King takes ill-advised turn in land reform question
I SHUDDER to think what lies ahead in this country after reading reports that former president Kgalema Motlanthe was vehemently attacked by the Zulu monarchy in Kwazulu-natal for the conclusions he drew on land reform.
In 2016, Motlanthe was appointed by then deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa to chair a highlevel panel on land reform.
The panel report concluded there were some serious concerns with the Ingonyama Trust, which was a creation of the Kwazulu-natal Ingonyama Trust Act of April 24 1994, and that in the light of the findings of its investigations it either be repealed or substantially amended.
The thrust of the findings was that land had been allocated to traditional leaders, instead of the people who most needed it, and that there had been numerous violations of provisions of the act that had created serious problems for land reform.
What appeared to have happened was that the Zulu monarchy, centred on King Goodwill Zwelithini, in whose name ownership and control of land resides in the act, had dispensed land in a manner not consistent with its objectives.
Motlanthe was explicit about this problem.
“The people had high hopes that the ANC would liberate them from the confines of the homeland system. Clearly now we are the ones saying that land must go to traditional leaders and not the people.”
The official website of the Ingonyama Trust states that the trust was to hold land for the “benefit, material welfare and social well-being” of all the people who lived on land formerly owned by the Natal government under apartheid. However, the Motlanthe report strongly suggests that such noble objectives have not been met since 1994.
Obviously, now that the land issue is raging throughout the country, it is natural that all questions that affect land reform, especially when it is meant to address poverty, homelessness, jobs and sustenance, be vigorously examined without fear or favour.
There is no reason why the Ingonyama Trust must be treated differently from an investigation into any other bodies or institutions that deal with land reform.
All relevant institutions dealing with the combustible topic require effective scrutiny in order to assess whether they are adequately serving the interests of their constituencies.
Rigorous review, especially when the report in question relates to a government-led inquiry into land reform, is essential.
The panel was meant to fully and without hindrance carry out its mandate.
Why must the panel therefore compromise its mandate, water down its findings, or walk on eggshells because the authority of the Zulu monarchy is in question?
It is, furthermore, deeply ironical that Motlanthe can be accused of being provocative when, in fact, the statements by Zwelithini and other traditional leaders are, in fact, not only extremely provocative, but directly threaten violence should the report of the panel lead to tampering with the authority of the trust.
How can much-needed land reform proceed, especially when it is meant to do justice to the desperate needs of the landless masses, in such an environment of fear and intimidation?
Zwelithini was quoted last week in a statement he made which very unfortunately makes such violent threats abundantly clear: “I’m pleading with the government not to take the land that belongs to people from rural villages because they will retaliate and blood will be shed.”
How can one “plead” and in the same breath threaten violence?
However, this was not the first time Zwelithini threatened violence when he and the monarchy did not get their way.
He has recklessly beaten the drums of war many times in a way that, indeed, could drown this country in needless bloodshed.
What he and the Ingonyama Trust should do is seek an urgent meeting with both Motlanthe and Ramaphosa and discuss, with cool heads, what their concerns are.
To repeatedly threaten violence is extremely concerning and, in fact, counterproductive, unacceptable and unconstitutional.
Not long ago the leader of the EFF, Julius Malema, also slammed Zwelithini for his reaction to the Motlanthe report and for “intimidating” people who were calling for expropriation without compensation, which is in any case now the policy of the ruling ANC. Malema stated that this was a constitutional democracy in which we had a right to differ with Zwelinthini.
He added: “The Zulu king must call for engagement with regards to land. He must be respected, he must not be feared.”
It also appears to be a digression and an untruth to accuse Motlanthe of not consulting with traditional leaders, when the report makes it clear that they were consulted.
However, what is at stake, clearly, is not the alleged lack of consultation, but the actual findings of the investigation.
The key point to be made in this regard is that land is too critically an important matter to have elites – whether traditional or not – dominating decisions about it, especially in the midst of the huge social crisis existing around land, as can be seen in land invasions around the country.
The fact is that it was the traditional elites in the homelands who controlled land under apartheid.
However, in a constitutional democracy the greatest priority has to be the provision of available land for the purposes stated above, especially after the ANC has named land reform among its biggest priorities.
However, it was the timing of the enactment of the Ingonyama Trust Act, just three days before the 1994 elections, which was intriguing. Why was it seemingly rushed through the apartheid Parliament by the then ruling National Party and the Kwazulunatal government just a few days before that election? Perhaps Mangosuthu Buthelezi and Zwelithini can tell us why this happened.
Were their interests potentially threatened by ANC rule and the nationalisation clause in the Freedom Charter?
But it is not only what the constitution, the Ingonyama Trust Act or the Freedom Charter might state regarding land reform that is important; equally important is that in a constitutional democracy, the processes in which land reform occurs must be participatory, democratic, fair, equitable and transparent, which does not appear to have happened under the authority of the Ingonyama Trust.
I conclude with what I wrote in the Mail & Guardian in 2000: “The critical question of accountability of leaders can only be derived from democratic elections and the right of recall, both of which do not apply to traditional leaders.
“Their view that one cannot expect municipal authority to function and render services in areas under their jurisdiction without their authority being usurped spells out in a nutshell the contradiction between democratic government and hereditary powers.
“They hide behind tradition to protect a privileged power base.”
Is the Zulu monarchy not doing the same thing now in its reaction to the Motlanthe report?
Harvey is a political writer and commentator.