Call for a referendum to gauge the public’s sentiment

There has been a concerted effort by those who continue to benefit from the status quo in respect of land reform to peddle untruths and to promote baseless arguments to cement a narrative on why land should not be expropriated without compensation.

The parliamentary process on the constitutional review of section 25 should proceed in order to demystify the distorted view that land reform is a populist agenda, a view favoured by ratings agencies, liberal opposition parties and international institutions.

The president should affirm South Africans’ desire for pragmatic land restitution by exercising section 84 (9) which confers powers on him to call a referendum.

The referendum could run concurrently with next year’s national elections in order to save costs. It would allow for a true reflection of South Africans’ attitudes on the land question and afford citizens the right to choose their destiny in respect of land reform.

The rating agencies have warned President Cyril Ramaphosa not to scare away foreign investment.

The DA is in concert with such warnings as they are vehemently opposed to section 25 amendments.

The DA’s preference is for present policies to be retained.

This is not surprising because an overwhelming majority of farms and agricultural land remain in the hands of the DA’s constituency.

The 2017 land audit indicates that whites accounted for 77% of farm and agricultural land, coloureds 15%, Indians 5% and Africans 4%.

Foreign investment is important for the country’s socioeconomic progress, where poverty, unemployment and inequality is concerned.

However, this ought not be at the expense of black Africans. It would be insensitive and disingenuous for investors, international institutions and rating agencies to disregard the statistics that provide an exposition on the state of the land.

The dispossession of our land was succinctly captured by Sol Plaatjie when he said: “Awakening 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.”

This was written in response to the enactment of the 1913

Fast-forward to 2017 and white farmers account for 77%.

AYANDA XOTYENI

Law graduate student

Native Land Act, which prohibited black Africans from inter alia owning or renting land in designated areas.

Their only recourse was land in the reserves that made up 7.7% of the land in the whole country. The Native Land Act was complemented by several pieces of legislation such as the Group Areas Act, which further disempowered and displaced black Africans.

This appropriated the capacity of black Africans to sustain themselves – few black Africans were impoverished before this act and history is littered with accounts of how black Africans successfully participated in the agricultural economy.

Our democratic dispensation compels us to find instruments to remedy the scars of land dispossession. Section 25 (7) of the constitution was given effect by the Restitution of Land Rights Act, which accorded land redistribution, land restitution and land tenure reform.

However, the sway of monetary awards for land claimants was inevitable in the face of the socio-economic conditions and this has been compounded by the non-viability of the willing seller, willing buyer policy.

In 1994, 50 000 white farmers accounted for 85% of farms and agricultural land in SA.

Fast-forward to 2017 and white farmers account for 77% – a strong indication that present policies have not been effective in redressing arising from Land Act.

It is against a backdrop of these realities that parliament is holding public hearings.

However, this process must be complemented by direct democracy in the form of a referendum.

This would remove from the land reform debate attempts to posit it as an ANC, EFF, PAC or APC agenda.

Those who favour the status quo are trying to disguise the fact that blacks, regardless of political affiliation, desire land. the the imbalances Native