Push on land grab seen as key for change
But country appears polarised over expropriation without compensation
THE CALLS for land expropriation without compensation has been described in some quarters as a significant moment and key in the redistribution of the economy.
This is according to Professor Ruth Hall from the Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies (Plaas). The body focuses on land and tenure reform, land investment and agro-food restructuring.
Hall said that Section 25 of the constitution gives the government the right to expropriate land and carry out redistribution. But now the EFF is saying that land should be expropriated without compensation. After the motion goes before the Constitutional Review Committee, a report will be submitted. And, in Parliament, it would be voted on. If it goes through, the constitution would need to be amended.
“There is uncertainty about land expropriation without compensation and South Africans are polarised about it. The government is not providing clarity,” she said.
Former rural development and land reform minister Gugile Nkwinti said land shall be expropriated. He also called for a land commission to be established.
“At the commission, property owners will declare their land and property,” he said.
The SA Property Owners Association (Sapoa) raised concerns in relation to food security, agricultural production and the economy.
Its chief executive Neil Gopal said while the historical background of land ownership needed to be addressed, “it is critically important that South Africa navigates through the sensitivities with the greater vision being to ensure that the imbalance is dealt with and that the economic stability continues to be reinforced.
“Sapoa supports a land expropriation process where the rights of present and future landowners are balanced, with the need to ensure stability and economic growth,” he said.
Gopal also said property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application for a public purpose or in the public interest and subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court.
“There is no doubt that we need to urgently reverse the racial inequalities in land resulting from our colonial past and the violent dispossession of indigenous people off their land.
“But we need more clarity and debate on the factors responsible for the slow pace of land reform, and we welcome engagement with the Constitutional Review Committee on these matters.” he added.
Gopal said private property cannot be protected as that entrenches privilege, creates further inequality and entrenches poverty.
“This is a recipe for instability. The guarantee of private ownership to ensure investment, in tandem with addressing the ills of the past, is fundamental to a stable democracy. South Africa must be a nation that recognises a need for land reform and that accepts that such must be done being cognisant of property rights and a need for a thriving and a competitive economy.”
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT WE NEED TO URGENTLY REVERSE THE RACIAL INEQUALITIES IN LAND RESULTING FROM OUR COLONIAL PAST
AS EXPECTED, the government’s support for land expropriation without compensation has unleashed a storm of protest. Those opposing it say it will harm the economy, turn South Africa into another Zimbabwe, put food security at risk, drive farmers off the land and threaten the legacy of the country’s father of democracy, Nelson Mandela.
Two key issues stand out. Firstly, land expropriation has been on the table ever since the advent of democracy – and although the ANC government has hummed and hawed over the years about the need to take decisive action, they have done little to overturn the legacy of dispossession.
Secondly, the debate has been completely split on racial grounds. Expropriation without compensation has been strongly rejected by powerful interest groups, such as Agri SA (which represents white commercial farming), the FW de Klerk Foundation’s Centre for Constitutional Rights and the DA.
Pitted against them are Cosatu, the Landless Peoples Movement, the EFF and now, the ANC.
In 2008, historiographer James Gibson sent out a survey asking 3 700 respondents to agree or disagree with this statement: “Most land in South Africa was taken unfairly by white settlers, and they therefore have no right to the land today.”
About 8% of white respondents disagreed but a massive 85% of black respondents overwhelmingly backed the statement.
Moreover, 66% of the black participants also wanted “land to be returned to blacks in South Africa no matter what the consequences are for the current owners and for black stability in South Africa”.
There is no doubt that from the middle-1800s, black people in the interior were systematically and brutally driven off their land by Afrikaner groups. In the Eastern Cape and Natal, British settlers were equally brutal in their push for land.
It was land theft on a grand scale. After the National Party came into power and introduced elements of Cecil John Rhodes’s Glen Grey Act into their policy of apartheid, land seizure and forced removals continued on a bigger scale.
South Africa’s new constitution, introduced after the defeat of apartheid and the advent of democracy, protects land rights.
But herein lies its biggest weakness: it protects the ownership rights of those with stolen land, while keeping those fighting for restitution at arm’s length. This must change.