The Question of Land in South Africa: Historical Facts and Current Developments
Land ownership and redistribution have been contentious issues in South African politics since the end of apartheid in 1994. To understand this topic, it's crucial to examine the historical facts of land acquisition, the claims made by various groups, and recent developments in land reform policy.
Historical Context of Land Acquisition
When examining the history of land ownership in South Africa, it's important to consider the factual circumstances under which different groups came to possess territory:
Settlement of Uninhabited Lands: Large stretches of land, particularly in the interior of South Africa, were uninhabited when the Europeans arrived. These semi-desert areas were unsuitable for permanent settlement due to lack of water access. It was only through the introduction of technologies like well-drilling that these lands became habitable and productive. Those who developed these areas did not displace any existing populations.
Negotiation and Purchase: Historical records show that it took 120 years after the initial Dutch settlement at the Cape before the first encounters with Bantu-speaking tribes occurred, some 800 kilometers inland. During the expansion, many land transactions were conducted through negotiation, often with cattle as payment. These were legitimate business dealings between parties capable of entering into such agreements.
Conquest: Some territorial acquisitions occurred through conquest, which was a universally accepted means of acquiring territory at the time. This method was also employed by African tribes in expanding their own territories. Notably, the Boers (Afrikaners) often respected agreements made, even those resulting from conquest.
These historical facts provide context for understanding the nature of land ownership in South Africa, beyond simplified narratives of dispossession.
Current Claims and Political Rhetoric
The ruling African National Congress (ANC) and some black South African groups, such as Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), frame the land issue as a matter of historical injustice requiring correction. President Cyril Ramaphosa exemplified this view when addressing the United Nations, stating: "We are now discussing land reforms. Land is the original sin in South African history. We are trying to correct that which was done during many years, a hundred years ago."
This perspective often overlooks the pre-colonial land ownership, migration patterns, and the legitimate means by which much of the land was acquired by Europeans. It tends to present a simplified version of history where all land belonged to black Africans before the arrival of whites, ignoring the presence of other groups like the Khoisan and the relatively recent southward migration of the Bantu-speaking tribes.
Despite the historical realities, the post-apartheid government has been pushing forward with land reform policies. In March 2024, South Africa's National Assembly drafted the Expropriation Bill that will allow the government to seize land without compensation if deemed to be in the national interest.
This move represents a significant shift from the "willing buyer, willing seller" approach that characterized land reform efforts in the first two decades after apartheid. It reflects a growing push for more rapid land redistribution, despite concerns about economic impacts, property rights and farm murders.
The Implementation and Underlying Motivations
The implementation of land reform faces numerous practical challenges, revealing deeper issues beyond mere land ownership. Minister of Land Reform and Rural Development, Mzwanele Nyhontso, has expressed concern that many beneficiaries of land restitution programs are opting for cash payouts rather than land ownership. In the Eastern Cape alone, the government has committed R8 billion to settle claims.
Nyhontso stated, "Once you take money, you will spend money and within a month you will have no money and no land." This preference for cash over land raises questions about the true motivations behind the land reform movement. It suggests that the issue may be less about a genuine desire for land and more about resentment towards those who have succeeded economically. The land reform narrative, framed as addressing historical injustices, appears to be used as a tool to get free money.
This trend of choosing money over land exposes the contradiction in the victim narrative often employed to justify land reform. If land ownership were truly the goal, as claimed by proponents of aggressive land redistribution, one would expect beneficiaries to eagerly accept land offers. Instead, the preference for immediate cash payouts indicates a focus on short-term gains rather than the long-term commitment of working the land.
Ironically, Cyril Ramaphosa, the current president pushing for these reforms, was the ANC negotiator who helped craft the compromises within the new constitution that ended apartheid. In 1994, these compromises, including protections for property rights, were seen as necessary to prevent civil war and ensure a peaceful transition to black majority rule.
The balance of power has shifted dramatically since the early 1990s. The white minority, once able to credibly resist drastic policy changes, is now largely politically marginalized. This changing dynamic allows the ANC to pursue policies that would have been unthinkable 30 years ago.
While there is strong political pressure for land expropriation without compensation, and the historical facts of land acquisition being ignored, the South Africa's commercial farming sector, largely developed by white farmers, has been crucial to the country's food security and export economy. Large-scale land redistribution will lead to a decline in agricultural output, similar to what occurred in Zimbabwe following its land reform program. Additionally, uncertainty around property rights are deterring both domestic and foreign investment.
As an end note, it's unlikely that people choosing money over land will slow down the policies of land expropriation without compensation. On the contrary, this trend may actually accelerate these policies. The underlying issue appears to be resentment towards the white minority owning more farmland than the black majority. Therefore, regardless of the outcomes or preferences of individual beneficiaries, the push for land redistribution is likely to continue until the overall pattern of land ownership changes significantly. This persistence highlights the anti-white ideological nature of the land reform movement.
Best regards
Jonas Nilsson
PS: Please feel free to share this newsletter with whoever you think might appreciate it.