Rich or poor
A tale of land, kings and two outcomes
It is important to recognise that the debate about land, though difficult, is essential for the development of firm socioeconomic structures for all South Africans. Yet we must also examine the quality of our leaders and study their narratives to see whether their interests align with the rostrums of democracy on which they so proudly stand.
Looking to two traditional communities that hold a prominent position, we must deliberate as to how the leadership styles of each has resulted in the prosperity of one — the Royal Bafokeng Nation — and the increasing poverty of the other — the Zulu nation.
With visionary and democratic leadership, King Leruo Molotlegi of the
Royal Bafokeng Nation has promoted the socioeconomic wellbeing of his community by championing relevance and innovation.
The ethos of the Royal Bafokeng Nation is channelled by the responsibility to serve the community of 150 000 people living in 29 villages on 1 200km² of land in North West.
The Royal Bafokeng Nation has generated unprecedented wealth from living on the world’s largest platinum reserves and using its rich inheritance to expand into businesses. These include a 13% shareholding in Impala Platinum; being a majority shareholder in its own mining and refining company, Royal Bafokeng Platinum; and holding interests in companies in the financial services, telecommunications, property and transport services sectors.
All resources of the Royal Bafokeng Nation are held in a trust on behalf of the people, and investments are managed through a wholly-owned investment company, Royal Bafokeng Holdings.
Although the nation is led by King Molotlegi, he does not have the decision-making power alone on how the collective resources of the Royal Bafokeng Nation are used.
Traditional leadership structures are respected, as the king serves the community alongside elected village and regional representatives, who directly consult the people at several levels with the aim of fostering an economically and socially strong community that cares about the sustainability of the environment.
In keeping such ideals, the Royal Bafokeng Nation has improved the living conditions of its people, by employing an estimated 400 people and spending more than $700-million (about R9.3-billion) on building roads, utilities, schools and clinics.
This visionary leadership style is also seen in the development of strategic plans to help foster socioeconomic growth and counteract the impact of mining on the environment.
These include Plan 35 for economic and social development, and a masterplan to support the built environment.
By employing a strong democratic leadership practice, the Royal Bafokeng Nation has established three branches that benefit and support the entire community: Royal Bafokeng Sports, a sports academy and a stadium that also provides a strong revenue stream for the community by hosting national and international sporting events; Royal Bafokeng Administration, which monitors services and infrastructure according to the shared vision of the development plans; and the Royal Bafokeng Institute, which focuses on education and sharing the values of the Royal Bafokeng Nation.
The rich platinum reserves of the Royal Bafokeng, along with democratic leadership, have resulted in business decisions that have stimulated growth for the community.
The other side of the coin is the Zulu nation.
It has three million hectares of land but has been affected by the misuse of the Ingonyama Trust, established in 1994 and led by the sole trustee, King Goodwill Zwelithini.
The land is divided according to clans under the leadership of traditional leaders, who are responsible to the king in terms of customary law.
The mandate of the trust is to hold land for the benefit, material welfare and social wellbeing of the members of the tribes and communities living on the land.
However, the poor social and economic conditions of the Zulu nation have led to increasing controversy around the legalities of the land and King Zwelithini’s leadership.
Although the Ingonyama Trust predates the constitution, its existence finds expression and protection under section 25 of the constitution and gives a stronger mandate to the board to protect the land and ensure that communities benefit from the proceeds of the land.
Following the report of a high-level panel on land led by former president Kgalema Motlanthe, it has been proposed that the Ingonyama Trust be repealed or amended because its implementation has infringed on the individual land rights of beneficiaries and because the current practices are inconsistent with the government’s land policy.
If the trust were repealed and the Ingonyama Trust Act amended, the government would take ownership of the land and be responsible for its redistribution to the people who live on it and farm it.
King Zwelithini has warned the government of the repercussions of this and has called on Zulus to each transfer R5 to an account for future legal fees.
He has adopted an autocratic leadership practice by reserving his right to make all decisions about the trust.
In terms of the findings of Motlanthe’s high-level panel, the Ingonyama Trust board is steeped in controversy over irregular lease agreements, inequitable control of land and development that has disenfranchised the community.
The duty of all South Africans is to navigate the conversations about land and find in it the ways in which we can harness an equal and just society as espoused by our prized constitution.
It is important that we recognise the role of leadership as it affects whether, and how, we are able to improve the socioeconomic conditions of our people.
If we are to continue to debate issues around land, then we must place leadership and commodification at the centre of the discussions.
Our ability to foster growth depends on our ability to strengthen our values.