Sign of democratic order
ONE of the desirable hallmarks of democracy is that it is people-centred. It gives power to the people, and it governs through the will of the people.
Ideally, it enfranchises the masses by aligning all the mandates it carries to improve the lives of the people. While these are noble features of democracy, upholding them can mean a lot of things and as a result, the government must be deliberate in passing favourable laws.
The laws that are promulgated under the democratic dispensation must be felt positively by the rank and file. The government must be caring; it must listen to its citizenry. It must even abolish, amend and repeal the laws that are no longer promoting the will of the people.
As a country, we come from a painful past characterised by land dispossessions during colonial and apartheid rule. For example, the Land Act of 1913 formalised land dispossessions of black South Africans. These resulted in black people living in servitude in the land of their forefathers.
In 1994, at the dawn of democracy, the government promulgated progressive laws that sought to redress the injustices of the past. This was an endeavour to make South Africa a better place to live in, where land ownership was not skewed.
The forays of government in this regard have been elaborate but because of bureaucratic red tape, many have misgivings on how the laws have been slow in administering the process of land redistribution.
Having realised this, it is reassuring to see that the government is doing something to improve the status quo.
For example, the high-level panel on the assessment of key legislation and the acceleration of fundamental change headed by former president Kgalema Motlanthe in 2017, found that the land reform statutes of land restitution, land redistribution and security of tenure have drifted away from their initial pro-poor stance and lack a vision for inclusive agrarian reform. The recommendations of the panel included legislation to provide a framework for land reform, particularly on redistribution.
The panel also made specific recommendations on various pieces of legislation to enhance the prospects of successful implementation and to provide mechanisms to gather information and monitor and evaluate policy outcomes. The fact that the panel was instituted by the government is heart-warming because it tells me that the government listens to its people.
In 2005, at the National Land Summit, several resolutions were adopted, including the need for the government to take on a stronger leadership role in ensuring accelerated and sustainable land and agrarian reform, as well as to fast-track land redistribution.
The proactive land acquisition strategy was one of the ways that the government responded in 2007. The goal was to switch land reform from a mostly demand-driven approach to land acquisition and redistribution to a supply-driven approach.
The supply-driven approach was instituted as the primary intervention for the acquisition of strategically located agricultural land for agricultural and settlement purposes. An evaluation study of the Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy conducted in 2014/15 indicated many challenges which inhibited the effectiveness of the strategy.
At the client-relation management level, the process of administering applications for farms by the general public needed more improvement to deal with the demand for farms.
Among other things, the process of applying for farms did not have time frames or proper waiting periods for clients to track progress in as far as their applications were concerned. This also created a database that needed to be serviced through feedback and other engagement mechanisms.
In correcting the administrative challenges associated with the Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy, the government accelerated the acquisition of quality, well-located agricultural land under Section 25 of the Constitution, as well as the objectives of the Land and Assistance Act No 126 of 1993, by introducing the Proactive Land Acquisition Policy in 2018.
The main objectives were to speed up the land redistribution process by improving the identification and selection of beneficiaries, support varying types of land needs and varying categories of farmers and other producers, particularly smallholder producers.
The proactive land acquisition policy is a refined, more accurate and clear policy which is an improvement of the erstwhile proactive land acquisition strategy.
The most consistent features that are applicable within the much-improved proactive land acquisition policy framework are that a beneficiary through the permission of the state, can start the process of acquiring ownership of the allocated land without waiting for the lease period to elapse, the lessees can make improvements on the farm such as building new structures, and that the lease agreement can be extended beyond the period stipulated on the lease contract.
The implementation of the proactive land acquisition policy will go a long way in eliminating a great deal of administrative challenges experienced during the implementation of the previous strategy. For example, under the new policy, the process of applying for farms will take place only when a farm is advertised by the state.
For me, the proactiveness of the government in constantly improving and re-engineering its policies to improve the lives of people sounds the right note of a democratic order where the state constantly re-examines itself for the betterment of its citizens.