André de Ruyter’s resignation as Eskom’s group CEO raised awkward questions about race, reminding us that the non-racial dream is still a long way off.
It isn’t surprising that De Ruyter tendered his resignation earlier this week. Not only was he the subject of an outrageous attack by a jealous minister of mineral resources and energy, Gwede Mantashe, but he also did not get much support since he took the job nearly three years ago.
One of the first things he said when he started the job on 15 January 2020 was that there was a shortfall of 5 000 MW or 6 000 MW in generation capacity that urgently needed filling. This couldn’t wait for the extended build times of new coal or nuclear capacity, and would have to come from renewable sources that could be rapidly built and brought online.
At a press briefing yesterday, De Ruyter reminded us that increasing Eskom’s generation capacity was ‘not within its remit’. Meaning, it was someone else’s job. And that someone else is none other than Mantashe, who managed to deliver exactly 0 MW of additional capacity to Eskom in the last three years.
In an absurd outburst last week, Mantashe claimed that ‘Eskom, by not attending to load-shedding, is actively agitating for the overthrow of the state’.
Granted that the failure to curb blackouts is a threat to continued ANC rule, for Mantashe to suggest that De Ruyter and Eskom are traitors is outrageous.
De Ruyter has been nothing but open and honest about the gravity of the crisis at Eskom, and about what is needed to be done to have any hope of returning Eskom to a tolerable level of dysfunction.
‘Emphatically, no!’
Pravin Gordhan, the minister of public enterprises within whose domain Eskom falls (much to Mantashe’s chagrin), said that Mantashe’s attack was ‘unfair’, ‘uncalled for’ and ‘unhelpful’. Asked whether he agreed with Mantashe’s assessment, he said: ‘Emphatically, no!’
He said that Eskom would continue with the plans put in place by De Ruyter, and that government would step up efforts to provide the things that De Ruyter had asked for, but did not receive, such as effective policing and prosecution of criminal syndicates who defraud and sabotage Eskom at every opportunity.
If only government had done so while De Ruyter was still CEO.
Gordhan aimed more barbs at Mantashe when he discussed the conversion of open-cycle gas turbine power stations to run on natural gas instead of diesel: ‘We are doing more talking than delivering. All those responsible for the delivery [read: Mantashe] must get on with the job at hand.’
Mantashe’s slanderous outburst, therefore, is deeply ironic, since one could argue that his own department was a major, if not the major, reason why Eskom failed to meet expectations in the time that De Ruyter was at the helm, and why De Ruyter felt his position had become untenable.
Instead of De Ruyter, Gwede Mantashe should have resigned, or failing that, should have been fired to convince De Ruyter to stay.
‘Impossible’
A friend of mine told me that it was questionable that a white male would ever get the buy-in or political support to sort out a state-owned enterprise.
That is cynical, but not far from the truth. De Ruyter openly blamed his resignation on a lack of political support, which made his job impossible.
One would have thought having taken the political risk of entrusting a white manager with the job of turning around Eskom, government ministers would have been ready to support him and defend him, yet they did not.
On social media, a message made its way to me that purported to be a ‘test for racism’.
The assumption that De Ruyter is honest and competent, it said, might just be based on the fact that he is a white male. After all, it said, he was appointed by the same government that appointed previous Eskom managers, who are widely perceived to have been incompetent, corrupt or both, and here we sit in stage 5+ load-shedding, which does appear to call De Ruyter’s competence into question.
Any perception of his competence may just be a racist presumption.
In answer to such a suggestion, I would answer that I would express as much consternation about the resignation of, say, Lesetja Kganyago from the South African Reserve Bank, because I consider him to be honest and competent.
I would feel the same way about the resignation of Chief Justice Raymond Zondo.
Conversely, I am not in the least outraged that Carl Niehaus has been expelled from the ANC, since I consider him a snivelling worm, despite being a white male.
Non-racialism
Yet, the concern the message expressed is not wrong. There are many people in South Africa who either believe that no white male can be trusted to act in the country’s best interests, or who believe that no black person can be trusted or assumed to be competent.
Even more sadly, although one should never generalise, there is a historical basis for these perceived stereotypes. It is true that many black people simply did not receive an adequate education or have work experience, and suffered traumatic oppression under Apartheid, and that these events still influence their behaviour and abilities today.
Conversely, there is a widespread feeling that having to rely on white people to get some things done is an admission of failure on the part of black people. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course, but one can empathise with the causes of this sentiment.
This is why it is more important than ever to consciously establish a policy of non-racialism in government. Everyone ought to be judged as individuals, not as members of a group with whom they may or may not share common characteristics.
De Ruyter’s competence, ability and character are related to his being white only insofar as being white gave him certain privileges that many other people in this country did not have. There is nothing inherent about their race that makes any given individual able or honest.
Conversely, the level of support that the CEO of a state-owned enterprise receives from government should not be influenced by whether they are black or white.
Race is a blunt weapon, wielded in this case by those whose personal interest in looting Eskom could not countenance a determination to crack down on corruption at the helm.
De Ruyter being an honest, competent leader was not because he is white. But he was pushed to the brink and denied support because he was honest, competent and white.
The sooner race is defanged as a political weapon, the sooner race is removed from law and regulation as a governing criterion, and the sooner true non-racialism takes root, the sooner South Africa can move on from the unnecessary harm it keeps inflicting upon itself.
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend