Eskom ‘a clear and present danger’

Eskom's acting chief executive, Brian Molefe. The writer argues that Molefe needs to break up Eskom into two parts - a good Eskom and a bad Eskom. File photo: Simphiwe Mbokazi

Eskom's acting chief executive, Brian Molefe. The writer argues that Molefe needs to break up Eskom into two parts - a good Eskom and a bad Eskom. File photo: Simphiwe Mbokazi

Published Jul 20, 2015

Share

Eskom is not a bank, but its troubles bring to mind an important question that bankers are mostly familiar with: Is Eskom too big to fail?

This question is what the government should be asking itself as it is becoming quite clear that Eskom’s crisis is fast becoming untenable. Its problems are already ricocheting across the economy.

By all accounts, Eskom has failed South Africa, and the sooner we accept this, the better. But what is unacceptable is to see the country’s growth potential go up in smoke as Eskom goes on pretending it’s business as usual.

Not only is Eskom the biggest impediment to growing the economy, but it has also become a clear and present danger to South Africa’s national interest. With Eskom, South Africa is living on the edge. How else does one explain the recent spate of poor economic reports?

Business and consumer confidence continues to drop. The psychological impact of Eskom’s problems mean that individuals and companies will be reluctant to spend or invest their money while sitting in the dark.

Eskom needs tough medicine. The work that Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa has been doing in the so-called war room to try and set in motion a collective plan to stabilise Eskom is commendable. But it is merely a start.

The big problem is that Eskom, as it stands, is past its “fix-by” date. Moreover, there does not appear to be an appreciation, let alone a full acknowledgement, from Eskom and the government of the fact that power problems are structural, entrenched and cataclysmic in nature.

Very sick entity

So to expect that the utility will be stabilised in its current shape is wishful thinking. Eskom needs to be broken up into two parts – a good Eskom and bad Eskom. This is something acting chief executive Brian Molefe should be pursuing if his stint at the utility will not go down as having been a “more-of-the-same” episode.

As a leader, Molefe must see himself as someone who has been asked to do triage on what is evidently a very sick entity.

The government’s move to dole out a R23 billion cash injection for the embattled utility is merely a band aid. Eskom needs a full recapitalisation, which can only happen if the Eskom of today becomes the Eskom of tomorrow.

In other words, it is an exercise in futility to think Eskom’s problems will be solved by throwing good money after bad. To do this will create what is known as moral hazard – something that the bankers are all too familiar with. Money should go to the parts that are worth saving.

What that really means is that without a clearly defined plan to peel off the onion that is Eskom, government will be unable to get to the bottom of all that is wrong with the utility. Moreover, the never-ending game of musical chairs in Eskom’s C-suite has also served to compound the problems faced by the utility.

But to be sure, Eskom’s problems are a symptom of a much deeper problem at some of our key state-owned entities. It just always seems as if the government does not intend to make these entities work. Bailouts are not the answer. Whether it is Eskom, SAA or PetroSA, these entities now need custodians – not chief executives – to run them.

My online dictionary defines a custodian as a person who has responsibility for taking care of or protecting something. And this definition really signifies what these parastatals have lacked, and that is real leadership.

Warren Bennis, one of my enduring references on leadership thought, once said: “Failing organisations are usually over-managed and under-led.”

In this instance, Bennis may well also have been talking about South Africa’s troubled state-owned entities.

But even if some of these entities do find some sort of leadership, one can safely assume that it would consistently face interference – and more especially when there needs to be a focus on making sure that the country’s economic and developmental imperatives are made a priority.

It would be a real pity if 20 years from now the failures of entities like Eskom became the reason why South Africa lost so many opportunities that could have helped the country thrive.

* Ellis Mnyandu is the editor of Business Report. Follow him on Twitter: @Ellis_Mnyandu

Business Report

Related Topics: