What the national democratic revolution meant for power supply

IN 1961, in Morogoro, Tanzania, the ANC theorised that the national and class Struggles would be better fought using the doctrine of a national democratic revolution (NDR). This was meant to balance the playing field, to counter the imbalance created by the years colonialism, later apartheid, and colonialism of a special type which pattern still exist today.

This was meant to elevate the national groups, imidaka, so that there would be a future that is characterised by equality. In that future, there would be no need for race-based policies like BEE, BBBEE and affirmative action. People would be all on the same level. So, the NDR was and is seen as the building of a united, non-racial, non-sexist, equal, prosperous and democratic society. Every aspect of the state should be used to realise this society.

In 1994, when the ANC was voted into power, it came with the preoccupation of the NDR. It had found a country divided into many states in one country, the Republic of South Africa, with four provinces and a number of Bantustans. These Bantustans were created deliberately to hold the majority of the national groups in small, manageable areas, from where they could be collected when they were needed to build the pillars of colonialism. These states were under-resourced.

The majority of the population here was not provided with electricity. Also, within the republic, there was no appetite to service the black areas. These areas were seen as labour pools. In the case of Cape Town, there were areas like Langa, Nyanga, Crossroads, etc. The government did not see people in these areas as people who would have a use for electricity. They were too primitive for electricity.

The provision of electricity did not exist in black townships and black “states”. Consequently, Eskom had a surplus in terms of supply.

The question that ANC faced in 1994 was whether they should start with electrifying the previously unelectrified communities or by building capacity to accommodate this new demand first.

But the writers today have the advantage of hindsight compared to the decision-makers of 1994, who understood that there was a surplus but did not understand the magnitude of the surplus.

Black populations would not watch white people having electricity while they depended on paraffin and firewood while the government was building capacity.

People wanted the playing field to be equal. They wanted electricity, and they wanted it then. Waiting while capacity was being built would perpetuate inequality in terms of electricity supply.

The NDR dictated that the supply of power should be equal to every citizen. If there was power for one, there should be power for all. If there was no electricity for one group, there should be no electricity for all groups.

That is the painful part (to beneficiaries of the previous regime) of the NDR. So, building electric transmission infrastructure for rural homes was in line with the principles of the NDR. If the government started by building generation capacity, this would maintain inequality while the nation was waiting for electricity to be enough for the whole population.

But another issue that complicated supply was the demand because of industrialisation, as sanctions were lifted.

So, the questions that must be asked are:

Has the NDR failed the people in electricity supply?

Has electricity supplier (Eskom) failed NDR?

Would people who have waited for more than 300 years of inequality be patient enough to watch white people and their collaborators have electricity while they are in darkness?

What should have been done in 1994?