Nearly two decades ago, the then president Thabo Mbeki made a rare and sobering admission: “Eskom was right and the government was wrong.” In those few words, he acknowledged that successive failures to heed Eskom’s warnings on generation capacity and infrastructure investment had precipitated the 2007–2008 electricity crisis.The cost of those policy failures has been immense. Conservative estimates place the economic losses at between R300bn and R500bn, while broader studies suggest the cumulative impact of load-shedding may have exceeded R2.8-trillion. Beyond the financial toll, the crisis eroded investor confidence, constrained economic growth, destroyed jobs and undermined South Africa’s industrial competitiveness.Today, Eskom stands in a markedly different position. Under its current board and executive leadership, the utility has engineered a remarkable operational recovery, restoring generation performance, ending load-shedding and charting a path towards long-term financial and institutional sustainability. These achievements deserve recognition.Yet South Africa has not escaped the consequences of the lost decade. While the electricity crisis has eased, its economic scars remain deep, and the economy is still in recovery. Against this backdrop, the debate over Eskom’s unbundling assumes profound national significance. The question is no longer whether Eskom can keep the lights on but whether South Africa can implement governance reforms that deliver a reliable, competitive and investable electricity sector without repeating the policy failures of the past.Before turning to the substance of the debate, it is important to separate the noise from the signal.On the fundamental question, there is no real disagreement. Both the government and the Eskom board are aligned on the imperative to unbundle the utility as part of the broader reform of South Africa’s energy sector. The divergence lies not in the destination, but in the implementation architecture and strategy required to get there.The signal emanating from the Eskom board is a cautionary one: South Africa must not repeat the costly mistakes of the past by allowing decisions of such strategic importance to be driven by political expediency or narrow commercial interests. South Africa has already paid an extraordinary price for governance failures in the electricity sector. The challenge now is to implement reforms that strengthen institutional resilience, preserve public value, promote fair competition and secure long-term energy security.Ultimately, this should not be framed as a contest between state ownership and market liberalisationDespite its operational and financial recovery, Eskom continues to face significant structural risks, including dependence on government support, a Nersa-regulated revenue framework, pressure to keep electricity tariffs affordable, and mounting municipal debt compounded by electricity distribution losses. These constraints continue to threaten Eskom’s long-term financial sustainability, reinforcing the need for reforms that strengthen — not weaken — the utility’s institutional resilience.Proponents of accelerated unbundling — principally organised businesses and prospective market participants that stand to benefit from a more liberalised electricity market — risk missing the forest for the trees. While their arguments are grounded in sound governance principles, they tend to place disproportionate emphasis on market liberalisation and investor certainty at the expense of the broader public and national interest.Business Leadership South Africa (BLSA) is right to insist that Eskom should implement shareholder-approved policy rather than redefine it through operational decisions or public advocacy. Equally persuasive is its call for transparency, policy certainty, competitive neutrality and investor confidence. These are indispensable features of a modern electricity market.However, good governance is not synonymous with rigid policy implementation divorced from operational realities, nor should competition become an end in itself. Public policy must reconcile competing constitutional, economic and strategic interests. In Eskom’s case, those interests extend beyond investors to encompass energy security, affordability, fiscal sustainability, industrial competitiveness and the protection of strategic national infrastructure.The debate, therefore, is not whether Eskom should be unbundled — that question has long been settled — but whether the manner and pace of implementation best serve South Africa’s long-term interests while safeguarding Eskom’s sustainability.The competing narratives are straightforward. Eskom argues that its revised model preserves public ownership of strategic transmission assets, provides an orderly transition, balances competition with system security, and builds on the utility’s improving operational and financial performance. BLSA, by contrast, contends that the model departs from settled government policy by compromising the institutional independence of the future transmission system operator (TSO), thereby weakening competitive neutrality, investor confidence and regulatory certainty.Both positions have merit. Yet the debate has become polarised around a proposition that the law does not expressly require. The Electricity Regulation Amendment Act establishes the framework for an independent and impartial TSO but does not mandate the immediate transfer of transmission assets out of Eskom Holdings. It requires institutional independence and operational neutrality, not a prescribed ownership structure.That distinction is crucial. Independence of function does not necessarily require immediate separation of asset ownership. If the governance framework can demonstrably guarantee operational independence, transparent market access, effective regulatory oversight and freedom from conflicts of interest, the objectives of the act can be achieved without exposing Eskom to unnecessary financial, operational or balance-sheet risks at a time when it is only beginning to recover from more than a decade of institutional decline.Ultimately, this should not be framed as a contest between state ownership and market liberalisation. The real challenge is to design a governance model that protects the public interest, secures Eskom’s long-term sustainability, inspires investor confidence and delivers the competitive electricity market envisioned by parliament. These objectives are not mutually exclusive; they are mutually reinforcing when pursued with prudence, discipline and fidelity to both the letter and spirit of the law.With barely two years remaining in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s term, the question is no longer whether electricity market reform should proceed, but at what cost. How far should market liberalisation be pursued if, in the process, it compromises Eskom’s long-term financial sustainability or undermines the nation’s broader socioeconomic imperatives of ensuring electricity that is accessible, affordable, reliable and universally available? The ultimate measure of success will not be the speed of reform, but whether it delivers a resilient electricity sector that advances both economic competitiveness and the public interest.• Khaas is chair of Public Interest South Africa and director of The Ethics Academy.