Eskom Doesn’t Care About South Africans
Eskom does not care about South Africans. It cares about preserving Eskom. And until its monopoly is broken, South Africans will continue paying more, receiving less, and being told to feel grateful
South Africans are expected to celebrate Eskom whenever it becomes slightly less unbearable. When loadshedding paused, we were told to be grateful. If a few generators limp back online, we are told recovery is underway. If the monopoly that has brutalised this country for years merely abuses us a little less for a season, we are expected to applaud.
We should not.
Eskom exists to provide electricity. That is its reason for being. It does not exist to protect its revenue, preserve its monopoly, punish its customers, or block alternatives. And yet that is precisely how it behaves.
This is the truth South Africans need to confront: Eskom does not care about South Africans.
It did not begin as a charity for bureaucrats or a cartel for politically connected elites. It was founded to provide electricity, to supply a vital service that would power homes, industry, and economic growth. The entire justification for its existence was that it would keep the lights on and make electricity available at scale.
Today, that mission is clearly secondary. Eskom no longer behaves like a utility committed to producing abundant electricity; it behaves like a monopolist defending turf.
That is why, whenever it is in trouble, the answer is never serious reform. It is never cost-cutting. It is never opening the market. It is never humility. It is always the same reflex: charge more, control more, and punish more.
As more households and businesses escape Eskom through solar, backup systems, and private generation, Eskom’s response has not been to become leaner or more competitive. It has been to squeeze those still trapped on the grid. Tariffs keep rising because Eskom wants to protect revenue, not consumers. That is not the conduct of a public-minded utility. It is the conduct of a failing monopoly exploiting a captive market.
And it is not merely defensive. Eskom has repeatedly shown hostility to privatisation and market reform because competition would expose how little value it provides. A competitive electricity market would force producers to win customers by delivering reliable power at a good price. Eskom cannot tolerate that. Its power depends on South Africans having nowhere else to go.
That is why it resists self-generation.
When businesses, mines, communities, or households try to reduce dependence on Eskom, the utility too often responds with obstruction and sabotage. Instead of welcoming new generation that would strengthen the country’s energy security, it throws up regulatory hurdles and bureaucratic excuses. It would rather preserve customers than see South Africa better supplied with electricity. That should tell you everything.
A utility that cared about the country would want more generation. Eskom wants more control.
Even its latest flirtation with rolling blackouts for defaulting municipalities reveals the same instinct. Yes, municipalities are often corrupt and dysfunctional. Yes, many fail to pass payments on to Eskom. But once again, it is ordinary South Africans who are treated as collateral damage in a war between broken state institutions. The public pays, and the state punishes them anyway.
This is the pattern. When Eskom cannot produce enough power, South Africans suffer. When South Africans try to produce their own power, Eskom obstructs them. When Eskom loses customers, it hikes tariffs. When government failures pile up, it reaches for blackouts.
At every stage, Eskom acts in its own interest before the public’s.
That is why the problem is not merely incompetence. The deeper problem is monopoly power. Eskom can afford to be malicious because it is protected. It does not need to serve consumers well. It only needs to remain politically protected.
In a normal market, a company that treated customers this way would lose them. In South Africa, Eskom can fail repeatedly and still demand obedience, protection, and more money.
The solution is not another bailout. It is not another speech from a minister. It is not another fantasy about fixing a state monopoly through better intentions.
The solution is privatisation.
Break up Eskom. Sell generation assets to multiple private firms. Open transmission to genuine competition. Remove the barriers to self-generation, wheeling, and private supply. End the model in which South Africans are forced to depend on a monopoly that despises both competition and accountability.
Electricity is too important to be controlled by an institution that no longer even pretends its purpose is to serve the public.
Eskom does not care about South Africans. It cares about preserving Eskom. And until its monopoly is broken, South Africans will continue paying more, receiving less, and being told to feel grateful for the privilege.
Nicholas Woode-Smith is the Managing Editor of the Rational Standard and a senior associate of the Free Market Foundation. He writes in his personal capacity. You can follow him on X: @NWoodeSmith.