categories of justice:

• Distributive justice: Focus on the fair allocation of burdens and benefits in society.
• Contributive justice: Focus on duty and responsibility to one another in society.
• Commutative justice: Focus on fair contractual agreements that define relationships, outline benefits and burdens and specifies obligations and responsibilities to one another.

In line with Young (1990) we argue that justice is both a positive and negative virtue which not only prevents harm and conflict, but also creates a consciousness towards the recognition and protection of our human dignity and basic rights. Our point of departure is therefore that social justice as a tool can be applied to this end when there is consensus amongst all role players and stakeholders in South Africa.  

We argue, based on Rawls first principle and as it is expressed in distribute, contributive as well as communtative justice, that the South African government has the responsibility to ensure that the rights of individuals in a community are protected, their human dignity respected and the least in society taken care of. According to our argument it also implies the fair distribution of essential information and other goods and services that are regarded as common goods such a telecommunications infrastructure. We also illustrate, using Sen’s (1993) capability approach, that the social and economic structures in South Africa need to be organized in such a manner that everyone has an equal opportunity not only to contribute towards the creation of wealth, but also to be able to participate in the various socio-economic and political activities that will enable their human well-being. This implies according to us amongst other access to an affordable communication infrastructure. We argue furthermore that the South African government and other relevant institutions that shape the economic life will violate the principles of social justice, as it is expressed in these three categories of justice, when they fail to create a system, including a communication infrastructure, where all have the equal opportunity to participate in socio-economic and political activities.

In addressing these inequalities in the South African information marketplace we also make an argument, based on Rawls second principle, that although inequalities can be justified in a society, these cannot be to the disadvantage of those less privileged.   Thus different services with different prices are acceptable.   However, the less privileged in South Africa are not only are price-sensitive but are also in many cases treated with less respect by Telkom. In this regards we refer specifically to the fact that Telkom constantly ignore the broad and fully justified public outcry again their policies. We make therefore a strong case that the current situation regarding Telkom in South Africa does not reflect any sensitivity to the poor and less privileged as well as their own work force.

We therefore argue, based on the basic principles underlying social justice, that the current situation with regard to telecommunications in South Africa is particularly untenable given the mandate and platform of the government as the first democratically elected government. Based on communtative justice we argue that,  given the promise of access to affordable telecommunications, the people living in South Africa can justifiably demand that the government deliver on its initial policy intentions since these are in line with the principles of social justice. We argue that society (the South African government and Telkom) needs to be open to listen to the valid complains of South Africans and in particular the workers who lost their jobs. Such an openness does not only imply the creation of a platform where people can raise their concerns in a legitimate manner, but it also implies the creation of new structures and policies that should be based on mutually acceptable core values (Waltzer, 1983).  

Based on the three categories of justice we propose some practical guidelines that can be used by policy makers in South Africa to ensure a more fair telecommunication infrastructure that is not only accessible but also affordable.

References

Better late than never: Telecoms in South Africa.   The Economist, 9/2/2006, 380(8493):56-57

Efficient Research.   2004.   An international comparison of South African telecommunication costs and the possible effect of telecommunications on economic performance and a report on Telkom’s financial statements and comparisons with selected local and international companies [online].   Available: (accessed November 13, 2006).

Genesis Analytics.   (2004).   Telecommunications prices in South Africa: an international peer group comparison [online].   Available: (accessed November 17, 2006).

Shapshak, T.   (2006).   Irate users take on Telkom in print.   The Weekender, August 26-27, 2006, p. 9

Yankee Group.   (2003).   South African Communications, 2002-2008: Market Review and Analysis [online].   Available: (accessed November 13, 2006).

Young, I.M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rawls, J. (1973). A Theory of Justice, second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Waltzer, M. (1983). Spheres of Justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Hellkom is a word that is used in a website in South Africa to describe the current unjust policies of Telkom in South Africa.