Not everything is political, but anything can be made political.
The problem of load shedding in South Africa left the shores of politics and politicians, and is now in the land of technocrats. This is not to say that there should be no accountability or political consequences — quite the opposite.
For now, however, even if you can rally tens of thousands of people to “march for electricity”, the lights will not magically turn back on and stay on.
Let us try an analogy.
Imagine a car crash. A series of bad operational decisions over an extended period has led to near total destruction of the vehicle. The matters of who drove the car, what decisions were or were not made, or issues ex-ante, like design, manufacture, maintenance and service — let’s call that the politics — are quite separate from getting the car repaired, making sure that it will withstand any future shocks and that future drivers take better care of the vehicle.
To get the car repaired you need panel beaters, spray painters, motor mechanics and other technically skilled people.
Taking the focus back to electricity generation and supply, you don’t need performative politicians, curated protests or theatricalities that are insurrectionist in intent and meaningless in purpose.
In other words, and given that the Economic Freedom Fighters are leading a “national shutdown” of the country on 20 March, it should be stressed, over and again, that there is no substitute for the technical or engineering skills required to get electricity flowing again.
South Africans have a right to be angry. South Africans have a right to protest.
The EFF’s leader, Julius Malema, has a right to lead his followers in public protest, but the cat is out of the bag. Malema’s main objective is to get President Cyril Ramaphosa to resign.
This, too, is not unreasonable, but imagine Ramaphosa stepping down at midnight on 20 March, then ask yourself whether — a minute or two after the President steps down — electricity supply would flow consistently and reliably for months and years into the future.
On this basis, it’s really not unreasonable to suggest that Malema’s planned protest is purely performative and ritualistic — we can only hope that it does not leave any destruction in its wake.
The problem of load shedding is now technical, though socially and historically it is arguably part of a decade(s)-long drift towards greater decline of state and society.
Whatever happens next, it is not inconceivable to imagine that we are approaching a point when electricity supply will be rationed.
The variable geometry of managed austerity electricity supply
With the load shedding problem almost completely out of the hands of politicians — and to get political economic activity (manufacturing, production and the provision of educational, health and a range of public goods) sustainably under way — we should probably not be surprised if electricity supply is rationed.
Enter austerity electricity supply. In this scenario, the state may turn to society and ask for/recommend “belt tightening” while technocrats build and repair infrastructure.
This belt tightening would mean that centres of commerce and the provision of healthcare, education, sanitation and so on would proceed uninterrupted, while state and society engage in a variable geometric process to try to restore the generation of electricity with existing institutions, while new means of generation and distribution are put in place.
Because of the complexity of the problem — coal vs renewables, failing state-owned enterprises, corruption, maladministration, theft, nonpayment of utilities, ageing or failed infrastructure, social unrest, (rationalists would insist that exhaustion, exasperation and anger are irrational) — all parties and the dreaded “vested interests” may have to negotiate at different “levels” with differing expectations.
The public may be asked to go without electricity for a bloc of time every day so that emergency services can return to some kind of normality, and the economic sectors can be fired up while the state does its best to provide public goods and services.
In other words, homeowners and occupants could be asked to sacrifice personal/private demand for the common good. This assumes, of course, that there is agreement on what the “common good” is, or what it ought to be.
This “austerity” would affect mainly personal/private users.
Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations
Let’s elaborate a bit more. Bearing in mind the variable geometry principle and method: businesses (employers) will operate, and schools, hospitals and so on will all operate with sustainable supply; people (private individuals) would return to their homes in the dark, so to speak; the state would free up regulation for people to produce, and probably trade, barter and exchange renewable energy within communities; municipalities would focus on recovering money that is owed; Eskom would be placed in business rescue (or something)… and, as the Afrikaans saying goes, it’s almal se skouer aan die wiel.
Asking all of the above from a society that has probably the least trust among communities or groups in the world (apologies, I made that up) with a ruling alliance that is the centre of its own attention, restive revolutionaries in red, and rising levels of anger and exasperation, may be asking for too much.
As for specific political parties, the ruling alliance should be held responsible (it’s probably stupid to suggest this, but they should be charged with desertion and dereliction of duty).
We can say with some certainty that the Democratic Alliance may realise that the problem is technical, but also have a lot to gain from continuing to make it political. That’s their right. It is what political parties do.
We can be pretty sure that the EFF will not do anything for the common good — unless Malema defines the common good.
In fact, the EFF are self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries… It may be useful, when considering the EFF’s likely conception of the common good, to remember the Russian revolutionary Mikhail Bakunin’s (1896) “catechism” for revolutionaries:
“All the tender feelings of family life, of friendship, love, gratitude and even honour must be stifled in the revolutionary by a single cold passion for the revolutionary cause.”
The EFF’s programme is simple. It wants to govern South Africa. In the meantime, everyone remains in the dark. DM