May 2018
In late 2017 South Africa came close to a ‘tipping point’ that could well have resulted in an economic meltdown and widespread unrest. The ANC is now deeply divided. On the one hand, the Zuma aligned traditionalists, who seem to strongly believe in the ‘big man’ concept so common in Africa. On the other, the modernists who strongly support the Constitutional Democracy, several of them former SACP members.
The election for ANC president at the December Conference was a very close-run thing. Victory went to Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, the modernist faction candidate, by just 179 out of 4 701 votes cast. Half of the elected National Executive Committee (NEC) remain strong traditional faction supporters, so the new leader must tread carefully.
Despite the urgent need for change, it is naïve to expect things to happen quickly. Even positive moves mentioned at SONA, including the reduction in the size of the Cabinet, productivity in the SOEs and government departments, will be met with strong opposition from within the party and the trade unions. President Ramaphosa is also obliged to address the resolutions adopted at the ANC Conference, including the new elephant in the room – land and expropriation without compensation.
What is the real land issue?
This subject is fraught with intense emotion, and it means very different things to different people. Emotions are heightened by the questionable statistics being bandied about; years of frustration felt by many; and the clear failure of government’s land reform programme.
The report back by the relevant commission at the National Elective Conference led to frayed tempers and apparently a scuffle at the plenary session. The adopted resolution warrants careful study.
Key statements in the resolution include: ‘Expropriation of land without compensation should be among the key mechanisms available to government to give effect to land reform and redistribution’; ‘…we must ensure that we do not undermine further investment in the economy, or damage agricultural production or food security. Furthermore, our interventions must not harm other sectors of the economy’; and ‘The ANC’s approach to land reform must be based on three separate elements: Increased security of tenure, land restitution and land redistribution’. This is far from what the EFF is calling for, but it also indicates that the ANC itself does not really understand what is needed.
But what is the real land issue? Is it about giving agricultural land to people who do not really want to farm? Will the matter only be resolved by Zimbabwe seizure of productive farms and subsequent collapse of the key agricultural sector? Why is Zulu King, Goodwill Zwelethini, so up in arms about expropriation without compensation?
Why South Africa will not be like Zimbabwe
Mugabe and his ZANU-PF resorted to farm seizures as a convenient way to regain lost votes and eliminate a major source of opposition party funding – the white producers. The ANC, conscious of falling popularity are, not surprisingly, using the land issue to garner support and apparently to also neutralise a key populist platform of the EFF.
But there are key differences. Over 80% of the Zimbabwe population live in rural areas, so the availability of good farming land was of paramount importance. In South Africa, over 60% of the population live in urban areas. The land they require is of a very different nature – these people want urban land to build houses on, not to farm.
In South Africa’s provinces with the highest rural populations, control over access to large areas of land is exercised by all-powerful traditional leaders and no title rights are granted. The ANC ‘increased security of tenure’ aim and the Motlanthe Panel’s call for the repeal of the Ingonyama Trust Act has angered King Zwelithini. Such moves will greatly undermine his power-base.
Therefore, the real land issue in South Africa is more likely to be about urban land and equitable access to land controlled by traditional leaders than about farm land in the Free State or Karoo. The EFF appears to understand this better than the ANC. This assessment is confirmed by the number and nature of urban land invasions that took place immediately after Parliament supported moves towards expropriation without compensation.
Urban land invasions reflect years of frustration over lack of housing and failure of government to provide access to properly serviced low-cost land for people to build their own homes. Large numbers remain confined to informal settlements, waiting in vain for the promised RDP houses, the allocation of which appears to be subject to widespread corruption. Significant benefits could result if access to urban land is handled constructively and with vision. South Africa needs low-cost housing far more than additional shopping malls.
Simplistically, there are far more urban residents demanding access to land than there are people with a desire to embark on the risky business of farming.
No room for complacency
The agricultural sector should not be complacent. Now is the time to develop strong and lucid arguments against expropriation without compensation of productive farms and to correct negative perceptions about commercial producers. Many people believe the failure of the land redistribution programme and the huge backlog of land claims, is the fault of greedy white producers who stole the land and now demand excessive prices.
The real causes of the disastrous failure of the land reform programme need to be identified and backed up by irrefutable facts. The few research studies conducted highlight government mismanagement and corruption.
Combined with the findings of the Motlanthe Panel, these studies make a good starting point. A concerted public relations campaign is needed to correct adverse perceptions.
Publication: May 2018
Section: Relevant
