Cost of energy is too high
He elaborated further, explaining that the government was revising electricity tariffs. 'It's unaffordable,' Ramokgopa added.
He summed up the situation by saying many poor people would rather buy bread than purchase electricity units. This is a sad reality faced by millions of South Africans every day.
When those with a regular income complain about the cost of electricity, it is evident that the situation has spiralled out of control. We will not discuss the costs involved — the bottom line is that it is expensive.
Before 2007, when Alec Erwin made his public declaration about the end of cheap electricity, protests like the recent one in Ekurhuleni were less common, as South Africa previously enjoyed some of the lowest electricity tariffs.
Since then, an initial 18% increase has been followed by numerous additional hikes. At that time, price adjustments were necessary to fund infrastructure investments and accommodate a growing population.
Consumers who can afford it have been investing in solar power to make their household manageable, but the government has proposed taxing households with solar energy systems.
So, where do we begin to address the problem?
According to the World Bank, Eskom has 66% more staff than needed to serve its customer base.
The power utility has been under increasing pressure to address its overstaffing issues, implement measures to reduce personnel costs, improve efficiency, and ensure its long-term sustainability.
We believe this could be a starting point for lowering electricity tariffs. We would prefer Eskom not to frequently approach the National Energy Regulator of South Africa asking for more and exorbitant tariff increases.
Lastly, South Africa must accept that paying for electricity is the right thing to do.
Nothing for free, unfortunately.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
7 hours ago
- IOL News
South African Lens: Pakistan's Divorce Laws Leave Women in Financial Limbo
As it stands, Pakistan follows a model where property remains separate unless jointly titled—regardless of a woman's unpaid contributions to the household or her support for her husband's career. This issue has been spotlighted in Pakistan's courts. Image: Supplied In many societies, divorce is not just a personal rupture but a financial reckoning — especially for women. This is starkly true in Pakistan, where the legal system fails to recognise a woman's right to marital property, often leaving divorced wives with little more than the clothes on their backs. For South Africans watching global gender justice trends, Pakistan's legal landscape raises urgent questions about how tradition, law and social norms can entrench inequality in the private sphere. Despite Islam's emphasis on justice and the protection of the vulnerable, Pakistani women who exit a marriage often do so without any claim to assets acquired during the relationship. This is because Pakistan does not currently have legislation that guarantees women a share in property accumulated while married. As it stands, the country follows a model where property remains separate unless jointly titled, regardless of a woman's unpaid contributions to the household or her support for her husband's career. This issue has been spotlighted in Pakistan's courts. The Lahore High Court recently instructed the federal government to consult on a proposed amendment to the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance of 1961. The amendment, initially brought forward by Senator Barrister Syed Ali Zafar, introduces terms such as 'matrimonial asset' and seeks to give women fairer recognition of their contributions. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The court's intervention may become a turning point, as public discourse grows around the injustice of women leaving long marriages with nothing, despite having raised children, run households and sacrificed careers. To understand the impact, it helps to look beyond Pakistan's borders. Countries such as Turkey, Malaysia and Morocco — Muslim-majority states like Pakistan—have adopted laws that balance Islamic principles with modern family realities. In Turkey, marital assets are presumed to be jointly owned unless otherwise agreed. Malaysia takes both financial and non-financial contributions into account when dividing property. Morocco's Family Code permits couples to decide beforehand how to share property, with the law recognising joint management during the marriage. These countries demonstrate that religious values and women's rights need not be in conflict. Legal frameworks can uphold the dignity and equality of both spouses, particularly when marriages dissolve. Currently, Pakistan's system mirrors what legal scholars call a pure separate property regime. Under this model, property belongs only to the person who earned or acquired it. There is no assumption that marriage creates an economic partnership, and courts generally require strict proof of ownership. This often disadvantages women who have worked in the home or made indirect contributions, as they lack titles or formal income records. South Africa, by contrast, provides multiple options when couples marry, including community of property, which assumes equal ownership of assets acquired during the marriage. This legal approach acknowledges that both spouses contribute to the financial foundation of the household, even if in different ways. South African courts, when dividing property, also take into account each partner's needs, contributions and the duration of the marriage. It is a system far more aligned with the complex social reality of marriage than Pakistan's outdated laws. The cost of inaction in Pakistan is high. Women who divorce often lose access to shelter and income. Even where they have invested years in managing the home or caring for children, the law offers no recourse. Many end up dependent on their families or feel pressured into remarriage for economic survival. This perpetuates gendered cycles of poverty and limits women's agency. Pakistan has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which requires states to ensure equality in marriage and family relations, including property rights. CEDAW's guidance calls for equal access to marital assets. Other Muslim-majority countries have made strides toward compliance. Tunisia and Iran, for instance, have introduced property-sharing rules that acknowledge both partners' roles in a marriage. Pakistan, however, remains out of step. Legal reform is not only a technical matter. It is about recognising that women are equal partners in family life, deserving of financial security when that partnership ends. Amending the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance to define and protect matrimonial property would help courts provide more consistent, fair outcomes. It would also signal that Pakistan is serious about its commitments to gender equality, both to its citizens and the global community. For South Africans, watching this debate unfold is a chance to reflect on how far we have come and how far others still need to go. In a world where women's rights are constantly under pressure, the battle for fairness within the family is as important as any public policy reform. Pakistan stands at a fork in the road. One path leads to continued injustice and economic hardship for women. The other leads to fairness, dignity and the recognition of women's work — paid or unpaid—as valuable and deserving of protection. The choice, now, is in the hands of lawmakers.
Daily Maverick
8 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
‘Extreme wealth corrodes democracy' — making the case for a maximum wealth limit
'The challenge is not just that we're seeing large and increasing inequalities across the world. The challenge is that there is a well-connected group of people who are actively rigging the political rules in order to grow the capital they already have.' Think about these facts for a moment. There are slightly more than 3,000 billionaires in the world and it is expected that we are only a few years away from the world's first trillionaire. Between 1989 and 2018 this top 1% grew their wealth from $8.4-trillion to $29.5-trillion, while the bottom 50% incurred a net loss of wealth of $900-billion. On the other hand, according to new calculations from the World Bank, there are more than 808 million people worldwide living in extreme poverty – that is less than $3 per day. Thirty million people live in poverty in South Africa and of that number nearly 14 million live below the food poverty line of R796 per month. Is this just the natural order of things? According to Ingrid Robeyns, the author of Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth (Penguin, 2024), most certainly not! In her quest to unpack the deleterious effects of extreme wealth Robeyns has produced a meticulously researched and referenced book. Drawing on her disciplines as an expert in economics and philosophy, and as a one-time student of Amatya Sen, in Limitarianism she unleashes reason in the case against wealth, through the splicing of economics, philosophy, history, morals and ethics. In addition, Robeyns bases her analysis in part on interviews with several billionaires, particularly those who are trying to limit their own wealth by calling for higher taxation and who have deep insights into the behaviours of their own class. In the US they have formed an organisation called Patriotic Millionaires. In an argument that is structured with the precision of a founding affidavit her chapters calmly deconstruct extreme wealth on the grounds that: 'It's Keeping the Poor in Poverty While Inequality Grows'; 'It's Dirty Money'; 'It's Undermining Democracy'; 'It's Setting the World on Fire'; and 'Nobody Deserves to Be a Multimillionaire.' Having set out the evidence, the core of Robeyn's argument is that there should be a limit (she suggests of 10 million) on individual wealth and that inheritance above a certain amount should be forbidden. Pointing to 'a massive intergenerational wealth transfer' – amounting to 'a staggering $84-trillion that will be transferred to the next generation by 2045' – she quotes philosopher DW Haslett: 'We abolished inheritance of political power; when, then, should we not abolish the inheritance of economic power, too?' The excess should be returned to the state which, among other options, could recycle it into a universal basic income grant, or savings account for young people, available as a leg-up when they reach adulthood. Robeyns finishes by making seven proposals for measures to limit wealth, including that there should be a 'balance of economic power': '[In liberal democracies] We all agree that we need a system of checks and balances; if we delegate political power to one institution, then we need countervailing power in others. Why then don't we have such a balance of economic power? That economics is a domain of power was first recognised by thinkers centuries ago.' And there's the crux of our modern dilemma. In the neoliberal era elected politicians have surrendered to the economic power of the wealthy and by doing so they have surrendered their ability to carry out the will of the people on the most basic human rights, such as access to healthcare services, education and meaningful employment. These might seem like a set of radical arguments. They are not. I think they are utopian, in the best sense of utopianism, that is, thinking the 'impossible' in order to make it possible. This was an approach advocated for by people like Rick Turner, the philosopher assassinated by apartheid state agents in January 1978. We only think it's a radical proposal because we have normalised extreme wealth, just as we have normalised extreme poverty and inequality. Yet, there are other ways to organise society and economy, and if you accept Robeyns's evidence, that is more a matter of necessity than choice. At the time I contemplated buying the book, I ummed and ahhed, struggling with a sense of déjà vu. 'I've read these books before. I've heard these arguments before. Is there anything new to be said about wealth and inequality? ' I asked myself. But I was wrong. Limitarianism is fresh. It's accessible. It's full of facts, analysis and dot-joining. I would particularly recommend it to those who might think that extreme wealth is okay, and I would plead that you read it with an open mind. We are 10 years after Thomas Piketty's magnum opus, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, and little has changed. In fact the opposite. Extreme wealth accumulation is now supercharged, what John Berger denigrated as the 'inalienable right to profit' now the driving political philosophy of the leader of the world's largest economy. Indeed, the irony is that it seems the more people have become acquainted with the facts the more numb and disempowered we seem to have become. As a social justice activist, I drew the following conclusions from reading it: It's time activists focused sustained attention on the case for wealth control, as much as we do on poverty elimination. While we may have debunked the neoliberal idea that wealth trickles down (or rather, it has debunked itself), the more important point is in fact the opposite: that unlimited wealth accumulation creates poverty. As Robeyns says: 'Extreme wealth concentration is, first and foremost, a structural problem. We should therefore focus above all else on the structural changes that are needed. We shouldn't become fixated on rich individuals per se, unless they are actively hampering the structural changes that are needed.' It's time for a measured, evidence-based campaign against extreme wealth that helps make people aware of how wealth is being abused in many ways that threaten democracy, human life and ultimately the planet itself. DM
Daily Maverick
8 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
National Dialogue will be meaningless without honest leaders, warns Mbeki
The National Dialogue, which will be held in three weeks, aims to foster national unity and develop shared solutions to South Africa's pressing challenges. As South Africa prepares for the National Dialogue, with an estimated price tag of R700-million, former President Thabo Mbeki warned that without capable leadership, the process risked being meaningless. 'What will come out of that National Dialogue will need honest, capable hands with integrity to implement what people have said,' said Mbeki. He was giving a keynote address at UDM leader Bantu Holomisa's 70th birthday celebration in Sandton, Johannesburg, on Saturday night. In recent years, Mbeki has been critical of the ANC, speaking about what he refers to as a decline in ethical leadership and the growing problem of corruption in the party. On Saturday, however, he toned the criticism down, saying that although he had views about ANC leaders, he was not free to mention them by name. He admitted that he, too, was part of the broader problem and anticipated that this would come up during the dialogue. 'They [South Africans] will say uncomfortable truths about us. 'You were President, and look what a mess you have created in the country.' And this is therefore what needs to be done in order to respect the people and implement what they have discussed: you need a particular kind of leader. I am not free to talk about our leaders by name.' The National Dialogue aims to foster national unity and develop shared solutions to South Africa's pressing challenges, including failing public services, high unemployment, rising crime, corruption, food inflation and economic stagnation. It starts with a National Convention on 15 August, which will set the agenda for the broader dialogue. The dialogue has been widely criticised by political parties and ordinary citizens, some of whom have argued that these are not just topics for debate but their daily realities. They want a concrete plan to lead the country out of crisis. One of the the parties that has rejected the National Dialogue is the EFF. Addressing President Cyril Ramaphosa in Parliament two weeks ago, the party's Nontando Nolutshungu said it was not the people of South Africa who had wrecked state-owned enterprises, failed to create jobs and allowed drugs to destroy young people. She pointed to the ANC's performance in the 2024 elections. 'The people have spoken, and you don't need R700-million to repeat the message they gave you at the ballots in 2024,' said Nolutshungu. The uMkhonto Wesizwe party's John Hlophe said the ANC sought to use the National Dialogue as part of its election campaign ahead of the 2026 local government polls. 'Let me tell the people of South Africa what it really is: it is not a dialogue for them, it is an ANC election campaign funded by taxpayers' money. 'Mr Ramaphosa, you lead a broken ANC: a party with the lowest membership in decades, a party that has lost key metros, a party that has become a mere shadow of its once proud self. Branches are non-existent, communities are leaderless, and the people have lost faith,' said Hlophe. Last month, the leader of the DA, John Steenhuisen, announced that his party had withdrawn its support for the National Dialogue, citing Ramaphosa's failure to act against officials accused of corruption, some of whom were members of the Cabinet. 'It is clear that this dialogue will be nothing more than a waste of time and money to distract from the ANC's failures. This explains why President Ramaphosa and the ANC are so obsessed with it,' said Steenhuisen. 'It is an electioneering ploy, at taxpayer expense, to gloss over the serious crises that the ANC has plunged South Africa into. The dialogue also has no constitutional standing whatsoever to take or impose decisions.' Responding to the criticism, Ramaphosa said people must ask themselves: 'Do we want to break or do we want to rebuild?' The National Dialogue will be led by the Eminent Persons Group, made up of 31 prominent South Africans, including business leaders, former MPs, academics, athletes, actors, and traditional and spiritual leaders. Some of those in the group are Springbok captain Siya Kolisi, Miss South Africa 2024 Mia le Roux, the leader of the Zion Christian Church, Bishop Barnabas Lekganyane, and the award-winning actor John Kani. Mbeki wants the dialogue to be a 'genuine' one. 'Let the people get together and say this is the South Africa we want,' he said. DM
