There have certainly been some rough waters for the Government of National Unity, over such legislation as National Health Insurance, the Basic Education Laws Amendment Act (the latter signed by the President over the head of his education minister, evidently to make a point about who is in charge) and the SABC Bill.
Adriaan Basson dismissed the stresses around these matters as mere politicking. “Differences between the two main GNU parties, the ANC and DA, will vanish if they can get the economy to grow and the employment scoreboard to tick over,” he wrote.
Basson’s contentions are not without validity, but it rather fails to recognise the profound political difference within the GNU, and the extent to which these have a bearing on the country’s prospects for resolving its momentous problems – the failure to grow chief among them, and the crippling unemployment malaise an outgrowth of it. Policy matters, and if any issue is a bellwether of this, it is the question of property rights.
This is particularly so as the legislative programme – at least formally, of the government – retains the controversial Expropriation Bill. And as I pointed out in this space a few weeks ago, it remains key to empowering the state to confiscate private property, and pushing forward with the “EWC agenda” of expropriation without compensation.
Too often, the assumption is that empowering an intrusive state to abridge property rights and to seize assets will produce justice. This is, however, contradicted by international experience and also by the conduct of the South African state thus far.
Property rights are indeed human rights, and are recognised as such in international conventions and South Africa’s Constitution. Disregarding them has frequently inflicted grave injustices on societies, making them less free and less prosperous. I would like to point to a 2021 report − A True ‘Human Right’: Why Property Rights are Indispensable, available on our website, irr.org.za – for anyone wishing to explore the matter in more detail. In Africa, the denial of property rights to women creates an especial burden, which the IRR has detailed in another report, Property Rights Belong To All: Women and Property Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa, published in 2020.
Experience elsewhere has shown that land reform can be a useful means to achieving economic take-off. It must, however, act to build economic dynamism among its beneficiaries and in the economy as a whole. In short, it must extend, not undermine property rights.
What they already own
Hence, we at the IRR argue that an integral part of land reform and restitution needs to be conferring ownership on beneficiaries. In many instances, this is less a case of supplying beneficiaries with new assets than simply given them legal recognition of what they already own. Millions of South Africans live as effective tenants of the state in “townships” and areas under traditional authorities – where, despite often multi-generational occupancy, they still do not own their holdings. This deprives them of important economic assets, and also makes them vulnerable to being deprived of their homes and livelihoods, with little recourse to the law.
Unfortunately, much public discussion is dominated by ideologically inflected narratives on the matter. Take the words of IOL journalist Kamogelo Moichela for example: “Since South Africa’s end of apartheid, land has always been the main concern, with a majority believing that whites stole their land and that now was the time to have it back.”
This is incorrect. Land has in fact never been a major issue for South Africa’s public, certainly not as regards agrarian reform, and not as a priority for government action. There is a vast amount of polling on this. Our opinion poll last year asked respondents to identify the two top issues they wished the government to address. Only 1% mentioned land reform as a first or second priority – close to half (47%) chose employment. This is mirrored by other work, including the latest round (from 2022) of Afrobarometer’s periodic survey. Here, respondents were asked to identify the top three issues, and here the cumulative response for land came in at less than 1%. A little over 50% chose employment.
This is unsurprising. South Africa is an urbanising society, and people’s aspirations – in common with those of similar societies globally – is economic participation in a modern economy with the opportunities for mobility that this provides. Whatever injustices were committed in relation to land – and there were many – it is not a viable means of mass upliftment.
Even politicians pressing for EWC recognise this. Indeed, the EFF, which has made nationalisation of land without compensation a centrepiece of its ideological programme, had to alter its electoral offering to accommodate this reality. Its slogan “Our land and jobs now” was a tacit recognition that demanding land would have very little appeal.
Foundational
The point is that property rights matter to all, and that land reform needs to be seen in its correct perspective. Property rights are foundational to liberty and to prosperity; they are a part of the positive change we seek for the country, not an obstacle to it. Land reform is a just and useful mechanism, but must be conducted rationally, with proper support and finance, and seeking to bolster a new generation of resourceful, independent farmers. The support of existing commercial farmers is critical here.
We must also understand that “land reform” is a programme whose reach will by necessity be limited, since South Africa is no longer an agrarian society – and to advocate land reform as a solution is both inaccurate and reckless. Continuing down this road will keep a deadweight on growth, and a tether on employment creation. Both for the ideological fixations it demonstrates, and the consequences it will have, this could be the ruin of the GNU.
[Image: Simon Hurry on Unsplash]
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend