The Joint Constitutional Review Committee, established to review the property clause of the constitution, is an unusual plebiscite as it is neither comprehensive nor representative, despite receiving more than 700,000 written submissions and hearing untold oral submissions countrywide.
The committee concluded its final hearing on August 4. Its main question to South Africans was: should section 25 (and other sections) of the constitution be amended to allow the state to expropriate land in the public interest without compensation? If so, how should it be amended?
That is the wrong question, says Ruth Hall, University of the Western Cape professor at the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (Plaas).
Section 25 is a carefully crafted piece of legislation, she says, and citizens cannot be expected to pronounce on matters of constitutional law.
Hall’s comment highlights a disconnection in the debate about land in which the idea of land reform and expropriation without compensation is conflated with agriculture.
Farmers, for whom hectarage is a critical production factor, either have a lot to lose or much to gain from expropriation, which explains their emphasis on its economic consequences. But there is more to the demand for land and expropriation than farming. It is unclear, for instance, who the beneficiaries of land reform and expropriation should be, and what the purpose of reform should be, says Hall.
She proposes that landless people, land-poor farmers and farm workers should be first on the list of beneficiaries and it should specifically exclude commercial farmers to permit equitable access, thus denying "elite capture".
Hall’s comments were made at a conference on farmers’ perspectives on land reform in Limpopo last week. The conference, organised by Landbouweekblad and Agri SA, reflected the interests of farmers — black and white — and deliberately avoided the term "emerging farmers".
Established (read, white) commercial farmers showcased dozens of transformation successes achieved mostly independently of the state’s land and agrarian reform efforts. Many speakers illustrated what can be accomplished by black farmers when given an opportunity.
Black farmers enumerated their successes, despite considerable obstacles placed in their way by government policies and broken promises.
Director-general in the department of agriculture, forestry & fisheries Mike Mlengana replied that he was shamed and it was hard to hear how his department had treated farmers. Mlengana undertook to give urgent attention to farmers’ problems, including land invasions.
In all farmers’ presentations full title to the land on which they farm is the common factor. And by full title, they mean their property rights to include the right to alienate it — to be able to offer their land as collateral in return for financing. To farmers, land becomes a farm only when they have full ownership.
Earlier last week, the exclusively black African Farmers’ Association of SA (commercial farmers all) met to debate transformation in the sector. At this meeting in Kempton Park, President Cyril Ramaphosa referred to land reform as an agrarian revolution. He referred to the unfinished business of land reform as a festering wound that would heal only by returning the land to the people from whom it had been taken.
Although the two meetings had a lot in common, such as policy stability and full title, the differences were stark. In Kempton Park, farmers demanded an acknowledgement of black farmers’ need for land to be acquired by any means — including an amendment to the constitution that would clarify the condition for expropriation. In Bela Bela, farmers demanded an acknowledgement of the transformation that had been achieved without the need to change the constitution.
In Kempton Park, Ramaphosa made it clear that land reform was not just about the economy, but about belonging and ownership of the country. Expropriation and the ANC’s intention to amend the constitution "to make explicit the conditions under which land could justifiably be expropriated without compensation" was as much about economic inclusivity as it was about redress. As if in reply, Western Cape farmer and land reform beneficiary Gerswin Louw told the Bela Bela meeting that 35,000 white farmers could not be expected to redress all the injustices of the past.
While it may have been appropriate to approach the people about a change to the constitution, it is unclear whether the committee’s endeavour will have served either agriculture or black people’s need for redress.
As Plaas chair Ben Cousins told the conference, land reform cannot resolve the larger problems of poverty and inequality in SA but could make a small contribution.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.