University of Pretoria etd – Meissner, R (2005) 14 PART I THEORETICAL DIMENSIONS University of Pretoria etd – Meissner, R (2005) 15 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENTS AND THE WATER DISCOURSE: TOWARDS A CONSTRUCTIVIST SYNTHESIS 1. Introduction Everyone on a daily basis uses theories6, whether they are professional water managers or just lay persons (Walt, 1998: 29). Similarly, scholars of water politics use theories to make sense of the concrete world they observe. Indeed, as new events and phenomena take form, or old ones are rediscovered, theories are employed to organise, describe, explain and predict the outcome of such events. For instance, over the last decade a new water paradigm has developed on the way humans use and manage water resources. A growing environmental conscience, promoted by interest groups, and the costs involved in building and operating WRMPs influenced the development of this paradigm (Gleick, 1998: 5-33). Although there is no explicit link between the water discourse (the way scholars ‘speak’ of water politics) and International Relations theoretical perspectives, as the one changes so too does the other. These theoretical perspectives are forever evolving and new developments periodically emerge from the field of water politics. Since a reciprocal association exists between the theoretical abstraction of the world and the concrete realm of water politics, there is an implicit link between theoretical perspectives and water politics. Moreover, the specific ways in which the water discourse and certain theoretical perspectives are linked indicate the extent to which the discourse is embedded in these perspectives. The purpose of this chapter is to establish the link between the water discourse and the various theoretical perspectives of International Relations and to contextualise the different theoretical perspectives in relation to water politics. The aim is to develop a theoretical framework to systematically analyse the transnational role and involvement of interest groups in water politics. Stated differently, the real world of interest group involvement in WRMPs will be linked to abstract theoretical perspectives to produce an answer to the stated research problem. Hence, the purpose is to discuss the link between the water discourse and theoretical perspectives; to outline the development of International Relations theory in relation to the water discourse; to discuss relevant mainstream, positivist theories and their assumptions and to link these theories to water politics; to discuss so-called tributary, reflectivist theory; and to bridge the divide between mainstream and tributary theories with reference to social constructivism. 6 For a more in-depth discussion on theories, see Meehan, E.J. (1988) and Ziman, J. (1984). University of Pretoria etd – Meissner, R (2005) 16 2. The Water Discourse and International Relations Theory Human beings have an intimate relationship with water. Historically, more particularly during the twentieth century, water was rarely the centre of attention of international relations, except in the context of so-called ‘high politics’. However, since the end of the Cold War, water politics has emerged as an issue of practical and scholarly concern that involves and extends to issues other than the physical presence and use of water, such as economics, development, the environment, security and human rights. Thus, the water discourse covers a broad array of issues. Furthermore, water is also of global concern. Consequently, the ‘complexities’ and ‘complexes’ of water have become a fundamental part of world politics during the past two to three decades (Du Plessis, 2000: 9-10). Hence the questions: What is the relationship between the water discourse and International Relations theory? How does International Relations theory accommodate and deal with the water discourse? In this respect, Du Plessis (2000: 11) observes that ‘the water discourse appears to navigate an uncertain course through international relations theory, and also seems unsure about (dis)embarkation points and direction-finding beacons’. The level of this uncertainty can be clarified by contextualising theory(ies) underpinning the water discourse in the setting of competing International Relations theories (Du Plessis, 2000: 11-15). In other words, the water discourse is embedded in or linked to competing theoretical perspectives and therefore shares certain elements with International Relations. Stated differently, various aspects of the water discourse are compatible with and relevant to International Relations. For example, the discourse itself also encompasses the environment. Because of the importance of ecology in the discourse, socio-economic development is also involved. The discourse is also linked to and concerned with the idea of security. In addition, security concerns extend to the relationship between environmental change, scarce natural resources, and conflict between international actors. It has furthermore a normative dimension and covers not only issues of value, for instance settled norms like sovereignty and autonomy, but also nascent norms like humanitarian intervention. More than that, the discourse also embraces ethical considerations, for instance the sharing, distribution of and access to scarce resources and the issue of human rights. International and domestic water law also forms part of the discourse as a foundation of order, justice, cooperation and governance. Likewise, the realities of geopolitics are also involved (Stutz & De Souza, 1998: 111; Du Plessis, 2000: 11-15; Turton et al., 2003: 7-21; Turton, 2003a: 13-15; Wolf, 2003: 1). With this in mind, how do scholars contextualise the water discourse in theoretical terms? Many scholars do not ‘contextualise the water discourse in a particular theoretical mode’ for example Gleick (1993), Ohlsson (1995a, 1995b), Payne (1996), Homer-Dixon (1994), Homer-Dixon (1996), Hudson (1996), McCully (1996), Solomon (1996), Okidi (1997), Percival (1997), Gleick (1998), Percival and Homer-Dixon (1998), Van Wyk (1998), Allan (1999), Fleming (1999), University of Pretoria etd – Meissner, R (2005) 17 Turton (1999) and Meissner (2000a; 2000b). The exception is Swatuk and Vale (2000), who ‘represent a post-positivist, reflectivist mode of theorising by criticising the current water discourse’ (Du Plessis, 2000: 10). Thus, only a few water discourse scholars are concerned with the importance of theoretical approaches to International Relations. This being the case, what is the nature of theorising in the water discourse? Although few academics inside the field are knowledgeable about International Relations theory, the subject is nevertheless saturated with theory. This is contrary to the opinion of one observer of the discourse who claims that: ‘Another gap being filled here [with a book on the hydropolitical drivers in the Okavango River basin] is the almost lack of theory about the problematique of international water. With the exceptions of Allan and … Turton, who continued to be a lone voice in the theoretical wilderness for years, and a small smattering of literature (especially Blatter and Ingram’s Reflections on water), the dialogue has been almost devoid of any theoretical underpinnings’ (Wolf, 2003: 1). However, theorising in the water discourse is implicit and subliminal and sheds little light on International Relations theory (Du Plessis, 2000: 10), with the exceptions of Lowi (1993), Meissner (1998) and Turton (2000a). Lowi argues her thesis from the perspective of neo-functionalism; Meissner takes a stand from a liberal-institutionalist position; while Turton, on the other hand, uses political ecology as a theoretical basis. These studies have been conducted within positivist (i.e. Lowi and Meissner) and post-positivist (i.e. Turton) contexts. This does not mean that Lowi, Meissner and Turton stand apart from other scholars in the water discourse concerning International Relations theory. Their stance is justified by the practical relevance of theory, because of the systematic manner in which the subject matter of water politics is dealt with (Du Plessis, 2000: 10-11). In spite of this, what is the theoretical position of other scholars in the water discourse? Most scholars participating in the discourse take ‘an atheoretical or deliberately non-theoretical’ stance. These scholars are usually unfamiliar with international relations theory, other than the International Relations specialists. Nevertheless, they contribute meaningfully to the water discourse by importing non-political theoretical constructs (Du Plessis, 2000: 10-11). In other words, although the water discourse is characterised by the previously mentioned atheoretical or deliberate non-theoretical character, the subliminal theoretical dimension of the discourse can nevertheless be traced with reference to the development of International Relations theory. 3. The Development and Typology of International Relations Theory International Relations has always been a contested discipline that has hardly ever been fully accepted or secured. Some see it as a sub-discipline of Political Science whereas others see it as an interdisciplinary undertaking. Regardless, the subject matter of International Relations changed considerably over time. During the 1990s the most spectacular changes occurred, due mainly to the end of the Cold War. In addition, International Relations is a divided, dividing, disordered and disagreed about discipline (Du Plessis, 2000: 15). To a certain