The hackneyed political phrase ‘if you’re explaining, you're losing’ probably best describes the predicament in which the South African government finds itself currently on a range of topics.

The fact that President Cyril Ramaphosa has decided that he needs to send Ministerial envoys to meet G7 countries to explain South Africa’s nonaligned stance on the Russia-Ukraine war is the highest-profile case in point. It is far from being the only area where speak-before-you-think statements, or confusing mixed messages are placing the country in difficulties, however.

Public anger is palpable every time a Minister or politician makes an evidence-free prediction regarding the timeframe for when loadshedding will end. Communication about the affordability of the rapidly approaching National Health Insurance financing system has been so poor that one can only assume the scheme to be entirely unaffordable. The excuses made regarding the failure by law-enforcement agencies to follow up on chilling allegations of industrial-scale criminality and sabotage at Eskom are as unbelievable as Ministerial promises that pit latrines will be eliminated across all public schools.

Disturbingly, South Africa’s muddled approach to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which could result in South Africa facing secondary sanctions or losing market access, is not the only international- relations issue where government has some serious explaining to do.

Government’s poorly communicated stance on the future of its aged and decidedly unreliable coal fleet has also caused unease among those governments that recently decided to extend concessional finance to South Africa to support its transition away from coal.

While it is now common knowledge that Germany offered to withdraw from the $8.5-billion Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) after Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe made his infamous “guinea pig” statement, unease rose further when it emerged that South Africa was considering breaking with stated policy to extend the life of its coal plants.

The remedy was proposed by Electricity Minister Dr Kgosientsho Ramokgopa after he toured several Eskom power stations and amid a particularly intense episode of power cuts. The recommendation was made absent any analysis of the costs, including the cost associated with a perception that South Africa was reneging on the decarbonisation commitments made in its Nationally Determined Contribution and, by extension, to the JETP participants.

The statement has since triggered a series of belated explanations designed to address the confusion it caused. Crucially, the Presidency has sought to draw a distinction between “coal extensions” and “delayed decommissioning”, asserting that it was never government’s intention to extend the life of the coal plants but simply to shift closure deadlines to help it mitigate loadshedding. The Presidency has also promised that no decisions will be taken before a thorough analysis of the costs.

Why this was not explained with precision from the very outset is baffling but, sadly, unsurprising. If South Africa is to restore trust, government needs to begin saying exactly what it means, and mean exactly what it says.