Muxe Nkondo
We must respond to the president’s call for consensusbuilding on land expropriation without compensation, writes
THE president’s comments on the Budget and in recent debates in Parliament raise a set of complex questions and perspectives on the strategic value of consensus-building.
Consensus-building on the question of land expropriation without compensation essentially shares the same meaning as participatory problem-solving, which brings together influential representatives of political parties and advocacy groups engaged in destructive and protracted conflict, facilitated by the president.
The objectives are to develop a shared analysis of the conflicts and create options that might help lead the parties and advocacy groups out of their impasse.
President Cyril Ramaphosa’s role is to facilitate consensusbuilding deliberations in a systematic manner and suggest analytical tools that might be used by participants in analysing their conflicts.
The objective is to create a democratic atmosphere in which participants can freely express their views while respecting those of the other side and move from adversarial debate to joint analysis of conflict and initiate solutions.
Following agreement on ground rules, the president provides an agenda for the sessions, starting with an initial exchange of perceptions, leading to an analysis of the interests and needs underlying apparently incompatible positions.
Does redistributive land justice matter? To what extent does this type of justice influence people’s thoughts, feelings and actions?
Such justice concerns the fairness of the reallocation of land resources across society.
The liberation struggle in general has shaped people’s attitudes in ways that are distinct from simply acting for power and material self-interest.
South Africans are not primarily interested in maximising personal or sectional self-interest; they also have a powerful desire to receive and provide justice.
Concerns about redistributive justice reflect a fundamental human motivation that is found in all post-colonial settings.
It occurs at three levels: denial of resources, human rights and treatment with dignity.
Of these harms, land denial is regarded as the most serious, involving, as it does, the denial of treatment with dignity.
The redistributive land justice principle can be seen as a subset of moral principles, as it represents ideas of what is right and wrong in society. This redistributive justice argument draws morality and justice together by suggesting that both are socially created and transmitted mechanisms