Land Summit

Land reform: can we afford not to?

In his book 'The end of Poverty', economist Jeffrey Sachs asks the very pertinent question: "Can the rich afford to help the poor?". In attempting to answer he says: "It may seem highly imprudent to ask the rich to take responsibility for helping the poorest of the poor to escape from the poverty trap. Not only is it thankless and endless, it may also break the bank - or so the thinking goes. After all, haven't the rich world's own welfare programmes proven to be too much to handle? Aren't the rich countries in enough of fiscal mess with the problems that they have already taken on? How can the rich world possibly take responsibility for billions of people outside of their borders, in countries with rapidly growing populations? These are reasonable answers. The more one looks at it, the more one sees that the question isn't whether the rich can afford to help the poor, but whether they can afford not to."

We may have to reflect whether this is not the question we need to ask ourselves in relation to land reform in South Africa today.

In 1994, the democratic government inherited one of the worst racially-skewed distribution of land in the world; whites owning 87% and blacks 13% of agricultural land. Undoing the legacy of apartheid's highly unequal land distribution is therefore a fundamental priority for the nation. It was because of this reality that even during the negotiations period one of the important principles that had to be addressed was the need to undertake land reform in South Africa.

We have gathered at the Summit on Land and Agrarian Reform - as stakeholders from government, political parties, business, farmers, workers, tenants, landless communities, civil society, faith-based organisations and traditional authorities - to honestly take stock of our constitutional obligation to carry out just and fair land and agrarian reform and to define real and concrete measures to accelerate land reform.

This Summit takes place under the backdrop of the 50th anniversary of the Freedom Charter whose vision for a future democratic dispensation in South Africa contained important statements pertaining land and agrarian issues, including 'South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white'; 'The people shall share in the country's wealth'; and 'The land shall be shared among those who work it'.

The vision of the Freedom Charter was the direct opposite of, and a response to, the apartheid vision that had its roots in the Native Land Act of 1913. The immediate and devastating impact of the Native Land Act, that is still evident in almost all aspects of our lives today, was graphically described by Sol Plaatje, the first ANC Secretary General, in his book 'Native Life in South Africa': "Awaking on Friday morning, June 20, 1913, the South African native found himself, not actually a slave, but a pariah in the land of his birth."

It is against this painful history of land dispossession, economic exploitation and social domination of particularly the African majority, that the new democratic constitution of South Africa imposed a duty and an obligation on the state, as a matter of public interest, to take legislative and other measures to effect land reform to facilitate restorative land justice, increased access to land and improved security of tenure.

The principle that underpinned the Freedom Charter and that is today enshrined in the constitution firmly asserts that never again should an individual or a group of individuals in our country suffer from unjust, inhuman and unfair dispossession of their land, property or material possessions.

After ten years of courageous and concerted efforts to restore the dignity and respect of the poor, the dispossessed and landless communities, the overall assessment of government performance and its social partners is that commendable progress has been made in land and agrarian reform in South Africa.

This progress has been made even though the first years of democratic governance saw a lot of focus on reorganisation of the state, the integration of various administrations, the drafting and promulgation of new legal statutes, and the setting up of institutions to support land and agrarian reform.

In examining our progress we need to acknowledge that besides the targets set out in the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) there was no standard from which we could measure ourselves.

Taking this reality into consideration, how far have we come in the past ten years?

Since 1994, over 1.2 million people have benefited from the entire land reform programme of government. We have delivered more than three 3 million hectares of land. Our government's housing programme has also made a contribution towards land delivery.

Agricultural control boards were abolished to deregulate commodity and trade markets. Subsidies and tax concessions that favoured commercial farmers were withdrawn and support programmes for emerging farmers and land reform beneficiaries were established. A minimum wage for farm workers was introduced.

But this progress is not enough. More, swift, resolute and resourceful efforts must still be made to transfer 30% of farm land and transform the agrarian economy to contribute to higher growth, employment creation and greater social and economic equity.

In assessing our experience we have gained confidence from the progress that has been made and have become more hopeful about our future. Furthermore, the invaluable lessons that we have learnt now stand us in good stead with the redesign and implementation of our 2014 land and agrarian reform programme. We have learnt that:

• Legal processes are inherently adversarial, slow and expensive in comparison to agreements around a common vision, and negotiated processes that work better, faster and improve relations.
• Government programmes must be integrated and collaboration between departments at all levels encouraged.
• Markets by themselves do not redistribute land on the scale and at the quality, location and price required to transfer land from rich to poor and from white to black participants.
• The 'willing-buyer, willing-seller' approach needs to be mediated by the reality of a failure of land markets.
• Restrictions on subdivision of land forces beneficiaries to form large groups that are difficult to manage and sustain.
• It is essential for the state to undertake land reform to maintain a healthy balance between these growth factors.
• Current legislation regulates evictions rather than provides protection to farm dwellers' land rights.
• Strategic partnerships, such as share equity schemes, need to address the question of unequal power relations with respect to knowledge, wealth, networks, etc.
• The neglect of the rural areas and the almost exclusive focus on urban areas has further impoverished the rural and agrarian economy, while increasing the pressure on urban and peri-urban land for sustainable human settlement.

The following measures need to be undertaken to ensure that land and agrarian reform moves to a new trajectory that will contribute to the higher path of growth, employment and equity by 2014:

• Reaffirm the redistribution target of 30% of agricultural land by 2014.
• Establish government, business, labour and civil society partnerships that are binding with clear roles, responsibilities and accountability.
• Introduce proactive acquisition of land by the state for targeted groups in the land market.
• Establish a register of land needs for target groups (including labour tenants, farm workers and the landless).
• Identify specific interventions for targeted groups, including pro-active land acquisition by the state.
• Support for agriculture should be provided, including financing, infrastructure, marketing, training and education, technology transfer, extension and support for land reform projects such as water rights, housing, education, health, etc.
• Make land and agrarian reform a cluster priority.
• Ensure the orderly management of evictions and illegal land occupations.
• Introduce measures to enhance the security of tenure of farm dwellers and other vulnerable groups.
• Complete restitution cases by 2008.
• Fully implement the Communal Land Rights Act.
• Integrate land and agrarian reform into local economic development.
• Link rural and urban areas through, among others, peri-urban small and medium holdings.
• Acquire land for towns that need land for expansion.
• Complete the repeal of the Sub-division Act and sub-divide farms where necessary.
• Implement progressive land tax as a means to promote more intensive use of land, reduce farm sizes, and reduce speculative value of land.
• Manage the ownership of land by foreigners.
• Strengthen cooperation between the three spheres of government.
• Formulate a post-summit implementation strategy over the next three years.

** Thoko Didiza is an ANC National Executive Committee member and Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs. This is an edited version of an address at the opening of the National Land Summit, Johannesburg, 27 July 2005.

What the media says

Redressing racism's devastating legacy

In an editorial published this week, the daily newspaper 'Beeld' suggested labour minister Membathisi Mdladlana had "openly preached racism", and should be rejected as a racist.

Invoking the South African constitution and the "historical ethos" of the ANC, the paper said Mdladlana's comments on affirmative at a meeting organised by the Black Management Forum (BMF) "can only be interpreted as racist towards white South Africans".

Translated from the original Afrikaans, the editorial said the following of Mdladlana:

"He said, for example, that he would never sign an accord that would end affirmative action. This of course means that he would want privilege on the basis of skin colour to become a permanent policy of the ANC. Has he learnt nothing from SA's tragic past?

"He also said that those asking for a sunset clause for affirmative action, 'should have done so in Paul Kruger's time'. It is quite clear what he means by this: because of what happened a century ago in history, he is justifying the fact that the white youth of today should be punished because of the colour of their skin."

The 'Beeld' editorial goes to the heart of the differences that exist in this country around affirmative action, and related matters like black economic empowerment, land redistribution and broader social transformation.

'Beeld' would have us believe that affirmative action is a policy promoting "privilege on the basis of skin colour". According to the paper, it is a form of punishment meted out against white youth because of the colour of their skin. Pursuing this logic, affirmative action is nothing more and nothing less than the price white people must pay for the sins of apartheid. Hence the calls for an expiry date on affirmative action - a date on which we can all agree the collective punishment of white society should end.

But that is not affirmative action. Affirmative action is not about punishment or retribution. It is not about disadvantaging anyone on the basis of their race or gender. It is about correcting the vast inequalities in access to resources and opportunities that persist in South Africa to this day. It is about tackling unfair privilege, and thereby creating conditions for all South Africans, regardless of race or gender, to truly have equal access to opportunities.

In a document entitled 'Affirmative Action and the New Constitution', published by the ANC in 1993, this matter is discussed at length. It remains an important document for anyone seeking to understand the ANC's approach to affirmative action.

It begins: "There's an old saying: one person's meat is another person's poison. So it is with affirmative action. For millions of South Africans affirmative action means advance to a better life, a long overdue chance to come into their own and start enjoying the good things the country has to offer. For others, particularly those leading comfortable lives today, it signifies a new form of discrimination and injustice, a vengeful form of juggling around with race quotas so as to threaten their livelihoods and security.

"We see this as a false choice...The question is not whether or not to have affirmative action. Have it we must, and in a deep and meaningful way. The issue is how best to handle affirmative action, how to ensure that it is conducted in a principled and effective manner... We reject the idea of anything in the new democratic South Africa being meat for some and poison for others. That was what apartheid was all about."

Affirmative action arises from the recognition that apartheid was not simply about the denial of political rights to the majority of South Africans; it was about the economic dispossession, disempowerment and exploitation of black South Africans. It resulted in a society in which a small, racially-defined minority had privileged access to the country's resources. Despite the political changes of 1994, the adoption of the new constitution in 1996, and the progress made in addressing poverty and inequality in the provision of services, these privileges continue to define much of South African life.

Affirmative action must be employed as a pro-active measure towards redressing the unfair privilege that still exists in society. In that sense, it needs to be a comprehensive programme which addresses all the areas in which privilege exists, addressing all the forms that it takes. While representivity is important, affirmative action needs to go further - to develop sustainable capacity, unleash latent potential, and open up space for new forms of social, cultural and economic expression.

If the primary function of affirmative action is to level the playing field so that all South Africans have an equal opportunity to succeed, then there can be no rationale to the call for 'sunset clauses' to determine the date upon which affirmative action should end. Certainly, there is good reason to set affirmative action targets, but affirmative action should only stop at the point where all South Africans can run out onto the playing field with the same chances of achieving their goals.

The 'Beeld' editorial relies on a number of myths about affirmative action and transformation. It claims that white youth of today are being punished because of their skin. It ignores the reality that white youth today continue to have better access to education, resources and work opportunities than black youth. The paper ignores the fact that black South Africans of all ages, and particularly women, continue to be grossly under-represented in almost every sector and at almost level of the economy.

It seeks to perpetuate a similar myth with respect to education. Again referring to Mdladlana's speech, the editorial says:

"He described the language issue at the Mikro Primary School in Cape Town as using language rights to preserve artificial bulwarks. Is the Minister trying to argue that the only way in which he will accept language rights, is when they are not exercised?"

The paper conveniently ignores that fact that the grossly unequal distribution of educational resources by race meant that a minority of schools were able to adopt language policies that did not reflect genuine needs. It should come as no surprise that once the racial restrictions on schooling were removed, many former white schools were met with increased demand for space. It should similarly come as no surprise that some schools which taught in Afrikaans would be faced with a need to accommodate prospective students who didn't speak Afrikaans.

If we accept that no school in South Africa may any longer claim to be for the exclusive use of any one race, why is it so hard to accept that no school may any longer claim to be for the exclusive use of any one language group?

The schools of South Africa belong to the nation. They should be used to serve the educational, cultural and linguistic needs of the nation - and they should promote the development of all South African languages, Afrikaans included.

"We do not wish to replace one form of injustice with another," the ANC document says. "Our task, rather, is to deal with the divisions and inequalities created by the past in a new, effective and principled way. It is not only apartheid we reject, but the methods of apartheid. Previously, governmental intervention was dictatorial and intended to divide the nation, while the measure we contemplate will be democratic and participatory in nature and be undertaken with a view to uniting the nation."

This task - a meaningful programme of affirmative action - is what our constitution, and the ANC's historical ethos, demands.