The pursuit of democracy – why land reform cannot be ignored.
“Awaking on Friday morning, June 20,1913, the South African native found himself, not actually a slave, but a pariah in the land of his birth,” South African writer Sol Plaatje reflected sorrowfully.
The 19th century was a period in which several important events occurred, the socio-political and economic impact of which profoundly changed South Africa. Colonial conquest and rapid, often violent, land dispossession took place.
Land reform became the dominant discourse building up to the ANC’s 54th elective conference in December 2017, and continues to dominate the public domain.
The ANC passed a resolution to change the Constitution to allow for expropriation of land without compensation. During his’ speech as newly elected president of the ANC, Cyril Ramaphosa promised it would be implemented in a way that would not harm food security or economic stability. The Constitutional Review Committee is now debating whether Section 25 of the Constitution should be amended, with the aim of finding a legal basis to achieve expropriation of land without compensation. Section 25 of the Constitution allows for expropriation, but with compensation that must be just and equitable.
SOCIAL INJUSTICE
Access to land by the landless poor majority is a central element of social justice. Social justice is key to the pursuit of democracy and requires that land reform in South Africa be seen as central to the well-being of the majority, as well as meeting its livelihood and dignity needs. Be that as it may, do we really need to expropriate land without compensation? Are there other alternatives to this? Is this minefield worth trampling on? Have we tested the expropriation part of Section 25 and established its shortcomings? Land reform has three elements, namely restitution, redistribution and tenure reform. Whenever we discuss land reform, we must understand its underpinnings fully. History shows that at the core of society’s social injustice is the dispossession of indigenous citizens of their land by the colonisers of that time.
Contemporary literature coalesces around the need for aggressive land reform to redress this dispossession. However, several case studies are used to advance certain other propositions, with the example of land reform in Zimbabwe being largely cited.
THE FAILURE OF LAND REFORM
In 1994, the ANC adopted a neo-liberal land reform programme, the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), which has failed to yield the desired results. The initial target of the RDP was to redistribute 30% of land to previously disadvantaged people, and this was to be achieved by 1998. Now, 23 years later, this target remains a dream. Below are some of the elements that have contributed to government’s inability to achieve the set target:
- Land reform is an expensive exercise;
- Insufficient budget allocation for land reform;
- Land price collusion;
- Restitution beneficiaries opting for cash compensation;
- Some land reform beneficiaries sold land back to white farmers; and
- Inadequate post-settlement support. Land reform without radical post-settlement support, and clear beneficiary allocation/selection and training, is an absolute recipe for disaster.
Due to inadequate resources allocated to farmer support, some new farmers have opted to gain access to private funding from banks and development financing institutions. This has yielded good results in some instances, and has led to unfortunate circumstances elsewhere, such as in cases where some farms have been auctioned off by financial institutions due to farmers’ inability to service their debts.
It is also notable that a significant number of land reform farms are underproducing or not being utilised at all.
I believe that while we plan for the expropriation of agricultural land, all other land reform farms should be put back into full production. The other issue is that there are fewer commercial farmers and new entrant numbers are at their lowest. As such, expropriation of land without a clear strategy for success will put food security at risk.
NATIONALISING LAND
Some believe that all land should be nationalised and leased to citizens. This could be a workable view in some instances, but should this be a successful strategy, state capacity will have to allow for the execution of this important task.
However, we must learn to separate issues on land expropriation and land management. There is an urgent need for a debate on land management, especially in rural areas where the communal land tenure system seems to lack uniformity in interpretation and implementation.
Sigqibo Biggz Mfuywa, via email