The concerning unemployment figures published by STATS SA last week highlight a worsening crisis, especially among our youth.
This situation points to a failure to invigorate our economy at a level adequate to create jobs.
The factors contributing to this problem are evident—ranging from logistics to the energy sector, investors are ready to invest, eagerly awaiting actionable plans.
There isn’t just one hurdle to overcome; we must demonstrate a collective commitment, showcasing our sincere desire to implement the essential reforms that will foster growth.
Regrettably, we are observing a troubling absence of urgency and dedication regarding follow-up actions.
A clear example of this is the Eskom board’s hesitance to separate transmission assets into an independent system operator (ITSO).
I have consistently acknowledged that this restructuring is complex—largely due to the stakes of Eskom’s lenders, who have invested billions into the company.
Undoubtedly, the transmission assets are currently reflected on the balance sheet of the utility to which those billions have been lent.
They would naturally be hesitant to see the creditworthiness of that utility compromised during the unbundling process.
These concerns are entirely valid, and the rights of lenders and other investors must be honored throughout this process.
However, the bankers and lenders I engage with are receptive to discussions. It simply needs to start.
The Eskom board is not initiating that dialogue, and that is the core issue.
There’s a stark distinction between acknowledging complexity and using it as an excuse to stall progress.
An Eskom board genuinely committed to reform would focus on resolving lender concerns by engaging directly, proposing solutions, and fostering trust.
Instead, the signals indicate a slow-moving approach, spotlighting problems rather than solutions, and hoping that political motivation wanes as the process drags on.
Each month of inaction equates to postponed investments and missed job opportunities.
Eskom’s lenders are not against reform—in fact, many are heavily invested in South Africa’s success.
What undermines their confidence is not the reform itself, but the absence of reliable execution.
At present, I lack faith that the current Eskom leadership is sincerely committed to the success of these reforms.
What I need to see is a board that prioritizes solutions over obstacles, actively collaborates with lenders to create a clear path forward, and addresses complexity with the conviction that achieving a competitive electricity market with dependable, affordable power is worthwhile.
Unfortunately, we are not in that situation.
Moreover, the National Union of Mineworkers has resorted to legal measures to obstruct these reforms, claiming they will “destroy Eskom.”
This claim does not hold. The lenders to Eskom would never permit an outcome that threatens the utility’s viability—this scenario is unfeasible due to their financial stake.
The real threat to Eskom lies not in the unbundling, but in the escalating R114bn in municipal debts.
Addressing this issue must be a primary focus in the restructuring process, a stance consistently promoted by BLSA.
NUM would be better off working to resolve the municipal debt crisis instead of opposing the reforms aimed at resolving it.
The business community has closely partnered with Eskom to support its operational recovery and will continue to provide that support.
Our commitment to Eskom’s long-term viability is unwavering.
Meanwhile, electricity minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa is scheduled to appear in the Supreme Court this week, appealing a High Court decision that halted new coal procurement, aligning with several environmental NGOs.
I struggle to see how this represents an effective use of the minister’s time or taxpayer resources.
The 2025 Integrated Resource Plan includes no new coal generation—therefore, the minister is litigating for a technology that the government does not plan to use.
In any case, new coal generation projects are impractical; no financier would back them.
Coal is a relic of the past.
The minister’s efforts and resources should be directed toward what truly matters: engaging lenders on the ITSO transaction framework, providing a clear timeline for the Sawem launch this quarter, and demonstrating political will to push these reforms forward despite institutional challenges.
Let’s not forget that South Africa once fulfilled its commitments.
This resulted in economic growth of 5% per year, an investment-grade credit rating, and an unemployment rate far lower than what we see today.
Our course changed after 2008, particularly during the Zuma administration.
We have been slow to regain our momentum.
The reforms necessary to get us back on track are agreed upon, outlined, and in progress.
We have the potential to ignite substantial new industries that could create numerous jobs, such as renewable energy, which presents great promise. However, we risk undermining investor confidence by not following through on already-established policies.
What stands between us and effective implementation is a small group of individuals—in boardrooms, unions, and government offices—who are content to obstruct change while millions of South Africans await jobs that are still out of reach.
We must firmly reject this behavior and focus intently on what is essential to revive our economy.
*This column originally appeared in the Business Leadership South Africa (BLSA) weekly newsletter. The author, Busisiwe “Busi” Mavuso, is the CEO of BLSA. The views Busi Mavuso expresses in this column do not necessarily represent those of The Bulrushes
The post ‘Reform Resisters’ Are Costing South Africa Jobs, And That Must Stop appeared first on The Bulrushes.
