Invading land is not an option

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Twenty-two years into democracy after white minority rule and most of the fertile land is still owned by white commercial farmers. Weeks ago the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighter, Julius Malema, reprised to the people of South Africa to occupy land and be unapologetic about it. When statements like these are made, it is just moving us backward as a nation and a people.

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

Proclamations such as Malema’s will only cause people to act irrationally, inculcating fear among the minority, leaving them with thoughts of being evicted from their farms, echoing the forceful removal approach of Zimbabwe.

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

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

Hence programmes such as the Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy have been developed by the department of rural development and land reform. It focuses primarily on the poor and it is based on the state proactively purchasing land with high agricultural potential. This will ensure that 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 is managed properly it can create wealth for the poor and create stable relationships that will promote development.

The predicament the country finds itself in is people acting abruptly to occupy land because they feel that land is not being distributed rapidly enough for the expectations of post-liberation. — Keamogetswe Thomas, Kimberley