As a white person I do not fully understand the land expropriation without compensation issue. In truth, I cannot. My background, my thinking, my skin, my privilege precludes me from really getting it.
But what I do know – and what, it seems some other white writers are beginning to grapple with – is that the issue is not the issue.
The issue is not about people getting “free land”. It is not about what people do with the land. It is not about food security or what it will do to the economy. I would even say that it isn’t about redress, or certainly not all about redress.
It is to some extent about politics and the 2019 elections but perhaps the timing is just coincidental. Or perhaps the timing is just right.
My paradigms disallow me from seeing expropriation without compensation as necessary and good. My paradigms prompt me to say: “Who can argue against the facts? The statistics prove the point. Countries in which land is expropriated are likely to XYZ. Just look at Zim.” This thinking is one dimensional and comes from a place of strength and privilege. And fear.
As an example, food security – a big focus of our arguments against expropriation – is only an issue to the well fed and at that, when their security is threatened. I work with people in areas like rural Limpopo who haven’t enjoyed a single day of food security their entire lives. To them, food security is when the local wild vegetables happen to take root in the red dust and they get a meal. If you have read Trevor Noah’s superb book “Born a Crime” you will have been struck by a story of his Mother making soup out of river clay just to fill her stomach. Many people in our country would just laugh at us if we told them that land expropriation would impact food security.
And what about the economy? We can argue – and we do so disingenuously to protect our own positions of relative wealth and privilege – that land expropriation will impact the economy and of course the poorest of the poor will be worst hit. This may well be true. But come on! If we really cared so much for the poorest of the poor wouldn’t we do more about them? Would we not give up some of our proverbial farm so that they may farm and eat – or for heaven’s sake screw it up if they wish to? And not just the odd progressive farmer (I have met some of these amazing people) but all of us who have?
The other point we need to understand better from within our privilege is that less of nothing is still nothing. So let’s be brutal with ourselves and say that the economic argument against land expropriation is much more about us who have, than those who don’t.
But if the issues around land expropriation are not the issue, then what is? I don’t know for sure, you would need to ask a black person without land. But from what I have come to appreciate, it’s got as much to do with psychology than anything. It has to do with closure; burying the rotting corpse of apartheid that still lies in the streets and pollutes all of us; It has to do with people being given a realistic chance (not just on paper) to exercise their rights; to be human and adult. It has to do with collective dignity being restored to a vast group of people only some of whom will benefit from land expropriation.
So, when we are tempted to say: But look at what happened in Zim – it will mess up the economy like it did there! Perhaps we can take a broader look and say: Yes, perhaps it will – but perhaps it won’t. And if it does, maybe that’s what is needed for the psyche of people and this country to heal for future generations. We cannot truly do that which so many suggest – move on from the past – until the land issue is resolved.
Bring it on.
Justin Foxton is founder of The Peace Agency. His writing is dedicated to the memory of Anene Booysens, Emmanuel Josias Sithole and Suna Venter.
Well said. If we really want equality and a better life for all, are we willing to sacrifice something so that it can happen?
We have got our way for so long and now that it looks like we might lose something we get scared and protectionist. We may need to hold less tight to our whiteness our “rightness” and our stuff.
A nice start of the dialogue that needs to take place. I think you are right in saying it is more than just the commercial principle of taking on a title deed. The whole concept of ownership and the psychological implication it has on us as humans is significant. Speaking from the perspective of someone who has more than enough I have to question whether my own journey is to re-establish my relationship to material wealth, particularly when it comes to land?
It is a huge question and I think the right one. And imagine the possibilities in a country like ours if we were all brave enough to ask it…things would change fast.
Justin, there is a significant difference between land perform and expropriation without compensation. The first has to do with an orderly logical process governed by the rule of law; the second a chaotic process governed by endless court cases. One example, in any land transaction whether urban, rural or agricultural the land comprises 10% of the value, 90% is comprised of improvements to the land, usually accompanied by a large debt to the bank. It is ludicrous to think these improvements can be expropriated without compensation. I think it important to move away from the emotional component of this debate, we need to understand the intricacies of what is actually involved before we shout “bring it on”
Thanks for the comment Steu. In this case you have missed my point (which is ironically the exact point i was making… that us whities just cant see this thing me included) which is simply to say that whatever you may wish to call it I am learning that this isnt so much an econmic issue. Until we name it properly (and that isn’t redistribution v reform) we won’t deal with it properly.
I entirely agree that our perceptions may differ on this issue, so much has been written about what land means to the different cultural groupings in this country, and how we “just can’t see this thing”. But there is a fundamental issue and that is that open and free societies are built on property rights, freedom of expression and the rule of law. I don’t think land reform or EWC or what ever you want to call it has anything to do with giving who ever deserves it – access to land, I see it as a fundamental erosion (‘xuse pun)of one of the pillars of a free and open society. Once the state gets its grubby fingers into the allocation of land at the expense of an open and free process the wedge will only get thicker, my sense is that’s exactly what the state is trying to do, and in particular those in government who ideologically oppose the notion of an open and free society
I think this is a fair point…within the context of a country that is still vastly more open and fair for some than it is for others.
True :), but if you undermine it for some, you undermine it for everyone and you promote ‘otherness’
An important factor in this is the long term, multi-generational benefits that come with home ownership (and presumably land ownership), in terms of health, education, income, accumulation of wealth, prospects for kids, etc (Google for it). People who own land and houses, and their children, are simply better off. On the practical side, nowadays there are a LOT more people and less land (as much land is already degraded from unsustainable farming methods among other things).The challenge is how to provide the needs of all (food and otherwise), with the resources we have, and without destroying what is left of natural ecosystems. The expectations of the rich for further enrichment will possibly need to come down a bit, while the ambitions of the poor and their right for a dignified, livable life need to be supported. Let’s hope there is enough humanity in humanity to get there, and that the politicians play along.