Page 2 - Our Land

OUR LAND 2

UR LAN
O D

Defining our In search of better

republic’s character outcomes for all

O ne of the most overused phrases in politics and history is that an event is a he amount of land in a country is finite – its hecterage can never be

increased. But not all land is endowed with the same potential, and not all
“defining moment”. It’s so overused that it becomes meaningless and not
high-potential land is productively used. So our ability to feed ourselves at a
worth its weight.
A common trait of defining moments is that they never announce
reasonable cost depends not on the amount of land available, but on the scale
themselves – they just pounce.
at which high-potential land is intensively farmed. And yet the productivity of
In South Africa, we are having one of those moments – a period gifted us Tland, the crops farmers plant and the livestock they keep does not get
by the current loud and raucous land debate. In the classic mould of defining moments, this discussed by the rest of us much. Canola versus wheat is not a political hot potato. It is the
one was the outcome of the convergence of many factors. ownership of the land – agricultural and urban – that dominates debates today. Why?
When we entered the year 2017, the land question was nowhere near the top of the Land ownership partly became a burning political issue because the Zuma government
agenda. Of the major political formations, only the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) had needed a rallying cry in its dying days. But even before the former president’s opportunistic
it as a central campaign point – or, as the party puts it, one of its cardinal pillars. The EFF calls for radical economic transformation, land was “political”. It was political in the days of
had tried and failed to force it on potential coalition partners as a condition of an alliance colonial conquest because land that was conquered brought riches and labour, and therefore
following the historic 2016 local government elections. But the mere fact that it had put power. It was political in the days of the tribal wars. Land was a political issue when the
“expropriation without compensation” into the formal political mix in August 2016 and its Union government decided to chase black people off much of this country’s land in 1913.
clever move to divide the ANC by tabling a parliamentary motion on the subject had And it was still political in 1994 because patterns of ownership of land reflected a deep
raised the stakes. divide between black people ,who mostly did not own the land on which they lived or
Ahead of the ANC’s elective conference in December, the Zuma camp made the “return of worked, and white people, who mostly did. This binary was complicated by the fact that
the land” one of the rallying cries on its radical economic transformation platform. With the most land owners by 1994 had acquired land legally, even though many who were landless
help of the Gupta/Bell Pottinger propaganda machine, the populist narrative was had lost their land in ways that were cruel and unjust.
mainstreamed into general discourse and fuelled by frenzied social-media commentary. The ANC therefore resolved, in its document Ready to Govern, to seek “an equitable
There was also an injection of toxicity into the debate during this period. Bereft of ideas, balance between the legitimate interests of present titleholders and the legitimate needs of
and desperate to cling to power and continue to plunder the state, the Zuma crowd appealed those without land and shelter”. Therefore, “compensation by the state in the national
to base instincts. Reason and rationale were replaced by empty sloganeering and angry interest will have an important role to play”.
rhetoric. And so it was to be that, as the Ramaphosa camp won power at Nasrec, the Zuma Since 1994, government has indeed made some attempts through restitution and
crew scored a victory that left the new president with a massive albatross around his neck. It redistribution to increase the share of South Africa’s land that black people own, but the
was the losers’ sweet victory and one they are milking to this day . process has been slow, inefficient and crippled by corruption, as the ANC itself admits. In
The adoption of the resolution to review section 25 of the Constitution, taken under far too many cases, productive land, after being transferred to new owners, became
vengeful and angry conditions at the Nasrec conference, ensured that land would be the unproductive, which represented a net loss to a nation that claims to be committed to
dominant topic of conversation this year. And so we find ourselves conducting a very feeding itself. In many other cases, land was acquired by new black owners – farmers and
necessary conversation in an unnecessarily rancorous atmosphere. city dwellers alike – on the open market without government intervention. A review last
The land debate doesn’t need to be as divisive as it has become. Only the delusional year of deeds transactions showed that progress was impressive, and yet a comprehensive
bittereinders on the right refuse to accept that, for reasons of historical redress, economic and authoritative audit that shows who owns all of South Africa’s land still does not exist.
inclusion, social cohesion and sustainability, the resolution of the land question is a necessity. Now we are faced with a political decision to change the Constitution to speed up land
Only the wide-eyed pseudo radicals believe that clumsy methods are the way to resolve this reform through expropriation without compensation, a policy about 30% of people said they
matter. And only charlatans will have us believe that, in this modern age, land automatically supported to some extent in a poll conducted last month. In parliamentary hearings and
equals wealth. written submissions, South Africans expressed a variety of views, with some saying land
So why is this a defining moment? Because the way we handle this matter will impact the should be owned by the state. Others, including most of the private sector and commercial
character of our republic. We could emerge from this episode hating each other or having agriculture, issued stern warnings that meddling with property rights outside of the existing
learnt practical ways of dealing with common challenges. This could be a teaching moment but badly implemented land reform framework could wreak havoc across the economy
that could be translated into other sectors and areas of our national life. without bringing wealth or justice to those who crave it. Everybody loses.
This moment can determine what it is to be a South African – exactly what the Freedom Rapport and City Press – and our readers – care for this democracy. We wanted to make a
Charter meant to tell us about belonging and what the Constitution meant to say about our meaningful contribution to the quality of the conversation about land, in the hope of
common nationhood. increasing the likelihood of finding good solutions – solutions that are recognised as
The turn we take could lead us on a ruinous path or be the road that – through hard work sensible and just by most South Africans.
and innovation – can help us deal with the food security challenges that so many nations are Shortly after the February parliamentary vote on expropriation without compensation, we
grappling with . started co-publishing a series of reports and features on land reform successes. But we also
The most fundamental thing about this is our relationship with our founding writ. The heard from South Africans who had been failed, and we heard individuals and communities
land debate has exposed many South Africans’ tenuous attachment to the Constitution. tell compelling stories about land with which they felt a profound connection. We found
Written in bold in the minds of many in leadership is that the Constitution is but a piece of more hope than despair.
paper, there to be cited opportunistically and crumpled in the hand if deemed inconvenient. The purpose of our land indaba is to bring together those who work the land, those who
We did not invite this defining moment, it happened upon us. But we are here now, in it. study it, those who own land and those who do not, with politicians whose votes on land in
Our task is to make sure we use it to create a nation that builds on its (ugly and courageous) Parliament can be decisive in determining what kind of future South Africa will have. We
past, make sure it is realistic and honest about the present, and is bold and innovative in want to enrich the conversation to make good outcomes more likely. Thank you for joining
sculpting our future. us in this quest.
Mondli Makhanya Waldimar Pelser
Editor: City Press Editor: Rapport