Those demanding job cuts won’t tolerate power cuts
Our economic debate loves sacrifice as long as someone else does the sacrificing. The fiscal crisis described by finance minister Tito Mboweni last week has triggered inevitable calls for sacrifice, but only public sector workers are meant to do the sacrificing. That those who make these calls won’t do it themselves was highlighted indirectly by a different event.
In testimony to a parliamentary committee, Eskom board member and Business Leadership SA CEO Busisiwe Mavuso denounced the government, public enterprises minister Pravin Gordhan in particular, for interfering with board decisions. She said Eskom was forced to keep expensive turbines running as the government insisted on keeping the lights on, but “at least eight months” of load-shedding is needed to address Eskom’s financial plight.
This is not the first time Gordhan has been blamed for telling Eskom’s board to incur costs to keep the lights on. He was condemned by some in business for getting the utility to agree to pay rises after it first refused them. Then and now, he was attacked for not letting the board do its job.
One view is that this is because he is a left-winger who values governments not markets.
But the indignation has conveniently steered clear of the central issue: no-one, least of all those who do the criticising, will put up with loadshedding. Gordhan and the government did not tell Eskom to settle with unions as they thought this would bring socialism nearer: they acted because the lights went off.
They knew that while there is huge enthusiasm in the debate for cutting wages and firing workers, there is none for the power cuts that would inevitably follow.
Few events are likelier to get South Africans angry than loadshedding.
Whenever it happens, businesses issue dire warnings of how much the economy will suffer, while everyone else turns on the government in rage. If that happens when power is rationed for a few days, it needs no imagination to work out how much anger the government would face if Mavuso’s eight months plus became an Eskom decision.
Since the debate assumes that the government is always wrong, it knows that it, not the board that took the decision, would be blamed.
So while Mavuso’s view might make perfect sense for Eskom’s balance sheet, it makes no political sense in a democracy whose citizens are unwilling to live with even a day of load-shedding. While Mavuso was talking as an Eskom board member rather than a business leader, it is highly unlikely that the businesses she represents will live with months of power cuts. And if the citizenry will not tolerate load-shedding while businesses complain loudly of the economic damage it causes, it makes no sense to expect a government elected by citizens to allow it if there is another option.
So, the key issue is not Gordhan or Mavuso but attitudes to load-shedding, which are examples of a wider reality: the people who demand tough measures are unwilling to accept any of the consequences. It is common to hear support for the anti-union measures that Margaret Thatcher employed.
But not one of those voices recognises that her campaign caused disruptions nor do they admit that they are not remotely willing to endure the pain that accompanies the promised gains. To call for costcutting and business principles but to refuse to accept the sacrifices that go with them is not a technical policy proposal, it is an attempt to get some to pay to satisfy others.
The country does need to make the adjustments Mboweni’s numbers say it needs. But we should not take seriously calls for sacrifice if those who make them will not give up anything themselves.
BUSINESSES ISSUE DIRE WARNINGS THAT THE ECONOMY WILL SUFFER, WHILE EVERYONE ELSE TURNS ON THE GOVERNMENT IN RAGE
● Friedman is research professor with the humanities faculty of the University of Johannesburg.