Eskom is losing its 10th CEO in 10 years, as Andre de Ruyter winds up his leadership of the troubled parastatal.
And that should say a lot about the level of difficulty that comes with what is arguably South Africa’s most toxic poisoned chalice.
It’s almost as if the powers that be are doing their damndest to ensure Eskom fails on its mandate to provide a stable electricity supply to all South Africans.
Very little else makes any sense, because considering the critical nature of electricity in a modern society, it would be relatively easy to remove all the bureaucratic obstacles out of the way, so that Eskom is able to access any resources required to achieve success.
The question is: why exactly is that not being done? Why does Eskom not enjoy unilateral support from all ministers and stakeholders across the board, with everyone working together to secure that one singular objective? It truly is a question that keeps me up at night.
With Eskom hoping for a 32% tariff increase next year, SAA praying for private capital and the SABC keen on a blanket household tax to balance its books, I am frankly boggled by why our government insists on hanging on to costly state-owned enterprises that are clearly unable to turn a profit.
But that’s a conversation for another day.
Right now what baffles me even more is why government doesn’t simply halt all expenditure on anything other than sorting out our electricity grid.
It is after all the foundational resource that literally everything else relies on.
Why bother with schools, when there’s no lights for classrooms; or transport, when you can’t power trains; or tourism, when foreigners are stranded in the dark?
Electricity is like the foundation of a house. If it isn’t strong and well put together, then you have to stop building the walls to fix it, or tear the whole thing down and start all over again.
I dare say that South Africans understand and are prepared to make these sacrifices, if it’s going to mean the permanent end of load shedding.
Those officials and commentators who have been critical of De Ruyter are attention-seekers, who are not interested in being part of the solution.
Have they gone to their constituents and demanded that they piemp the thieves who steal cables and sabotage infrastructure, so they themselves can get the repair tenders?
Have they insisted that the SAPS prioritise Eskom crimes and that suspects face serious charges akin to treason that will serve as deterrents to others?
Have they demanded internal loyalty and co-operation from their own supporters inside Eskom, who actively sabotage De Ruyter from within?
Have they looked at how their own conduct within their industries or departments are exacerbating the problem?
I doubt it. Because many have government homes exempt from load shedding and increased salaries that are exempt from inflationary erosion.
The limelight and securing their own positions and pensions are all they care about.
The point is, De Ruyter isn’t the problem, and neither was any of those who came before him.
The problem is the lack of support for the office of the Eskom CEO from those who can make or break his mandate.
His political boss Gwede Mantashe even absurdly accused him of “agitating for the overthrow of the State”.
The job has clearly become a very visible and very important political football.
After all, electricity (or the lack thereof in this case), affects every single one of us, so politicians see value in commenting on it.
In the same breath, who wouldn’t want to be the person forever known as the one who fixed our load shedding crisis?
What an awesome legacy to have!
So obviously in pursuit of this legacy, the CEO is not going to sabotage himself.
That’s the job of those who want it for themselves.
Caption: DARK TIMES: The load shedding crisis in SA has become a visible and important political football ► that the government has no clear plan to sort out the current crisis of heavy load shedding in the country ◄ .