A banner was doing the rounds on social media recently. It asked a simple question: “Do you know which economic policy you are voting for?” The poster was shared on social media by members or supporters of the EFF.
It was a remarkable question for at least two reasons. First, beyond generalised populist or ideological statements that seek to manipulate emotions — which is precisely what populist rhetoric does — the EFF has rarely stated, in detail, what its economic policies would be. The only certainty is that it is a “Left, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movement”.
Saying something like “everyone will have a job” or “nobody will be retrenched” is not an economic policy. These are all rhetorical devices that draw on motivating myths about African greatness that existed “before the white man came” or that dreadful idea of “decoupling” Africa from the global political economy.
Also, returning the land to its “rightful owners” is not an economic policy. The EFF’s most explicit statement about the redistribution of land is summed up in one of its policy documents.
“The land question is … about the resolution of this great land dispossession injustice and seeks ways to ensure that the large-scale redistribution of land contributes to the redress of colonial and apartheid injustice, the transformation of the economy and the reduction of both urban and rural poverty.”
The key phrases in this position are “dispossession injustice”, “large-scale redistribution”, “redress of colonial and apartheid injustice”, “transformation of the economy” and “the reduction … urban and rural poverty”.
If we do consider “dispossession” as an initial injustice and “redistribution” as a genuine attempt at addressing this injustice, the question “what happens next” becomes important. But, at this point, land redistribution seems to be an end in itself. It seems that once land has been returned to its “rightful owners”, revolutionary fairy dust will “add all else” onto said ownership.
This leads to the second reason why the question was remarkable. Given that EFF people trailed it on social media, and that many young people are lining up to vote for the party of “fighters”, there is cause for concern. Actually, “cause for concern” is probably the most polite thing one can say about the EFF as the putative government or official opposition.
In my encounters with EFF youth, I have found deeply alarming streaks of ignorance, intellectual occlusion and an inexplicably obdurate clinging to some of the worst ideas, policies and practices that hark back to the 1960s. That was the time when countries in Africa and Asia experimented with autarchy, forced collectivisation, a “return to the land” and, at the extreme, a return to “year zero”.
In SA’s case, the EFF’s “year zero” is probably the exact time “before the white man came”. How else can one understand the stubborn loyalty to eradication, legitimised rapine and revenge as a means of achieving spatial economic justice?
To put it extremely bluntly — without traducing the importance of land reform — getting a piece of land may restore dignity lost several hundred years ago, but actual jobs and hard work (not revolutionary fairy dust) will place food on the table, provide potable water, sanitation, protection for women and children, health care and education.
The point here is that “unmaking” current ownership of the land and changing the spatial profile of the country cannot be an end in itself. But what the EFF appears to have done is apply a totalising justification for land reform that includes anything from legal acquisition to rapine. Wilful occupation is somewhere along this spectrum. But it is okay, because whatever may happen next, or in the process of terracidal acts, we can always claim that apartheid and colonial dispossession were worse.
As a political economist with an expansive approach to the economy — one that factors in the social world, language, culture, history and the performative nature of productive activity and engagement — I always have an open mind when trying to get a better understanding of the world. So, to put as briefly as possible, the EFF’s policies on land redistribution are ends in themselves, a type of “revolution by eradication” through the destruction of histories, geographies and societies that took shape from the day the white man arrived.
My advice to young people lining up to vote for the EFF would be this: avoid intellectual occlusion driven by ideological rigidity. Consider, for instance, the development trajectories of Ghana and South Korea. In 1957 Ghana was the wealthiest country in sub-Saharan Africa with a per-capita income of $490, about the same as South Korea ($491). By the 1990s, South Korea’s per-capita income ($4,832) was 10 times higher than Ghana’s ($481). South Korea’s achievement came about through openness and establishing global relationships through trade, investment, security alliances and productivity.
• Lagardien, a visiting professor at the Wits University School of Governance, has worked in the office of the chief economist of the World Bank, as well as the secretariat of the National Planning Commission.
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.