Only when leadership becomes coherent, value-driven and courageous will technology fulfil its promise of accelerating service delivery and reducing inequality. (Freepik)
One of the common narratives is that barriers to technology adoption are at the heart of many of the problems besetting the country.
Even the enduring problems of unemployment, poverty and inequality — often described in the worn-down catchphrase of the “triple challenges” — are blamed on gaps in access to technology. This is far from the truth and a denial of the reality.
After years of working in academia and with public-sector boards on large-scale digital transformation initiatives, I have come to a difficult conclusion: South Africa’s problem is not primarily technological scarcity. It is leadership deficiency.
But first, what technology are we referring to? This is not only about wi-fi in households or smartphones in citizens’ hands but a wide range of systems in the full digital eco-system — from reliable broadband and fibre infrastructure and interoperable government digital platforms to digitised public records, smart identity systems and e-procurement platforms.
One can also question government’s ability to integrate all the systems into coherent service delivery.
South Africa possesses more technological capability than we often acknowledge.
A 2022 report by the University of Johannesburg, submitted to the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, showed that the country has significant technology production capacity, reflected in high levels of patenting and innovation. Our universities produce world-class research in this space, while the private sector runs sophisticated digital banking systems. Our telecoms sector has deployed extensive fibre networks and advanced mobile connectivity in urban areas.
Clearly, the problem is not that technology does not exist. The problem is that it is unevenly deployed, poorly integrated and inconsistently governed.
Where, then, are we behind? We are abysmally lagging in translating infrastructure into inclusive outcomes. While urban centres might enjoy fibre connectivity and digital financial services, many rural communities struggle with reliable broadband access.
Whereas some departments experiment with e-services, citizens queue physically for basic services because systems are fragmented and not interoperable.
Government databases often do not “speak” to one another. Digital procurement platforms are introduced but not embedded. Large ICT projects experience delays, cost overruns and low adoption rates.
In comparison to other middle-income countries, our public-sector digital programmes frequently lag in execution, coherence and sustainability. We do not lack pilots; we lack scale. We do not lack strategies; we lack disciplined implementation. We do not lack experts; we lack empowered leadership. Here lies the real issue. The leadership problem is not merely about personality or competence in a narrow sense.
It is systemic. It manifests in three critical ways.
First, digital transformation is often treated as a technical procurement exercise rather than a systemic organisational reform.
Budgets are allocated for software and hardware but not for change management, skills development, data governance frameworks or institutional redesign.
Responsibility is delegated to IT departments, while executives distance themselves from accountability. When transformation fails, it is labelled a “system problem” rather than a governance failure.
Second, experts are hired but not heard. Technical specialists are brought into committees, yet their advice is diluted by political considerations or bureaucratic caution.
In some instances, professionals fear speaking candidly because dissent is interpreted as disloyalty. When expertise is suppressed, poor decisions multiply. Technology then amplifies institutional weakness rather than correcting it.
Third, there is a persistent over-centralisation of control in response to complexity. In the name of risk management and compliance, decision-making slows. Committees proliferate. Approvals stall. Innovation is stifled. The result is not prudence but paralysis. Vast sums are spent, yet outcomes remain modest because execution is fragmented and leadership is indecisive.
It is convenient to blame legacy systems, limited budgets or skills shortages. These factors do exist. However, they are seldom the sole cause of failure.
The deeper challenge is that the pace of technological change has outstripped our leadership maturity. Digital transformation requires leaders who understand both architecture and ethics, both data and governance and both agility and accountability.
Technology is morally neutral. It magnifies what exists. In institutions with clarity, courage and coherence, it accelerates service delivery. In institutions with fragmentation, fear and misalignment, it accelerates waste and distrust.
Politically, leadership should provide direction and protection, not disruption. It should align stakeholders around long-term public value, rather than short-term factional interest. Strong political leadership is not about micromanaging implementation; it is about creating the conditions in which professionals can deliver in the public interest.
What separates successful digital transformation from failure is not brilliance but authenticity and humility.
Mature leaders understand that complexity cannot be controlled through fear or over-regulation.
They create psychologically safe environments where experts can criticise systems without reprisal. They distinguish between dissent and sabotage. They balance innovation with certainty, agility with predictability, business efficiency with social inclusion.
Sadly, too often our institutional environment reflects the opposite, the tragedy of misaligned executive groupings, political contestation overriding long-term strategy, initiatives launched without sustained sponsorship and programmes abandoned before maturity. This is not a technology deficit. Far from that, it is a stewardship deficit.
Nations do not fail because they lack talent. Institutions do not stagnate because they lack ideas. They falter when leaders prioritise power preservation over public value and compliance optics over measurable outcomes.
The path ahead requires more than fibre rollouts, data centres or artificial intelligence strategies. It requires servant ethical leadership, the kind of leadership that understands complexity without being paralysed by it; leadership that builds trust as deliberately as it builds systems; leadership that governs ethically and acts courageously. Certainly, we require leadership that is authentic in loving its own citizens.
Unless such a shift occurs, digital transformation will remain rhetorical with a strategy on paper rather than a lived reality. The digital divide will widen, not because technology is absent but because governance is inadequate.
Only when leadership becomes coherent, value-driven and courageous will technology fulfil its promise of accelerating service delivery and reducing inequality.
Dr Stella Bvuma is the director of Consumer Intelligence and Information Systems, College of Business and Economics at the University of Johannesburg and also a recipient of the M&G 2025 Power of Women award. She writes in her personal capacity.
Dr Stella Bvuma is the director of Consumer Intelligence and Information Systems, College of Business and Economics at the University of Johannesburg and also a recipient of the M&G 2025 Power of Women award. She writes in her personal capacity.