Parliament’s decision to pursue a constitutional amendment that would expressly “make it possible for the state to expropriate land in the public interest, without compensation”, has left some people heavy-hearted and hysterical.
This has also shone an important spotlight on the lingering racial and political fissures afflicting us. Meanwhile, heavy hearts troubled by the pursuit of justice are best relieved by the letting of a little candour, reckoning and courage.
Let me explain.
The scant attention the ANC paid to the socio-economic implications of black land dispossession during the Codesa negotiations, must be blamed for the haunting spectre of “populism” and disaffection currently afflicting many. No amount of superficial appeasement can make up for the unlawful, and often callous, dispossession of black land over centuries. The pain and indignity of dispossession, including enforced labour, requires more than mere ephemeral steps if we are to effectively close one of the darkest chapters of our past.
It follows then that our capacity to respond to past injustices will largely influence our performance as we strive for nationhood. The shambles created by the ANC’s prevarication on the land issue over the years, presented an opportunity for the EFF to showcase their apparent political dexterity and tactical acumen over their political nemeses.
Revered by its supporters and sympathisers, the EFF, with the support of the ANC, sponsored a motion to expropriate land without compensation in Parliament a few weeks ago. This motion, derided by the DA as authoritarian and populist, could ultimately prove dispositive of the land conundrum.
University of Cape Town Professor Regina Hall was quick off the block to rubbish this latest effort as a “populist push towards blaming the constitution for political failure”. I beg to differ.
It didn’t help that the government abandoned the Mala Mala land expropriation litigation at the door of the Constitutional Court. Although the merits of each case differ, Hall believes that this could’ve provided some clarity as to what constitutes “just and equitable” compensation.
But just because the previous administration abandoned what could’ve been an important litigation, shouldn’t preclude this ANC government from enhancing its position when negotiating with recalcitrant land owners.
Expropriation without compensation is but one of the instruments in the ANC’s arsenal as it seeks to advance the land agenda. It is also not intended to be the default government position during negotiations. Although it was not totally unexpected, it is no less disappointing that the DA elected to propagate untruths on this already emotive issue through social media platforms. This could precipitate hysteria, as it encourages individuals to talk past each other.
Social media encourages us to disengage from arguments that don’t chime neatly with our own. We turn ourselves into ironclad soldiers who refuse to enter the battleground, because it is not a safe zone.
Also, is it correct for the DA and others to ascribe populism to what is patently the EFF’s political chutzpah, never mind deride black clamour for justice as villainous? We may disagree with EFF president Julius Malema’s proposition on the modalities around the land issue, but we must refrain from aggravating the debate with falsehoods and incitement to violence.
The land question is more than a mere abstract debate. How we respond to a crisis borne out of the ANC’s cataclysmic failure to provide leadership, and apparent white recalcitrance to make amends, depends a great deal on our capacity to coalesce around issues that make us feel uncomfortable.
The EFF’s advocacy on this issue contributes to our democracy’s well-being, and can only affront those less concerned about our shared quest for justice and nation-building. To dismiss the exigent need to address the land issue head-on, as motivated by authoritarian or populist influences, is disingenuous.
Assuming the EFF was driven by authoritarianism or populism, it is still undeniable and enthusing that, in its methods, the EFF maintains faith with our constitutional democracy. This contrasts sharply with the conduct of race-based Freedom Front Plus and Afriforum, inter alia, who persist with raising false alarms using their international networks.
The EFF pushes its political nemeses to face up to the injustices of the past that invariably entrench the inequalities of the present. Meanwhile, inordinate focus on the EFF’s “populism” itself risks mistaking the symptom for the cause. Violent discord doesn’t arise by accident. It is typically a response to genuine failures and injustices that build up over time.
The best way to overcome the populists’ excesses, if any, is to deal effectively with the discontents to which they give voice and currency. Lest we forget, per capita land ownership, occupation and use remains woefully skewed in favour of whites. This pattern is unlikely to change unless deliberate, corrective actions are taken.
South Africa’s affluent, mainly whites, live in gated communities while poor blacks live in adjacent overcrowded slums. These communities are often only separated by high perimeter walls or freeways which represent class segregation - a consequence of uneven wealth and income distribution.
Vestiges of our apartheid past deeply influence land and property ownership patterns. They also serve a racist gerrymandering purpose, an antithesis to reconciliation and nation-building. This reality prompted one “clever black” to postulate that apartheid isn’t dead, but just got privatised and reincarnated as economic exclusion through housing and other inequalities. But I digress.
The public angst the land debate has elicited is distressing as it could ignite race and class wars, if not properly guided. Encouragingly, blacks overwhelmingly reacted to the news with cautious optimism and maturity.
It is telling that most blacks, while wrestling with a complex conflict of conscience, seem to be attuned to the realities and dynamics of a changing world. Centuries of black alienation with their ancestral land coupled with subsequent industrial revolutions seem to dampen fears of massive black hunger for land, particularly for agrarian purposes.
Meanwhile, land currently under tribal authority shouldn’t be exempt to expropriation either. We need to recognise that imprudent arrangements, including through the politically expedient Ingonyama Trust Act, which was enacted to placate the Zulu king prior to the 1994 elections, may not pass constitutional muster.
As we seek to balance the pursuit of justice on the one hand, and the interests of those in possession of land considered for expropriation on the other hand, absolute care should be given by all to ensure that we minimise the possibility of open, violent discord over the land issue.
Politicians on either side of the aisle can’t plead ignorance to the likelihood that their ill-timed statements could cause unwarranted hysteria and public upheaval.
After all, there is nothing inherently obnoxious with populism. It is only when those who may, while purporting to advance the interests and gains of the downtrodden, pervert just causes that problems could arise. Just because the ANC and the EFF may not be trusted, doesn’t mean we must abandon the pursuit of justice for those unlawfully deprived of land.
In conclusion, instead of tearing each other apart or rejecting outright those we disagree with, we should perhaps strive to build bridges and engage earnestly across the divide.
The price of leaving problems, even those that seem intractable, to fester is high.
In this instance, the price may just be incalculable.
Khaas is chairperson of Corporate SA; and trustee of the Institute for the Advancement of Public Interest.
@tebogokhaas