My 12-year-old, who has no evident academic background and no prior experience as a journalist, would have conducted a far superior interview with the now-former CEO of Eskom, according to Arthur van Nel.
The way eNCA was put up was intriguing. The Daily Maverick’s disclosure of firsthand information on intelligence collecting into cartel networks within Eskom was no accident. It is obvious that our neoliberal media, which is well-funded and dominated by Stellenbosch, has no longer any pretense of hiding its position on the right of the ideological spectrum. I couldn’t shake the overwhelming suspicion that the “interview” was planned, scripted, and delivered for agendas that have nothing to do with shedding light on the most crucial position in Azania at the moment. It was shameless, brazen, lacking in any journalistic minimum standards, and hopelessly partisan. After the “interview,” Anika Larsen was left with no choice but to kneel, kiss De Ruyter’s feet, and say “I’m not worthy” ten times.
Eskom’s issues are surprisingly straightforward, and the analysis paralysis brought on by over diagnosis is a wonderful diversion. Eskom struggles to recover debt, there is a backlog in maintenance, the newly constructed Medupi and Kusile plants have embarassing design defects, the parastatal’s soul was sold to the highest renewable energy solution bidder, and so on.
Ask yourselves, South Africans, why the Stellenbosch Mafia, along with its IMF and Worldbank allies, skillfully and cunningly sold a lawyer to the government to solve an engineering issue. With the approval of the country’s most influential families, De Ruyter was sent in to accelerate the decay, hasten the collapse, and ensure that Eskom is burned so completely into ashes that its only realistic hope is to unbundle it and find private sector equity partners to take it over. De Ruyter has no generational experience; his previous job was making paper. The de facto rulers of the nation are whoever controls the nation’s energy production along with the already-captured financial services sector. Here, the democratic project is being twisted.
If you think my suggestion is absurd, consider how the turnaround process could possible be managed by the oldest cabinet minister, who is well into his 70s. Without taking into consideration objective performance measures, Pravin Gordhan supported De Ruyter. In order to shield the former CEO from being questioned about his utterly inadequate management of the failing SOE, the old board shamelessly crossed their black foot in front of the legislature. Before SCOPA, they responded to engineering questions politically. De Ruyter simply sat there and basked in the grandeur of his capacity to avoid responsibility thanks to privélege.
He revealed the hitherto incomprehensible realities of stage 6 load shedding. He brought us to our first summer loadshedding encounters when we were still reeling from the trauma. In comparison to the previous 13 years put together, we lost more electricity during his three years in office. Pravin never took that seriously, and neither did the hand-picked board that watched the guy they were chosen to hold responsible for his actions. Although he is the worst Eskom CEO, he represents the best foreign investment in terms of producing results that would allow this nation to be fully understood. But compared to the massive looting planned from Stellenbosch, which was done with considerably more sophistication, what the Guptas did to us was like a family outing.
I believe Anika was introduced to prevent us from having a meaningful conversation about the man’s term. None of us questions why the same 4 businesses have had continuous coal delivery contracts for more than 40 years, despite the fact that we were persuaded to become fixated on the identity of the minister. Deceived. Successfully. Anika never bothered to inquire as to André’s lack of filing charges in regard to his fiduciary obligations, as required by law. Anika never tried to figure out why an accounting officer would fool himself into thinking he could pose as a whistleblower and speak as if he didn’t have a lot of executive power, including the ability to make disclosures in front of parliamentary oversight committees. Anika had little interest in deviating from her sponsored line of questioning to inquire of him as to why not a single Eskom yearly report has this information on it. Finally, she never wanted to know why he disregarded the President’s request to delay the NERSA-imposed tariff rises but didn’t mind informing a minister about another minister’s role in the Eskom looting in her desire to glorify the victim she was portraying.
That is absurd. How extensive are the influence and control of the country’s godfather and his Stellenbosch mafia network, who are able to use their media holdings to promote viewpoints that advance their nefarious goals of accumulation?
rouse Mzansi. Avoid the urge to fall for smoke and mirrors tricks. We paid someone R12 million a year for three years to hasten our descent into the abyss and position Eskom for privatization, and now Anika Larsen wants us to feel bad for him as he rides off into the distance to enjoy the results of his cunning work.
We will pay the price for De Ruyter’s unmitigated disaster—along with his corporate facilitators and political backers—for decades of sluggish economic growth, widespread unemployment, and rising inequality. It would be the highest degree of ignorance and discernment to think otherwise.
READ MORE: Godongwana: Eskom to be divided into three entities
To be fair, De Ruyter did not initiate load shedding. The parastatal is ailing as a result of decades-long collusion between executives and outside interests. To be fair, he also stated that load shedding will end in 18 months. and sped it up instead.
We are the victims, not he is!
