Beware pre-poll populism

THE debate on land reform is gaining momentum. There is no stopping it now. At least not in an election year. We have entered that period when politicians will do and say anything to strengthen their parties and personal positions.

After creating his first cabinet, President Cyril Ramaphosa specifically said the new executive was a “transition” to next year’s election.

Over the weekend the EFF launched its voter registration campaign. The DA seems to be stuck in second gear. I am probably in a majority of one who suspects that the EFF will replace the DA as official opposition in parliament next year. This is, of course, quite speculative. What is clear, anyway, is that the hustings are upon us.

We have entered that most treacherous of periods where politicians will say anything to get elected.

Now, more than ever, independent commentators and observers may have to tune their antennae finely to understand and explain the differences between politics and governance, and between rhetoric and cant (as expressed in one breath) and the absences of sincerity and intellectual integrity (concealed under each breath).

Land reform is one of those areas where there are significant differences between politics at the hustings and actual governance.

This notwithstanding, what will happen next is anyone’s guess.

We will probably see a face-off between those disparagingly referred to as “constitutionalists” and the poseur populists.

This includes the nostalgiacs who long for the days when “enemy lines” were less blurry.

The nostalgiacs have already showed their hand and put forward the idea of “expropriation without compensation” as an end in itself, and a panacea for all the problems that beset the country.

Some of them want the state to be the custodian of all land in the country.

This is somewhat surprising because trust in the state is probably at the lowest in history of the country’s democratic era.

The populists consider expropriation as a zero-sum game and have placed all white people who own land in their cross-hairs.

At best, they believe that whites should no longer benefit from the vertically segmented privileges inherited over more than 400 years. In principle, there is nothing wrong with that. The constitution is quite clear about the need to address the injustices of the past.

In practice, it can lead to some very unpleasant things, not the least of which may include land seizures, forceful occupation, outright rapine, or worse.

All of this may easily be justified if only a single person is shown to be homeless.

This, really, is how crude and expedient the debate has become.

That it has come to this is probably the fault of the state which, until now, has done not nearly enough to address land reform over the past two decades.

As we proceed, in the coming months before next year’s election, it will probably be good to reduce the anxiety levels, to walk around the issue, so to speak, and see it from as many angles as possible. New perspectives always provide better contexts.

Whatever position one takes today, it is probably good to insert several caveats.

As with most things in political economy we can expect irrationalities, ethical lapses, the resort to violence and, well, it should come as no surprise that there will be people who may willingly cut their losses, abandon their property and move on.

As it goes there are very many abandoned buildings around the country where owners have simply stopped investing in them or maintaining them, but retain ownership.

In general (here, my evidence is draw from research in Mombassa, Kenya), absentee landlords contribute to informal and unplanned settlement, and generally are stumbling blocks in the way of effective land reform.

This may be one way of systematically addressing land reform.

I doubt that the populists will allow any sequenced reform.

We have to beware of populism as we enter the hustings.

What is clear is that there will be no land grabs, and that individuals and families will not be kicked out of their homes.

Having said all that, we can go back to the caveats referred to above.

With respect to the irrationalities, well, there are political leaders, highly influential ones, who are given to threatening outbursts, who manipulate the passions of disaffected people, and who encourage rapine and the wilful appropriation of property, and speak in tones of violence.

They will not go away and there is every possibility that they will swell their ranks with each mention of historical dispossession.

As for ethical lapses, it has become too easy to bribe a public official to ignore a misdeed.

It is at all these levels where we have to fine-tune our antennae.

We may be discussing land reform, an age-old problem, but remember the hustings.