In recent days business leaders had a follow-up meeting with the president and his inner circle to debate matters of national importance.
At the previous gathering, which seemed to fill the vacuum created by the social compact promised by the president not materialising, business leaders and government committed to an action plan to tackle the most pressing challenges facing the country. The energy crisis precipitated by Eskom, the logistics crisis precipitated by Transnet, and the scourge of crime and corruption, emerged as the major areas for collective action.
The impression created by that gathering was that collaboration had become inevitable after years of paralysis in which an incapable state was expected to unilaterally address challenges in line with its mandate, and the private sector kept a respectful distance for fear of being accused of interfering.
A secondary realisation created by the first gathering was that everyone in the room understood the urgency of the issues to be addressed. This meant that from government’s side the usual lethargy associated with the known bureaucracy, and the less-known shenanigans of deployment, would at least be accelerated to ensure response times to action plans matched the sense of urgency associated with the crisis. For business, the simple expectation was that resources promised to structures such as the National Energy Crisis Committee would be deployed without delay.
Looming large in the conversation was the question of whether government could be trusted to play its role. Sceptics noted that the usual practice of the state of announcing ambitious promises and then farming out implementation to disempowered bureaucrats made it unlikely that even this meeting of the minds would actually address the key issues.
Since then, while deliberations may have occurred behind closed doors, the elements of the crisis that have been visible to the public have not engendered much confidence. In February, the Eskom CEO eventually vacated his seat after a thoroughly underwhelming stint at Megawatt Park.
The process of appointing a successor and ensuring the utility’s quest for stability was not derailed was acknowledged as a major issue that needed to be resolved quickly by the board, which had itself been marshalled in response to the emergency.
Shuffling deckchairs
Yet, remarkably, the process has been stalled by the public enterprises minister’s expectation that the board would provide three names for deliberation rather than the single name they submitted. For a job that has been filled so many times over the past 15 years it is surprising that neither the board nor those who advise it seem to have been aware of this petty but non-negotiable expectation. The process thus now hangs in limbo, and those who were brave enough to raise their hands in the first place will now be hard-pressed to do so again, as the board’s preference is now clear.
At Transnet, the crisis of incumbents has emerged as business formations have called for the executive team to be shuffled due to the persistent underperformance of the company. The minister then called for the reconstituted board to address the challenge of executive leadership so it can fix the company’s fortunes. Transnet’s issues are so deep-seated that merely shuffling executive deckchairs will not suffice.
Through all of this the sense of urgency one expected to see regarding addressing these problems has been the missing ingredient of the newfound social compact. In the absence of speedy resolutions to the issues already identified the crisis will escalate, and the business leaders who have staked their reputations on collaborating with an unreliable government will find that the sceptics were merely reflecting reality.
• Sithole is an accountant, academic and activist.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.