South Africa cannot afford another policy experiment with Eskom

There is broad agreement across South Africa's political and economic landscape that Eskom cannot remain frozen in its current form. Years of governance failures, operational decline, financial strain and chronic underinvestment have made reform inevitable.

But inevitable does not mean immediate.

President Cyril Ramaphosa's approval of the Eskom Restructuring Task Team's Phase I Report, which advances the establishment of an independent Transmission System Operator, has been welcomed by many as a decisive step towards a modern electricity market. Reformers argue it will attract investment, improve competition and accelerate the country's energy transition.

Those ambitions deserve serious consideration. Yet ambition alone cannot justify haste.

South Africa has paid dearly for major policy decisions that were pursued faster than the institutions responsible for implementing them could cope. Eskom itself is a reminder that poor governance, weak oversight and rushed execution can leave consequences that last for decades.

The danger is not reform.

The danger is believing that speed is the same thing as progress.

South Africa's electricity system is not an ordinary state institution. It is the backbone of the economy. Every mine, factory, municipality, hospital, school, business and household depends on decisions made within Eskom. Any restructuring process that disrupts accountability, operational stability or investment certainty carries consequences far beyond boardrooms and Cabinet meetings.

This is why restructuring cannot become a political deadline designed to demonstrate action. It must instead be a national project built on careful planning, institutional readiness and broad public confidence.

One of the most overlooked voices in this debate is organised labour.

For thousands of Eskom employees, restructuring is not an abstract policy discussion. It raises understandable questions about job security, career paths, working conditions and the future of one of South Africa's largest employers. Dismissing these concerns as resistance to change would be both unfair and strategically unwise.

History has shown that reforms imposed without meaningful consultation often encounter resistance that delays the very progress they were intended to achieve. A successful transition depends on bringing workers into the process, not treating them as obstacles to it.

There is also the question of financial risk.

Separating assets, liabilities, operational responsibilities and governance structures is a technically demanding exercise. Done properly, it can strengthen the electricity sector. Done poorly, it can create uncertainty, weaken institutions and increase costs that ultimately fall on taxpayers and electricity consumers.

South Africa simply cannot afford another experiment whose price is measured in economic disruption.

Nor should policymakers underestimate the importance of public trust.

After years of load shedding, allegations of corruption and declining confidence in state institutions, many South Africans are understandably sceptical of promises that structural reform alone will solve Eskom's problems. They have heard assurances before. What they now expect is evidence that reforms are practical, transparent and capable of delivering measurable improvements.

Government should therefore resist the temptation to confuse momentum with success.

The objective should never be to restructure Eskom as quickly as possible.

The objective should be to restructure Eskom as successfully as possible.

There is an important distinction.

An independent Transmission System Operator may well become one of the most important reforms in South Africa's democratic history. It has the potential to open the electricity market, encourage investment in new generation capacity and strengthen long-term energy security.

But none of those benefits will materialise simply because a new institution is created.

Success will depend on governance that inspires confidence, regulation that provides certainty, financial arrangements that are sustainable, and an implementation process that keeps the lights on while the system is transformed.

South Africa has learned, often painfully, that good policy is only as effective as its execution.

The country cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past by allowing urgency to replace careful planning.

Reforming Eskom is necessary.

Modernising the electricity sector is necessary.

Preparing South Africa for a competitive and resilient energy future is necessary.

But rushing one of the most consequential structural reforms in the country's history would be a mistake.

When the lights stay on, businesses invest, workers remain secure and consumers benefit from a stronger electricity system, no one will remember whether the reform took an extra year or two.

They will remember that it was done properly.

That should be the standard against which Eskom's restructuring is judged—not the speed at which it is completed, but the stability and prosperity it ultimately delivers.

Writes in own personal capacity