Moral imperative

TWENTY-TWO years into democracy after the white minority rule, most of the fertile land is still owned by white commercial farmers.

Weeks ago, EFF leader Julius Malema reprised to the people of South Africa to occupy land and be unapologetic about it. When statements like these are made, it’s just moving us backward as a nation and a people.

Surely this was not the picture many South Africans had when they envisioned democracy 22 years ago. Fighting for land and causing unrest in the country when democracy meant peace and freedom.

Proclamations like those will only cause people to act irrationally, inciting fear in the minority, leaving them with thoughts of Zimbabwe-like evictions.

According to some, the burning issue is not a question of land, but more one of symbolism, history and inequality.

With much truth being the core of the statement, it does not mean living and farming were never part of the plan for the dependants of those people who were forcefully removed from their lands.

Hence, programmes like Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy (PLAS) have been developed and implemented by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. They focus primarily on the poor and are based on the state pro-actively purchasing land with high agricultural potential to ensure good quality products are produced.

The department then selects beneficiaries who can lease the land with the option to purchase it.

Land reform is a moral imperative and a constitutional obligation. If it’s managed properly, it can create wealth for the poor and stable relationships that promote development.

The predicament the country finds itself in is people acting abruptly to occupy land because they feel land is not being distributed rapidly enough.