Getting off the grid is good and well; fixing it is a far better option
People brag about being off the grid nowadays. It’s not just because they have a supply no longer dependent on the government (usually), but because they can’t abide the service provided, for some reason or other, probably a bad experience. Getting off the grid is as much a protest against the status quo as it is a need to be independent.
The natural progression of off-the-gridders is to eventually do all things for themselves, from solar power to homegrown vegetables. They object to the consequences and practices of the established providers of goods and services, and it’s not just the greenies. People want to opt out, and it’s not just electricity.
The next phase of getting off the grid has already started, spreading way beyond the normal suspect services. In the final phase, only for those who can afford it, they’re leaving the country, taking their skills, assets, intellectual capital and children with them, at any cost to them and to us.
Systems are failing their populations across the globe. Instead of bringing people together, the establishment more often drives people apart, divides them. The solution offered by the establishment service providers is simply not satisfying everyone. This happens particularly in situations of economic inequality, where the consequences will be most dire.
We remain embarrassed (and disgraced) as economic inequality world champions with a Gini coefficient of 63.4, (a measure of how far wealth and income distribution deviates from equal distribution). But we’re not alone.
Though the only country outside Africa with a Gini coefficient above 50 is Brazil, the problem is widespread, also in developed economies. The US is at 41, Russia is at 37,7 and the UK is 34,1. Zimbabwe, at 43, tells a different story — it is more about how widespread poverty is than inequality.
Those who can afford to go “off the grid” and provide for themselves when the service to the masses becomes less acceptable. It is nothing more or less than a grand manifestation of the vicious circle of poverty. Any country with high rates of poverty, unemployment and inequality simply cannot rely on its disaffected population to earn itself out of its circumstances, which in turn means that the government’s tax revenues cannot keep funding the gap.
In the result, selective services are taken off the grid. This “privatisation” is well under way for those who can afford it. Health care, personal and property security, and education are prime examples of the split and, incrementally, more goods and services typically provided by governments are being taken off the main supply lines. The endgame of this trend will not be pretty, as inequality gets further entrenched.
The solution lies in building the middle of the distribution curve, not in the transfer from one of the tails to the other. The solution to quality education for all, for instance, lies in investing in education for all — it really is that obvious. Forget about fiddling with where natural economic forces and historical errors have taken us. Don’t break what has been built and rather learn from it to provide attractive alternatives that work.
Everyone would rather have access to the best health care, security and education for everyone. Believe me, however comfortably you may be able to afford private education, it is outrageously expensive.
What’s more, none of us are comfortable with the disparate, divisive quality of services offered to our less fortunate fellow South Africans.
Beyond that, though, we desperately need the output that competent inputs (for all) would produce. Momentum, economies of scale — just imagine what effect a broadbased, better educated, generally healthier and more secure nation will have on our competitiveness in the global economy, let alone our pride.
The argument that we don’t have the money matters less than whether these projects make investment sense. I’m convinced that they can be shown to be. Capital goes where capital eats well.
At least let’s find out.
The solution will be a mix of many inputs, not just sources of capital. Expertise and technology will be part of it, and some of that will necessarily be sourced internationally. So what?
Eskom was originally built without any taxpayers’ money, the project was self-justifying. Of course, it was easier for a utility monopoly, but it is also possible for other essentialvalue projects. Project-specific private-public partnerships are the way out of our conundrum.
Getting off the national grid isn’t the solution. Fixing the grid is. We’ll get the money, and the knock-on effects will establish the foundations of our rescue. Let’s get started.