|
Clamour over Zimbabwe reveals
continuing racial prejudice in SA
For some time
now, there has been a fairly high level of agitation among some South
Africans about the issue of Zimbabwe. Indeed some politicians took the
decision some time ago to use this question to make their careers and
advance the fortunes of their parties.
After a short study of our politics, a visitor from
Mars might assume that Zimbabwe is a province of South Africa. With this
understanding, the visitor would come to know that some South Africans
are concerned that their country is wrongly handling such matters as land
reform, the economy, the rule of law and the independence of the press
and the judiciary in its province of Zimbabwe.
She would also come to realise that in large measure,
the agitation about these questions is driven by a seemingly deep-seated
concern that the misfortunes that had befallen the province of Zimbabwe
were likely to spill over into or occur in the other provinces of South
Africa. Naturally, given the volume of voices about these matters in the
other provinces, the Martian visitor would conclude that the South African
government might have to change the policies it was pursuing in the specific
province of Zimbabwe. In particular, the visitor would have noted that
what was demanded of the South African government was that it should denounce
and take all necessary steps to crush the provincial government of Zimbabwe.
Imagine the situation, later, when the Martian visitor
comes to realise that Zimbabwe is not a province of South Africa but an
independent state, with its own government, democratically elected by
the people of Zimbabwe. The visitor would then begin to wonder about why
some South Africans seemed so convinced that Zimbabwe was affected by
some infectious disease that was bound to cross the Limpopo River border
and infect South Africa.
Being familiar with the situation in Europe, the visitor
would wonder why the same was not said about the Republic of Ireland relative
to Northern Ireland, or Greece, relative to Macedonia. For example, the
Republic of Ireland progressed towards the outstanding economic success
it enjoys today, while Northern Ireland was immersed in an apparently
unstoppable violent conflict that claimed many lives and obliged the British
government to deploy large numbers of security forces to bring about peace.
What has happened to the economy of the Republic of Ireland would suggest
that those who invested in the Republic at the height of the 'troubles'
in the North, were not concerned about 'contagion' or the 'Northern Ireland
factor'.
Looking around South Africa, the Martian visitor would
see no evidence of any worrying trends about land, the economy, the rule
of law and the independence of the press and the judiciary. Taking this
together with her European experiences, the visitor would be most puzzled
as to why some South Africans seem so convinced that the future of their
country depends on what happens in Zimbabwe and what their government
does about Zimbabwe, rather than what the people of Zimbabwe do about
their own country.
The point that our visitor would have missed, never
having been exposed to racism, is that both Zimbabwe and South Africa
have black African governments. It is this that provokes fears among white
South Africans about 'contagion' and the 'Zimbabwe factor'. Consistent
with their reading of the situation in Zimbabwe, they fear that, 'as is
the wont of black African governments', the South African government will
also act 'as to the manner born' with regard to such issues as property
rights and the rule of law.
Last year, the leader of the New National Party, Marthinus
van Schalkwyk, was honest enough to say in the National Assembly that
this was the reason his party demanded of the President of South Africa
that he should denounce President Mugabe and the rest of the government
of Zimbabwe. He said that the white minority in South Africa feared that
what was happening in Zimbabwe would happen in South Africa. This minority,
which for centuries had seen itself as a European outpost surrounded by
threatening and savage African hordes, wanted to be reassured that it
was safe.
What was happening in South Africa, guaranteeing that
safety, was not sufficient. The President had to denounce the government
of Zimbabwe in the strongest terms, preach a message that South Africa
was different from Zimbabwe and the rest of Africa and impose sanctions
against Zimbabwe. Of course, in addition to the fact of black African
governments, the other critical link between Zimbabwe and South Africa
is that they both have relatively sizeable national white minorities.
Thus it is not difficult for white South Africa to borrow the slogan from
the trade unions, relative to the link between itself and white Zimbabwe
- an injury to one is an injury to all!
Add to this the fact that the white minority in South
Africa had worked itself into a frenzy of fear about and hatred of Mugabe
of Zimbabwe, before that country's independence, in much the same way
that it had educated itself to fear and loathe an ANC composed of 'terrorists
and communists'. The response to the events in Zimbabwe has confirmed
what many of us suspected, that the negative stereotype of black people
in many white minds is firmly implanted in these minds.
Accordingly, we had thought that many of our white compatriots
will entertain doubts for a long time as to whether 'the South African
miracle', centred on the notion of a 'rainbow nation', will be sustained.
The price they demand we pay to ensure that they continue to believe in
'the miracle', is that we prove, relative to Zimbabwe, that we do not
conform to their stereotype of black Africans.
Accordingly, we must act to guarantee the property rights
of the white Zimbabweans. We must also act to ensure that the law is upheld
both to protect both the property and the freedoms of the Zimbabwe property
owners. Thus will we convince them that we are committed to the guarantee
of the property rights of white South Africans. And thus we will demonstrate
that we are determined to protect the property and the freedoms of the
white, South African property owners. Only in this way would the South
African white minority be assured that in ours, they have an atypical
black African government that would not behave as such governments have
behaved, in the view and according to the norms of that white minority.
As the Martian visitor would have learnt more about
our country by now, she would be struck by the ironies that arise from
this situation. One of these, among many, is that the ANC represents the
section of our population that has been by far the worst victim of the
denial of and contempt for property rights. Another, among many, is that
the ANC represents the section of our population that has been by far
the worst victim of disregard and contempt for the rule of law.
Yet another, among many, is the fact that today South
Africa has a constitution and laws that protect property rights, because
members and supporters of the ANC engaged in struggle and paid the supreme
price in a struggle to realise and entrench these rights for all South
Africans. Another irony, among others, is the fact that today South Africa
has a constitution and laws that protect the rule of law, because members
and supporters of the ANC engaged in struggle and paid the supreme price
in a struggle to bring into being a law-governed society, in the interest
of all South Africans.
Many of our people died, suffered torture, imprisonment,
banishment and exile in the course of a difficult struggle for the rule
of law, the independence of the press and the judiciary, property rights,
a prosperous economy that would benefit all our people, democracy and
human rights. The cruel irony, among others, is that the same people against
whom we waged this struggle, the people who killed, tortured, imprisoned,
banished and exiled those who fought for property rights and the rule
of law for all, are the most strident in demanding that we prove our democratic
credentials. Those who oppressed and opposed us must, of course, be seen
and accepted as the vigilant defenders of democracy, property rights and
the rule of law.
Having come to understand our situation better, the
visitor from Mars would begin to realise how much the negative white stereotype
of black people informs the South African discourse about Zimbabwe. She
would begin to see how everyday we have to tolerate the insult that because
we are black and African, we have to demonstrate that we are not about
to seize white property, deny whites their democratic rights or violate
the law, to threaten white interests.
She would see how necessary it is that we must respond
to the insult in a measured way, so that we do not feed the stereotype
that a vigorous response to insult, described as criticism, demonstrates
a typical black African intolerance of critical views. She would come
to understand that the response to the events in Zimbabwe expected of
us is one that should address white South African fears rather than the
interests of the people of Zimbabwe, both black and white.
She would see that what is required of us is that we
must accept that some within white South African society are convinced
that we are savages and that we must therefore do everything in our power
to prove that we are not savages, to the satisfaction of white South Africa.
The visitor would also see the utility to some, of generating fear about
events in Zimbabwe to convince white South Africans of 'the black danger/die
swart gevaar' that confronts them in South Africa, represented by the
ANC.
On 5 May 2000, I spoke at the opening of the Zimbabwe
Trade Fair in Bulawayo, in the presence of President Mugabe and many of
his government colleagues. On that occasion I said:
"It would be best that (the land question) is dealt
with in a co-operative and non-confrontational manner among all the people
of this sister country, both black and white, reflecting the achievement
of national consensus on this issue, encompassing all Zimbabweans.
"Accordingly, we trust that ways and means will
be found to end the conflict that has erupted in some areas of Zimbabwe,
occasioned by the still unresolved land question in this country. Peace,
stability, democracy and social progress in Zimbabwe are as important
for yourselves as they are for the rest of the region."
Less than a week ago, a few of our Ministers met their
Zimbabwe counterparts to promote this perspective. President Mugabe and
I will also meet to consider the proposals of the Ministers as we pursue
the objectives of peace, stability, democracy and social progress for
Zimbabwe, South Africa and the rest of our region.
We will do this not because we have to prove our credentials
to anybody, but because the peoples of our countries and region fought
a hard and protracted struggle so that they can enjoy peace, stability,
democracy and social progress. I trust that by the time our visitor from
Mars takes leave of us, she would have come to understand that, in terms
of political boundaries, Zimbabwe is not a province of South Africa.
She would also have come to understand that a white
stereotype of black Africans has turned Zimbabwe and South Africa into
one country. Accordingly the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and the world
markets will, on occasion, respond as though Zimbabwe was a province of
South Africa.
Hopefully, because she would be unencumbered by prejudice,
the visitor from Mars would also know that, in our country, the guarantors
and principal beneficiaries of the rule of law, the right to property
and democratic rights, are those who laid down their lives to bring about
the rule of law, respect for property rights and democracy. These democrats
fought against the dictatorship of white minority domination and privilege,
and ensured that we are bound by a constitutional and law-governed obligation
to bring about equality, non-racism, non-sexism and a united rainbow nation.
At the same time as we continue our own struggle to
realise these objectives in our own country, we will do everything we
can to assist the people of Zimbabwe to achieve this same outcome, regardless
of contrary demands, whether they emanate from South Africa, Zimbabwe
or Mars.
|
|
|
Land restitution
The expropriation
notice served on Lydenburg farmer Willem Pretorius for the farm Boomplaats
was the result of due legal process consistent with the South African
Constitution. It was neither a 'land grab' nor a violation of any rights,
as some have suggested.
Pretorius was served with a notice of expropriation
on 13 March for land due to be returned to the Dinkwanyane community under
the government's restitution programme after Pretorius refused government's
final offer for the farm.
The government this week withdrew the expropriation
notice to allow for further negotiations on the price. Minister of Agriculture
Land Affairs Thoko Didiza instructed the Land Claims Commission to enter
into further discussions with Pretorius in order to reach an amicable
outcome.
At issue is the amount government should pay Pretorius
for his farm. The farmer is insisting government should pay R2.1 million,
but government says this price does not reflect the true value of the
property, nor does it take into account the state assistance Pretorius
received to acquire the farm.
The Dinkwanyane community bought the farm Boomplaats
in the Lydenburg District for the amount of £50,000 Sterling in
1906 and held the land in terms of registered title. The community also
had interests on the land in terms of customary law.
The land was later classified as a so-called 'Black-spot'
from which the black owners were to be moved. After prolonged negotiations
involving the now defunct Department of Native Affairs, the members of
the community were forcibly removed between 1957 and 1961. The property
was expropriated and transferred to the state.
Willem Pretorius bought 1,270.9042 hectares, which was
part of the farm, from the state in 1982 for the amount of R119,000. Karel
Joubert owns the other part of the farm. Pretorius paid R94 per hectare,
while the two other landowners adjacent to his farm paid for R266 and
R338 per hectare respectively, also in 1982. Pretorius acquired two loans
with low interest for a period of 25 years from the state. His interest
rates were five and eight percent per annum respectively.
Government policy on compensation to current landowners
for land restitution is to use the market value of their farms, taking
into consideration the purchase price and the value of any assistance
provided by the state.
The original valuer determined the market value of the
Boomplaats farm as R2.1 million. However, the valuer did not take into
account either the purchase price or the value of the 'soft loans' Pretorius
received when acquiring the property. A second independent valuer had
to be appointed after evidence was uncovered that Pretorius did indeed
receive two soft loans from the state.
The second valuer concluded the farm was worth R1.5m.
Statistics on comparable sales within the vicinity are in line with conclusions
by the second valuer. The second valuer noted also that Pretorius paid
less than market value when purchasing the farm in 1982, and market-related
interest rates in South Africa never reached either five or eight percent
during this period. Interest rates in South Africa are much closer to
16 percent.
The second valuer used a formula developed by Judge
Geldenhuys of the Land Claims Court to determine the value of the disputed
farm. This formula emanates from section 25(3) of the Constitution. After
applying the formula, which subtracts the amount saved in repayment of
the soft loans, the amount of R848,485 was offered to Pretorius.
However Pretorius still insists on R2.1 million. Any
suggestion that the state should not take into consideration the issues
of purchase price and soft loans would go against the requirements of
the Consititution.
The restitution process is subject to the rule of law.
The expropriation procedure gives the person expropriated the opportunity
to approach the Land Claims Court for determination of the justness and
equity of compensation.
To date a total of 12,120 claims have been settled virtually
through negotiation. Of this a total of 97 claims have been settled through
the Land Claims Court. The Boomplaats claim is only the second expropriation
case to date.
|
MORE INFORMATION:
|
|
Opposition strategy
Expect
the Democratic Alliance to obstruct and delay delivery for at least the
next three years. Where this is not possible, expect them to rubbish,
belittle or undermine any transformation efforts of the ANC in government.
The DA has itself acknowledged this as the basis of
their programme when they released to the media their key strategy for
the next election in 2004. Their message for the 2004 campaign is that
the DA will deliver what the ANC has failed to deliver.
The success of this message depends on a lack of delivery,
or at the very least, the perception of a lack of delivery. It stands
to reason that in the pursuit of their electoral objectives the DA will
do whatever they can to block delivery and undermine the achievements
of the ANC government.
This is not a new approach. It is merely the first time
the Democratic Alliance has so openly acknowledged it. The component parts
of the DA have a long record of resisting transformation and shouting
down the kind of delivery that has made a difference to the lives of ordinary
South Africans.
Some of the transformative legislation in the area of
labour opposed by one or more of the components of the Democratic Alliance
include the:
- Labour Relations Act,
- Basic Conditions of Employment Act,
- Mine Health and Safety Act,
- Occupational Injuries and Diseases Amendment Act,
- Employment Equity Act.
These pieces form the foundations of the stable
and non-discriminatory labour system South Africa has in place today.
In health, components of the DA opposed the:
- Medicines and Related Substances Act,
- Pharmacy Amendment Act,
- Medical, Dental and Support Health Services Act.
These laws regulate costs and distribution
of medicine throughout our communities, through opening the market to
less expensive, generic and parallel imported drugs, to ensuring that
medical schemes cannot discriminate along race, gender, or other unconstitutional
lines; and guaranteeing standards and quality in all health services.
In education, the members of the DA opposed the:
- South African Qualifications Authority,
- Education Laws Amendment Act,
- Employment of Educators Act;
- and various other measures aimed at ensuring equality and improving
the quality of our education system.
Parties in the DA also opposed the Welfare
Laws Amendment Act, replacing the old Welfare grants, which applied to
whites and Coloureds only, with child support grants that would reach
into all corners of our society.
On the issues of land, components of the DA opposed
the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, which prevents rural people from
being expelled from the land they have lived and worked on for many years.
They also opposed the National Empowerment Fund, established as a vehicle
to promote the economic empowerment of previously-disadvantaged communities.
The members of the Democratic Alliance can be expected
in the next three years to continue this campaign to stall delivery and
block transformation. Over this period the DA will confirm its position
as South Africa's anti-delivery party.
|
|
