Populist land gamble is problematic

The land question has again brought our fledgling democracy to a tipping point.

Rooted in popular sentiment and promoted by vote-seeking politicians, the belief seems to be gaining ground that a radical change of land ownership would redress past injustices, create jobs and eliminate rural poverty. Nothing could be more misleading or potentially damaging.

While the need for land in and around urban areas to accommodate population growth and economic refugees fleeing rural poverty is self-evident, the state’s acquisition of more commercial farmland by whatever means is questionable. Of the 8,000 farms reportedly bought by government for restitution or redistribution, there seems to be general agreement that 70%-80% are not productive.

If the aim is to increase the number of emerging farmers in mainstream agriculture, it needs to be established why so many farms acquired by government are not productive. Do the beneficiaries have a historical attachment to the land but no desire to farm commercially? Or has the denial of individual ownership stifled any incentive to manage land productively?

Private ownership provides an incentive to increase the productivity of the land by adopting the latest farming methods, and the flexibility to meet changing market demand. As a consequence SA has enjoyed self-sufficiency in most agricultural products and earned valuable foreign exchange through exports.

Expropriation of land without compensation would suggest to potential investors that the risks of investing in fixed assets in SA are unacceptable. Unemployment would likely increase, as would factionalism, and periodic food shortages would become commonplace.

As much as one would wish to compensate for the injustices of the past, one cannot turn the clock back. SA cannot risk the long-term effects of a disruption to agricultural production.