FLOYD SHIVAMBU
We seek not Zimbabwe but justice on the question of land
Ronald Lamola, the minister of justice and an ANC national executive committee (NEC) member, was recently quoted in the Sunday Times as saying: “The [EFF] want us to take all land and put it under the custodianship of the state. We asked them: What is this, what does it mean, how are you going to do it, to take all this land and put it under the custodianship of the state? [The EFF] said it’s repossessing of the land, that is what it means. But, in actual practice, it is nationalisation of the land when you look at it practically. That is what it means.”
Lamola went further to say: “That would not only disorganise the forms of land ownership, it would disorganise the social structure of our country and the whole economy for that matter. I think the Zimbabwe situation is a good example of what it would do to the economy.”
Robust discourse is welcomed in the debate on the land question, but dishonesty, lies and distortions of your opponent’s views as a basis of disagreement represent intellectual dishonesty and are altogether unacceptable. Lamola’s expressions are the worst form of counter-revolutionary distortion, part of which will delay black people’s collective efforts to reclaim the land from the colonial settlers.
Custodianship vs nationalisation
Likening our position to Zimbabwe’s is opportunistic and false. Zimbabwe never had custodianship of all land for equal redistribution. Instead, the land was repossessed by members of the Zanu-PF politburo, and farms transferred from colonial settlers to mostly the politically entrenched and connected elite. Nowhere in the EFF policy propositions has it been suggested that land should be transferred to the political elite. It is therefore lazy and opportunistic of Lamola to simply borrow a white racist nationalist scarecrow without noting the differences between Zimbabwe and SA. The EFF does not advocate that land be given to ANC NEC members, let alone members of the EFF central command team.
Lamola’s knowledge of the state custodianship of land question is purposely warped and distorted for a narrow class agenda. There is a difference between nationalisation and custodianship. Nationalisation translates into the transfer of ownership to the state for use. Under nationalisation, the state takes some form of management or control of the nationalised assets. Custodianship is when the state acquires rights on behalf of others to facilitate access without either managing, controlling, or exploiting the land’s resources, such as by mining them.
We had to bring to Lamola’s attention a Constitutional Court case making the distinction between nationalisation and custodianship clear. In the case between Agri SA and the minister for minerals & energy, the court said: “The state, as the custodian of these resources, is not seeking or supposed to be a co-contender with people or business entities for the right to prospect for or mine these minerals. It is a facilitator or a conduit through which broader and equitable access to mineral and petroleum resources can be realised.”
The Constitutional Court was clear that, unlike nationalisation, state custodianship does not mean that the state acquires ownership of rights to minerals.
When we realised that the ANC was lacking clarity on what should be changed in the constitution, we initiated bilateral engagements with it in the hope of establishing a consensus — and because it would be tragic to miss an opportunity to amend the constitution. There was a sense of cordial and constructive engagement and agreement that we could build consensus towards an acceptable position for both parties — until the faction that Lamola belongs to and their handlers pushed for a total breakdown of the engagement.
Serious errors of fact
At the second round of discussions we agreed on the following draft phrasing: “Land is a natural resource and the common heritage, which belongs to the people as a whole, under the custodianship of the democratic state.” But during the process, Lamola made calls to outside people to mobilise against what the meeting would have agreed. Lamola was keen on blowing up any disagreement based on ignorance and a refusal to accept logic, and he kept presenting illogical, superficial, and unsubstantiated examples, with serious errors of fact.
During the meeting, Lamola kept saying he had read somewhere that China has privatised all land, hence its economic success. We, on the contrary, read him the actual text of China’s constitution, particularly article 10, which regulates land tenure systems. It says: “Land in the cities is owned by the state. Land in the rural and suburban areas is owned by collectives except for those portions which belong to the state in accordance with the law.”
If anything, Lamola is confusing this and the 1988 amendment of China’s constitution, which allowed private investors to obtain land-use rights from the government and re-transfer these land-use rights to others.
Before Lamola was an MP, the National Assembly resolved on February 27 2018 that the following should happen: section 25 of the constitution should be amended and reviewed to make it possible for the state to expropriate land in the public interest without compensation, and in the process conduct public hearings about the necessity of, and mechanisms for, expropriating land without compensation; and the necessary constitutional amendments should be proposed regarding the kind of future land tenure regime that was needed.
This resolution was a consensus between the ANC and EFF. The resolution emphatically says that we should “propose the necessary constitutional amendments regarding the kind of future land tenure regime needed, considering the necessity of the state being a custodian of all South African land”.
State custodianship of land is a South African parliamentary resolution, and not a Zimbabwean land policy as Lamola seeks to portray.
Postponing ownership by black people
Lamola acts like he is defending the title deeds of black people, but all data points to the fact that black people do not own the land in SA. The struggle for land expropriation without compensation is a generational struggle of economic freedom fighters in and outside the Congress movement.
Lamola is the Bruno Mtolo of our generation. Mtolo was the man who came in handy when the apartheid state of Hendrik Verwoerd needed to secure the conviction of the Rivonia triallists.
Mtolo was part of the Natal regional command of Umkhonto weSizwe (MK). An activist from KwaZuluNatal, he appeared more committed and determined than the rest of the freedom fighters in that province and was considered one of the most outstanding cadres and fighters for liberation.
He dedicated his life to the struggle for political freedom. His generation never thought that he would ever define himself outside the struggle for the people’s liberation.
Despite these outstanding revolutionary qualities, Mtolo had his own challenges and weaknesses. In his spare time, he was known as a freedom fighter who had a healthy relationship with alcohol and he had personal financial problems, too.
Lamola’s expressions will delay black people’s efforts to reclaim the land from the colonial settlers
This aspect of his life, as is the case with many freedom fighters across the African continent, had massive potential to undermine and trivialise his commitment to the struggle. Mtolo, like Lamola, was overwhelmed by reactionary subjectivity to the extent of selling out the revolution.
Mtolo testified against his comrades in a trial that could easily have led to the execution of Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu and other Rivonia triallists. Were it not for massive international campaigns against the execution of political leaders, Mtolo would have secured their execution by the racist, brutal apartheid regime.
He also led a public campaign that undermined the leadership of the struggle for freedom. In the Rivonia Trial and the interviews he gave afterwards, Mtolo complained that leaders of the struggle for freedom had cleaner and better houses, dressed in proper clothes, had cars, and had money even to pay bail when arrested.
Suppose the Bruno Mtolo of our generation has his way with the land question. In that case, black people’s collective efforts to reclaim the land from the colonial settlers will be postponed.
We are, however, not fazed and will continue the war for the return of the land to the ownership of the people as a whole, particularly to those who work it.
The people of SA should unapologetically and fearlessly continue to pursue alternative revolutionary means to land reform and not be derailed by the
Bruno Mtolos of our generation, who, for careerist purposes, spread lies, distort revolutionary principles and agree to be controlled by the white capitalist establishment.