Ghouls of global nationalism stalk our land question
During this second decade of the 21st century, global politics seem to be taking a turn from globalism to nationalism. From Brexit to the election of Donald
Trump and the rise of antirefugee sentiments in
European politics — or even Vladimir Putin’s brave new world — the world seems to have retreated to the national patriotism of the
20th century.
Other forms of nationalism that seem to be reconditioning themselves include ethnic violence, xenophobia and terrorism.
The paradox of the nationalism movement, whether in the past century or the current, is that it is global.
The land debate in South Africa is at the centre of
21st century nationalisms. A few weeks ago, Janice Atkinson‚ a conservative British politician, wrote to British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson to ask the British government to mediate in South Africa’s land reform process.
Atkinson’s views are no less suspicious to poor and working-class South Africans than the empire’s colonial methodology and neocolonial aspirations.
The Australian minister of home affairs, Peter Dutton, also caused a storm when he mulled fast-tracking visas for white South Africans who wish to emigrate to Australia, claiming that they are under persecution here. Dutton has received support from members of his conservative party.
The arguments put forward by both politicians form part of emerging hardcore nationalisms of the kind that produced two world wars and a brutal apartheid regime in South Africa (which is largely responsible for land inequality today).
This same narrative is forcing itself into South Africa’s grand debate on land. It adds to the showdown between two types of localised nationalisms — one progressive and the other conservative.
The progressives (or left-wingers) consist of the nationalist left (the EFF), the social democratic left (the ANC and alliance partners), solidarity groups such as the Black Management Forum, and others. The conservative nationalists (rightwingers) range from the centre-right DA, agriculturebased associations — most of which represent the interests of white commercial farmers
— to far-right groups such as the Freedom Front Plus and solidarity groups such as
AfriForum.
The battle between these opposite nationalisms is over the meaning of black and white franchisees of South
African soil, and who among them constitutes the real
South African.
The progressive nationalists are backed by most of the working class and rural poor, while conservative nationalists are supported by the financial markets and a global conservative momentum. The racial lines are not clear cut: there are black citizens within right-wing nationalism and vice versa.
South Africa’s land reform is therefore no longer an innocent national conversation. Rightly so, given that two decades have passed since the country became a democracy, and South Africa’s half-a-generation-old miracle moment is well in the rear-view mirror. It would be naive, therefore, to imagine that the outcome of land reform is a fait accompli simply based on public utterances and intentions from either the right or the left.
Worse still, Zimbabwe bungled its land reform process, thereby becoming the rule book of what expropriation of land without compensation in South Africa might look like.
On this basis, even if the South African government follows a different methodology, it is difficult to imagine any different outcome. Zimbabwe’s nationalism blunder has become the reference point for the nationalist right in South Africa.
Like language and culture, while land is a national asset, it reflects a struggle for nationalisms — and these have been unkind to the history of the last century. The nationalisms of the 20th century are howling from the other side of the grave, and South Africa’s current land debate is answering their call with enthusiasm.
South Africa’s land reform is no longer an innocent national conversation