In 1999 as part of the new draft constitution for Zimbabwe, there was an amendment to replace existing clauses with one to compulsorily acquire land for redistribution without compensation. This was put to the country in a referendum in 2000 and rejected outright.
What followed was anarchy ratified in 2005 when the government passed a constitutional amendment that nationalised farmland acquired through the “Fast Track” process and deprived original landowners of the right to challenge in court the government’s decision to expropriate their land.
The impact of this approach to “land reform” on the Zimbabwe economy was devastating and turned a primarily agricultural exporting wonderland into the beggars of Africa.
Manyi on the Constitution
Jimmy Manyi, president of the Black Management Forum and director-general at the labour department, has cited Section 25 of the Constitution, dealing with “Property” as the main obstacle to the redistribution of land.
Speaking at a BMF constitutional symposium in Craighall, he said that despite Constitutional recognition for land reform, its insistence on “fair value” in the event of expropriation was making it too expensive for the government to carry out meaningful redistribution.
“Section 25 is a clause that allows for expropriation if there are national reasons, in the public interest, and we support that. But the sting in the tail is this thing called fair value. In practice this fair value has become market value, which can be manipulated. The practice that we see is that as soon as government gives an indication that it will acquire a particular piece of land all of a sudden the price trebles.”
He said the result has been acquisition of land by foreigners at three times the rate of locals and the government only managing to redistribute 5% of the land so far.
Moreover that the opponents of transformation use the courts and Constitution to block the state and as a result “in order to move forward decisively with the land redistribution programme, significant changes will have to be made to the willing buyer-willing seller model of land restitution”.
Land reform
Without any question of a doubt land reform in South Africa is both necessary and desirable if we are to empower the previously disadvantaged communities.
Prior to the last election I made rapid land redistribution one of the main priorities of this administration.
Unfortunately since becoming a full-blown democracy in 1994 the government has failed to go about its business in this area — considered a priority by many black South Africans — with anything like the urgency or nous that this requires leaving many feeling that they have achieved political rather than economic freedom.
That is nonsense if regard is had to the fact that the government, chosen by the overwhelming majority of South Africans is in power with all the legislative and executive means at their disposal. That they have not employed it to best use yet can never be equated to being deprived of economic freedom.
Accordingly the call by Manyi, among others, for a Zimbabwe-like approach to resolve the problem, is, with all due respect, garbage.
You don’t imitate failure and destruction because of inactivity or inability on the part of those who have it within their power to legislate and enforce practical solutions.
You don’t replace laziness with stupidity.
History
The Native Lands Act of 1913 prohibited the establishment of new farming operations, sharecropping or cash rentals by blacks outside of the reserves where they were forced to live. “Land restitution” was one of the promises made by the African National Congress when it came to power in South Africa in 1994.
The land reform process focused on three areas: restitution, land tenure reform and land redistribution.
Restitution, where the government compensates individuals who had been forcefully removed, has been very unsuccessful and the policy has now shifted to redistribution with secure land tenure. Land tenure reform is a system of recognising people’s right to own land and therefore control of the land.
Redistribution is the most important component of land reform in South Africa. Initially, land was bought from its owners (willing seller) by the government (willing buyer) and redistributed, in order to maintain public confidence in the land market.
Although this system has worked in various countries in the world, in South Africa it is has proved to be very difficult to implement. This is because many owners do not actually see the land they are purchasing and are not involved in the important decisions made at the beginning of the purchase and negotiation.
In 2000, the South African government decided to review and change the redistribution and tenure process to a more decentralised and area-based planning process. The idea is to have local integrated development plans in 47 districts. This will hopefully mean more community participation and more redistribution taking place, but there are also various concerns and challenges with this system too.
These include the use of third parties, agents accredited by the state, and who are held accountable to the government. The result has been local land-holding elites dominating the system in many of these areas. The government still hopes that with improved identification and selection of beneficiaries, better planning of land and ultimately greater productivity of the land acquired the land reform process will begin moving faster.
As of early 2006, the ANC government announced that it will start expropriating the land, although according to the country’s chief land claims commissioner, Tozi Gwanya, unlike Zimbabwe there will be compensation to those whose land is expropriated, “but it must be a just amount, not inflated sums”.
Despite these moves towards decentralisation, these improved practices and government promises are not very evident. South Africa still remains hugely unequal, with black South Africans still dispossessed of land and many still homeless. The challenge for the incumbent politicians is to improve the various bureaucratic processes, and find solutions to giving more South Africans secure land tenure. (Wiki)
Section 25 of the Constitution
“25. Property
1. No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.
2. Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application
a. for a public purpose or in the public interest; and
b. subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court.
3. The amount of the compensation and the time and manner of payment must be just and equitable, reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected, having regard to all relevant circumstances, including
a. the current use of the property;
b. the history of the acquisition and use of the property;
c. the market value of the property;
d. the extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property; and
e. the purpose of the expropriation.
4. For the purposes of this section
a. the public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources; and
b. property is not limited to land.
5. The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis.
6. A person or community whose tenure of land is legally insecure as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to tenure which is legally secure or to comparable redress.
7. A person or community dispossessed of property after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to restitution of that property or to equitable redress.
8. No provision of this section may impede the state from taking legislative and other measures to achieve land, water and related reform, in order to redress the results of past racial discrimination, provided that any departure from the provisions of this section is in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1).
9. Parliament must enact the legislation referred to in subsection (6).
Courts and Constitution
After 16 years of South Africa’s new multiracial democracy — with a black-dominated government, a Constitutional Court that is made up of primarily judges who were part of the disadvantaged communities and a Constitution which makes it abundantly clear at Section 25 on property that “no provision of this section may impede the state from taking legislative and other measures to achieve land, water and related reform, in order to redress the results of past racial discrimination” — we are, disgracefully, still nowhere near where we should be on land redistribution.
That the overwhelming percentage of land still lies in the hands of the minority is testimony to laziness, inefficiency and a refusal to knuckle down and get the necessary clarification from our courts as to what is “just and equitable” and/or legislate areas which cannot be resolved.
As a practicing attorney of many years, with experience of our courts, I would be shocked to learn that our judiciary — charged with the task of interpreting a Constitution which calls for transformation — would not assist the government in finding a practical solution to the problems.
Moreover that our farming community — if approached to find workable solutions to assist in finding ways to achieve a way forward in this impasse — would simply refuse to budge. While the current situation persists, of course farm owners will demand a king’s ransom, that is what the courts and the legislature are there to overcome.
After 16 years of going nowhere fast we have claims from white farmers that they are the target of assassins and from the entire black community that they are politically but not economically free while the government sits on its hands.
The solution to a bad day at the office is not to blow your brains out just as an inability to progress on this issue is not the catalyst for economic suicide.
Stop pandering to the whims of landowners and idiots who claim that there is no way to redress the problem save for a Zimbabwean nightmare and get the matters through the court and legislature.
If that means farmers get less money and black farmers less land than they want in the first year, too bad.
If everyone goes home a little unhappy rather than homicidal, that is the sign you’ve done your job.
GET ON WITH IT!
Mozambique is doing relatively well given their recent history. They have just been through civil war just to spell it out!!!
Making baseless comparisons is no going to stop the inevitable. South African’s are very predictable and therefore it would be wise to stop what is coming. This has to be done for the brighter future and bebefit of future generations.
The future black generation do not know apartheid and therefore will enetertain these imabalance while claiming to be born in a democracy.
I would also advice that we do away with the term empowerment, and focus on the real issue which of land ownership impbalance prevailing currently.
I Cant help but comment on a few replies that this blog received regarding stolen land. It is so easy to forget real history and replace it with a convenient made up version.@ Phemelo, how do you know what a fair price was back in 1652 or 1810 or any other time. Generally speaking in these times a fair price for your land,was to get killed for it, a fair deal anywhere in the world back in those days. Like it says in the add” No Lawyers”also no real goverments.Also lets do real research and establish how much land in SA was empty or uninhabited and those that weren’t what price was paid. Lets say a cow,horse,a pot maybe or even a rifle could have been worth 1 acre or 2.
My point is lets not harp on about the past and act for today, make rules and deals that is valid in todays society.Traps is 100% correct here and I commend him for his article. I am astonished that Africans havent picked up on the Israeli Ideas of “Kibbutz” style farming. It is a brilliant way of starting of a community by implimenting Socialist ideologies that eventually enriches people to move and stand on their own feet.The key here is hard work and dedication to make anything work. The goverment must have the will and so the people, we have to work collectively for the same goals.The people will decide, pray!
@Phemelo
On what historical facts and logic do you base your arguments, and what is the source of your (mis) information?
If you are going to go way, way back in history, then please at least base your views on facts, not fiction and opinion.
The only truly indigenous people of South Africa are the Khoi and San , who no longer exist as separate ethnic entities.
The closest that we have is the coloured community , some of whom are descendants of the Khoi and San, and the nama of the Norrthern Cape.
Black migrants from North of our borders migrated Soth and “stole” the land from the Khoi and San, based on your logic, who again, based on your logic in turn had it stolen from them by Dutch, French and English settlers.
Blacks are settlers too in South Africa!
Your proposed Zimbabwe solution to achieve “justice” would give rise to a scorched earth result.
Surely you are not so obsessed with an implied need for retribution that you would be happy for everyone to become impoverished and starving?
You say you need “justice” – without defining it.
Surely what you really need is econoic growth, development, education, up skilling and decent opportunities?
The flaw in the conclusion of this essay is the notion that the judiciary would automatically support the poor.
The judiciary is actually more inclined to support the rich even than the government.
Manyi is not a person who deserves much trust, but his critique of the willing-buyer, willing-seller policy has a much stronger case than any lawyer (whose affiliations are obvious) would ever be prepared to acknowledge.
Once government got into power they discovered land is not a priority. There are more “visible” problems,like service delivery, RDP housing, jobs which the govt is trying to extinguish. How many people have gone on strike for land now? less than 10000. How many have people have protested for the latter? More than a million. There are no funds to deal with any of them together. If there is anyone on this blog who knows where the government can find the money for all of them let them speak. When the land will be a priority no-one knows. But to avoid the Zimbabwean situation the FARMERS MUST FIND A SOLUTION AND START SELLING NOW. if they are not proactive when the land situation becomes a hot potato there will be no time to negotiate. Its all good for the writer to warn government but with capital rationing there is no way government can deal with all situations. But be warned, the land will become a hot potato and government will deal only with it them. its a fact that all governments are reactive. So the people who will be affected have to be proactive and act before government does.
Why are the whites of this country so obsessed with lecturing to blacks? You have 98% percent of commercial land taken forcefully or illagelly at least in the majority’s perspective and historical recllection. Besides history the fact is a large size of this land is with whites which cannot be accptable to the majority.
Nothing has to be thoroughly defined, only the imbalance has to be dealt with bravely and head on.
The Khoi are also included in this whole redress matter. By the way they are nomadic and had no fixed land, however they derserve a share of the arable land.
This imbalance can’t be defended anymore, its simply not natural and sustainable. I know that letting go is difficult but it really has to be done. The sooner the better for everyone.
@The Creator
Obviously, in the absence of the ability to issue a compulsory purchase order, the willing buyer / willing seller principle is an invitation for the seller to hold out for the highest price that he can get.
Ever sold a house? Of course we all try to get as high a price as possible.
It seems to me that there may be a case for fair and accurate calculation of true market price (by independent and qualified people) coupled to compulsory purchase orders, where circumstancs are appropriate.
Benzol,
” He was simply a servant in the VOC just watching all this land and very few doing something with it. ”
And then he thought… well no one is using it… IT’S MINE, ALL MINE!!!
Do you know you are inadvertently justifying the land occupations by the War Veterans in Zimbabwe?
Because 80% of the land owned by commercial farmers and corporations there *was not in use*. On average of the 2,500 hectares the average commercial farmer had, he only used 500 hectares. Which is still a lot of land to use – the average farm in the EU is 90 hectares.
If it’s good enough for Jan van Riebeeck, it’s good enough for the War Veterans.
Also, the land grab did not start and stop 350 years ago. Remember the Great Trek – that was in the 19th century. And the evictions under apartheid? Those didn’t stop until the 1980s.
@ Bluntt L You may have a point, Lets explore this…
The ANC took over from the Nats who by 1980 were regarded as some of the vilest Fascists in the world. We thought “good government takes over from bad one”. The ANC later set about implementing the Mbeki Holocaust. I shouldn’t have any empathy for those 300 000 that died. I don’t know why I visited friends during their last days, and on two occasions used athlete’s foot medication on their lips and in their mouths to fight the fungus. The ANC government had denied them even an inexpensive antifungal cream to make their last days a little more bearable. I shouldn’t feel this pain and anger at the government killing these friends, they were just BLACKS, weren’t they.
Trouble is, I DO CARE ABOUT MY FRIENDS
I was recently robbed twice. The first time, I worked with the community and we recovered ALL that was stolen, unfortunately this resulted in a second robbery. The recovered property was then stolen by the police. Only after intervention by the Nduna, a lawyer, and a call from the newspaper were my items “found” at the police station.
I get angry when heirloom, worthless to the police but priceless to me are stolen!
The ANC are now trying to implement a land policy that is failing in South Africa. It has also failed in Zimbabwe, South america and elsewhere.
Why should I care about starving local black farm workers?
Sorry MrK,
Give me a reference for your asumptions or I think you are making up stuff. I say agin, land reform is just a smokescreen (just like Zim). If the government were serious, it could have been handled long ago. Think with the head not the heart.
Peter,
I don’t quite remember where I read the 500 hectare number, but this chart actually shows even lower land use – only 103 hectares cropping per 2,500 hectare estate. This may be because it includes the huge estates held by without use by the mining companies? I don’t know. Either way land utilisation was very low under the previous system. This data is from 1994 and 2002 (before land reform had settled in, so those data may have changed). See professor Scoones’ article for that.
Baffour Nkomah gives a vivid description of the difference between the Zimbabwean countryside and his native Ghana.
AGRICULTURE AND LAND DISTRIBUTION IN ZIMBABWE
Agricultural Systems
TABLE 1. Land Use by Farming Area
http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v7/v7i2a5.htm
Zimbabwe: Life After The Election
by Baffour Ankomah
September 9, 2002
http://www.swans.com/library/art8/ankomah1.html
@MrK, thanks for those 3 links.
Ah yes “cropping” (4% for LSFC). No mention of cattle farming, game farming etc. Notice that LSCF is 29.1% of the land; different from the 70% quoted in your second reference (contradictory?). The other land uses (CA, RA & SSC) also have low areas under crops (4%, 8% & 3% respectively). Your quote is therefore pretty much selective and meaningless.
Now I reckom your 1350 hectares is also a howler and probably refers to “cropping” over the whole of the privatley owned agricultural area. Not including cattle farming, game farming or areas too poor for cropping.
A question. With this burning need for land “reform” why did the ANC government sell its forestry interests to large companies (not even completely “black” companies) instead of dividing them up to individual deserving “black” farmers?
MrK,
taxation maybe- but family based commercial smallholding – not in Zimbabwe and not in SA. peasant farmers hope that their children take up jobs in town and never come back. There is no interest by the rural poor to continue small holder agriculture. Next time you visit a rural area – ask them about their vision for the next 10-20 yrs.
Oldfox,
Thanks.
Peter,
No, there are no contradictions. 29.1% refers to the ‘total farming area’ in the country occupied by Large Scale Commercial Farms in 2002, after the start of land reform.
70% refers to the arable land or high rainfall land of Zimbabwe that was assigned to Europeans, even though they were only 5% to 1% of the population at any period.
In total, although the Europeans only made up between 5% and later 1% of the population, they were assigned nearly 50% of the country.
Total Farming Area (in millions of hectares, in 1980, before land reform)
‘Communal Areas’: 16.4
Large Scale Commercial Farms: 15.5
Resettlement Areas: 0
Small Scale Commercial Farms: 1.4
Total Farming Area 35.4
(Source: http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v7/v7i2a5.htm )
Here is a map of land distribution in 1965:
(See the ‘European Area’s on this 1965 map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3ARhodesialand.png )
These ‘European Areas’ are basically the center of the country, which also receives the highest rainfall.
The rest is made up of large holdings by mines and other corporations (most white owned land in Zimbabwe was in fact corporate owned – again not something you will hear in the mainstream media, wich concentrates on the ‘personal interest stories’ of the white farmers).
Baba Brad,
Remember that people used to say that ‘Africans don’t want land, they want jobs’ before land reform in Zimbabwe. It wasn’t true then, it isn’t true now.
Why do you think people move to the cities, other than that they have no opportunity in the rural areas *under the current dispensation*.
On the other hand, when people have even a little money in Africa, the first thing they do is get land and farm – if only to ensure that they don’t spend their old age in poverty.
What I am proposing is to create ‘small’ commercial farms – which are family farms, not the current exploitative commercial estate vs subsistence farming model. This is unsustainable – ethically, socially, demographically and even commercially.
(Source for farmsize in South Africa: ” Rethinking the labour movement in the “new South Africa” “, by Thomas Bramble,Franco Barchiesi, page 151)
Quote: “In 1996, the country’s 60,000 farmers owned 64.7 million hectares, or 78.7 per cent of the available farming land, with the size of the average farm steady at 1350 hectares throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
Despite the numerical significance of individual farmers, the market is dominated by a handful of large conglomerates. These are either central co-operatives or agri-businesses with significant downstream operations which give them a stake in other sectors of the economy. Anglo-American, Glencore, Barlow Rand, Rembrant and other conglomerates all have interests in agricultural production, processing and distribution.
(Continued…) As a result of the domination of the agricultural sector by such conglomerates, there is a growing centralisation of resources in the country, and an increase in the levels of mechanisation. ”
What that looks like in the US, check out the documentary Food INC.
Also interesting in the same article, for those who think white farmers are such rugged individualists who don’t need help from the government:
” Government support of white farmers, in the form of subsidized credit and capital, has historically been very high in South Africa. The marketing and distribution ofmost agricultural products in South Africa were, until the late 1980s, conducted according to statutory single-channel marketing systems which required producers to register with, and sell their produce to, a central body. The institutions, mainly produce bodies such as the Maize Board and Meat Board, were set up by the apartheid government with the specific purpose of controlling production and marketing both within South Africa and with the external traditional partners.
SOURCE:
http://books.google.nl/books?id=Occsw8melV0C&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=%22size+of+the+average+farm%22+%22south+africa%22&source=bl&ots=B96F0H96uP&sig=0vHnM7P2M6zOon_ZyN-UKt4eMjI&hl=nl&ei=UTe9S-mZDI780wT–K2CBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22size%20of%20the%20average%20farm%22%20%22south%20africa%22&f=false