Speakers Inc Magazine, Volume 2

Then there is another group of people, including some in the
ANC and those in the EFF, who focus on “taking” land. For
them, this is a very different prospect. They appear to
believe that white people have given up very little since the
end of Apartheid. As a result, they should now give up some
of the land “they” own. this is a very different argument,
and in the end is really about racial identities. At the start of
the year it appeared that this issue was dominated by the
voices of those on the “take land” side of the debate. Now,
it seems that the other side, the “give land” side may be
gaining momentum. This is significant, because it might
signal that Ramaphosa has been able to take charge of the
debate and the narrative around this. That in turn could
indicate that he has been able to consolidate his power in
the ANC.
However, while it seems momentum is moving towards
some kind of change, there are still other thorny problems
to deal with. To put this in perhaps an over-simplified
fashion, it may well be possible to craft a political consensus
in which white people lose some land without being
compensated for that. From a technical point of view, that is
relatively easy to do, the people who own the land who are
white are easy to identify. But the problem may really come
around deciding who would actually own the land
thereafter. As an example of this problem, consider this
hypothetical example. Imagine, for a moment, that there is a
piece of land occupied by a farmer and their family in
Mpumalanga. They have occupied that land for several
generations. It used to be occupied, or owned, by a black
family who were forced off the land during the Apartheid
era. Next to that farm, lives another group of people who
are in shacks, and have very little, they depend in the main
on social grants.
But it still runs the risk of raising homes that are then dashed,
leading to further disputes in our society.
Meanwhile, if the 2019 elections are seen as a referendum on
land, it may actually be to the detriment of the ANC. The DA
would stand as the party, and the only big party, opposing a
change to the Constitution. This could be important, as it
could turn the election into a poll between the “haves” and
the “have-nots”. That in turn could help the DA resolve some
of its own internal disputes over its identity. That surely
would be to its benefit. This would also make it hard to
predict that the ANC and the EFF together would actually win
the two-thirds majority they would need together to change
the Constitution.
There are many strands to the debate and the conversation
around land reform, and expropriation, that have yet to be
resolved. In some ways, where we are now, may only serve as
a starting point. At this stage, it does seem clear that
Ramaphosa, and most of the ANC, is determined not to follow
the examples of Zimbabwe or Venezuela. His often-repeated
claim that there “will be no smash-and-grab land reform” is
an indication that no matter what happens there will be a
legal process that will be followed. This is likely to prevent
the worst of any possible economic damage that could occur
as the result of investors losing confidence, or farmers giving
up their farms.
However, despite all the problems thrown at them, the
family that originally owned that land have been able to
enter the middle-class, and are doing quite well and living
and working in Sandton. If the land is taken from the white
family, who would get it? The people living next to the land
who have nothing? Or the descendants of the people who it
was taken from? If you were to give to those with nothing, it
would mean a black government is presiding over the
continued dispossession of land from a black family. If it is
given to that family, what does that mean for those with
nothing, they are unlikely to sit idly by and let it happen.
Just that aspect alone reveals some of the complexity
around this problem. There may be some solutions,
involving the waiting lists for RDP houses, or other measures
of determining who should benefit.
30