“No one is going to lose his or her house. No one is going to lose his or her flat. No one is going to lose his or her factory or industry.” EFF Leader Julius Malema.
Calm is needed around the issue of expropriation of land without compensation. We run the risk of this becoming the most polarising issue of our post-1994 democracy and it really needn’t be. In fact, I would suggest that this issue could – if we view it slightly differently – become one that further unifies us South Africans and strengthens the bonds that have developed between us over the past two decades.
The reason I say this is because most people I speak to or listen to on radio agree on so many of the fundamentals around the issue of land expropriation: They agree that imbalances in land ownership are still a major stumbling block to the realisation of the dream of a fair and equal, democratic society; they agree that land that was unfairly stripped from black people, needs to be returned; they agree that progress in terms of land redistribution has been slow to the point of near non-existent. So, unless we harbour prejudices aside from the actual issue at hand – redress of the wrongs of the past concerning land ownership – we are largely in agreement that things need to change. How often does that happen, especially with such an explosive issue as land?
It is at this point in the land expropriation without compensation conversation that fear kicks in: What will happen to my land? What will happen to the economy (or put another way, my savings, my pension)? And to justify my fear (as if fear needed justifying) I turn to tried and trusted arguments: Look what happened in Zimbabwe; It is a disaster when unqualified people are given land they do not know how to farm.
But these arguments and questions are futile and unhelpful for the very reason that they elicit more fear and bring about further polarization. More useful (if more difficult) questions will guide us back to productive solutions and ultimately, unity – even if we disagree on how things finally get done: How do we empower our people with land in a responsible manner? How do we put our differences aside to make this happen? What needs to be done to ensure that expropriation, or rather redistribution, benefits the recipients and the economy at large? What needs to happen to allay the fears of all current land-owners? How do we ensure food security?
This issue needs to be handled with such levels of care and sensitivity. That sensitivity should begin with us – the citizens – and how we think of and speak about this issue.
But land redistribution (lets be cautious of the language we use to describe this) should happen, and will happen whatever we think and whatever we fear. We must acknowledge the deep pain around this issue and be open to the possibilities that it represents.
This is an emotive subject, but there is surely sufficient good will in this country, between all the “players”, for a fair and acceptable land redistribution system to be put in place. However, starting from a point of “redistribution without compensation” (a la Zimbabwe) is not going to promote long term success of the project, specially after the ANC stood by watching R1bn being stolen from all the people of SA. The government must commit to repatriate this money and use it for equitable, fair land redistribution programs.
A couple of points: the Land Claims Court deals with land restitution, where the claimants can prove that the land was stolen and they were forcibly removed. 79,000 cases came before the court, 76,000 have been resolved mostly through financial compensation. Land redistribution is different, it’s aim is to alter ownership structures, currently the vast majority of agricultural land is owned by whites. Land redistribution seeks to alter this balance, make it fairer, more democratic, in the absence of proof that it has been ‘stolen’. How do you do that when the vast majority of this land is owned by the banks in the form of loans. Furthermore, 30% of South Africans own second homes (mostly black) and mostly in the former homelands (European average 4%) yet they have no title deed, how do you fix that in the context of strong traditional leader opposition? Truly, the devil is in the detail in this contentious debate. Simplifying it by just calling for a different narrative he’s not going to help.
It just did! Thanks for the input Steuart.