Land Reform in South Africa: Unpacking a very contentious issue

[Citizen X]

“The more things change, the more they stay the same!”
Land Reform in South Africa: Unpacking a very contentious issue
Very controversial, very contentious and heated emotions on all sides. Our leaders should not remain silent and thereby endorse alternatively encourage a genocide!!!
1. Any argument in favour of land reform is very contentious to say the very least. We have an Apartheid legacy where people were forcibly removed and thereby displaced from their land and property. To even think that land reform can be considered in a Constitutional democracy is very disturbing! This should not even be an option. By even considering land reform without compensation is simply to engage in the very repugnant behaviour that the former Apartheid Government engaged in;
2. Animal Farm: I am by no means suggesting or alluding to a misconception that our leaders are animals. Our South African people are famous for taking things out of context and connecting invisible lines with separate dots! In my opinion one of the purposes of George Orwell’s satirical Animal farm is for us as South African citizens to be able to identify hypocrisy, the very corrupting influence of power, corruption, and to compare the characters and behaviour of our current leaders with the characters that manifest in the book. Our key question should be: are our leaders any different??
3. Animal farm demonstrates that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that replaced Tsar Nicholas 11 was far worse when it came to genocide, atrocities and crimes against humanity! ‘economic freedom in our life time,’ simply means succumbing to the lure of power at any cost and by any means. Such succumbing to power is to detriment of the White minority. So did reconciliation really take place or is it possible that certain persons have vengeful intent?
4. I willing to accept very little opinion with regards to communism as I have engaged in extensive study of communism from 1986 to date. I am very familiar with all of Karl Marx’s writings and not just ‘das capital,’ I know enough to state and confirm for the record that Karl Marx himself did not even identify Russia as a possible state for communism. His first choice was England and then Germany. Karl Marx never provided any form of blue print for communism but rather choice to focus the vast majority of his writings on a criticism of capitalism. You see every fanatic that thinks he is a revolutionary does not have a thorough understanding of all the writings of Karl Marx. I’m willing to bet money that if the leaders of the ANCYL and I were given a written test by an independent examiner on all of Karl Marx’s writings they would fail dismally! I state and confirm for the record that Marxian economics is far more challenging than capitalistic economics. I had a misguided romantic perception of communism as a kid really believing that its purpose was to promote true equality between men and distribute land equitably. History tells us that this was not the case!
5. This concept of land reform and land redistribution has its historical routes with the Russian revolution in 1917. The idea was that the peasants of that day would take over the land of the so called noble class and then distribute it.
6. One must appreciate though that the peasants of that day were living in abject misery. Initially both Lenin and Trotsky identified these needs of the masses and merely told them what they wanted to hear. You see you can’t have radical land redistribution without making the vast majority of a countries people genuinely angry and making them genuinely feel robbed and entitled to more than what they currently have. The view was that the land should belong to those who worked such land. So the promise that Trotsky and Lenin made was in essence ‘economic freedom in your life time.’ It’s noteworthy that they did not use these exact same words but this is nonetheless what they were promising!
7. Animal Farm demonstrates that what was promised to the people i.e. ‘economic freedom in your lifetime,’ was never attained, the new guard the USSR treated their own people with brutality. There was no true equality, no measurable economic freedom in their lifetime. There was poverty, sickness and millions died in very ugly ways.
8. Animal farm demonstrates how leaders can be corrupted. The novel never really condemned the actual act of the Russian revolution but rather the hypocrisy of the new leaders. It showed how they changed the ideals that they promised, it showed how what these leaders said would never happen with the transition actually happened 10 fold. The book clearly shows how ignorance to the proper resolution of problems can allow genocide and atrocities. The key attributes of those new revolutionary leaders was cruelty, deception, wickedness, ignorance, greed and an inability to resolve major problems without harming people in that process!!!
9. In the book Napoleon is an allegory of Joseph Stalin. Okay so the animals take over the farm and create what they call the 7 commandsments:
1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal.
7. All animals are equal.
10. They change the commandments to the following:
1. No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
2. No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.
3. No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.
11. Napoleon(Stalin) realizes that he needs an angry and influential youth to carry out his agenda. He takes the puppies of Jessie and Bluebell, and trains them to be his security force, basically an unlimited angry mob of youth that will do whatever to instruct them to do.
12. Our South African context: The ANC stood against Apartheid. During Apartheid people were forcibly removed from their land, there was no freedom of expression. The ANCYL is still an organ of the ANC. The ANC demonstrated that freedom of expression in their favour is fine but that freedom of expression not in their favour requires protest marches, press conferences and instigating racial division! You see, it quite alright to ‘shoot the boer,’ but it’s another thing for an artist to draw a satirical painting of the president. The Apartheid government forcibly removed people from their land, how can the ruling party even allow the ANCYL to even talk about land reform without compensation?????
13. I support voluntary land reform with full compensation i.e. a farmer says, ‘I’m going to hang up my farming boots, I’m going into the panel beating business. The value of my farm with improvements if 20 million, I’ll take cash please!” And, that will be that.
14. Ronald Lamola essentially said that if White South African farmers don’t willingly hand over their land to poor Black people land invasions similar to what took place in Zimabawe will happen right here in South Africa. He went on further to say that the safety of “Van Tonders and the Van der Merwes on farms” would not be guaranteed“If they don’t want to see angry black youths flooding their farms they must come to the party. Whites must volunteer some of the land and mines they own.”The ANCYL spokesperson has this to say Magdalene Moonsamy said the groups needed to be "ready for the fight of their lives"."We welcome this battle, and we will not retreat. We are adamant that this issue of land cannot be negotiated, and at no point will we will we back down."Ronald Lamola postulated that the Constitution of 1996 should be amended Lamola to allow for the expropriation of land without compensation. “He warned that if white South Africans did not hand land over to poor blacks, there could be land invasions like those which took place in Zimbabwe.”
15. Ronald lamola, the only place that you’ll find success before work is in the English dictionary! Nothing x nothing is still nothing! i.e. 0 x 0 = 0!
16. I’m no politician but I know that youth leaders of all the political parties should be addressing issues that affect the youth such as teenage pregnancy, substance abuse, education, hiv/aids etc
17. He should be charged with several more criminal offences: 1: conspiracy to commit theft, assault and murder.”Any person who ... conspires with any other person to aid or procure the commission of or to commit ... any offence ... shall be guilty of an offence.” “This provision does not differentiate between a successful conspiracy (ie one followed by the actual commission of the crime) and one not followed by any further steps towards the commission of the crime. Theoretically it is possible to charge and convict people of contravention of this provision even though the crime envisaged was indeed subsequently committed.” 2: Incite to commit assault, theft and murder:”In South Africa incitement to commit a crime is not a common-law crime, but a statutory crime. Section 18 (2)(b) of the Riotous Assemblies Act 17 of 1956 criminalises incitement to commit crimes. The relevant parts of this section read as follows: Any person who incites, instigates, commands or procures any other person to commit any offence shall be guilty of an offence.”
18. “ In Nkosiyana an inciter was described as somebody ``who reaches out and seeks to influence the mind of another to the commission of a crime''. Whether the other person (Y) is capable of being persuaded is immaterial. Neither do the means X uses to influence or try to influence Y carry any weight. The emphasis is therefore on X's conduct, and not that of Y. The incitement may take place either explicitly of implicitly.”
19. Section 25 of the Constitution of 1996 deals with property rights.
20. The government itself owns vast amounts of land, so do traditional leaders. They should start with redistributing this land and enter into negotiations for voluntary land reform with full compensation.
It’s not a matter of a simple barren veld we talking about here. We talking about land whose value due to improvements, buildings, crops, fertilising the ground etc has increased in value.
21. I support the redressing of past unfairness but not to the detriment of any minority. I support voluntary land reform with full market value compensation

[vieome]

<rant>
In Zimbabwe they just took the land by force.
In America you want a piece of real estate and you a big property developer, and the real estate you after is some lowly block of flats that you intend to convert to an upmarket mall. You try to buy the tenants out but they refuse, so you use unconventional methods to force them out of the flats, you make the flats a place that no one wants to live so that eventually the tenants sell you the property as Rock bottom prices.

In south africa I dont know what model they will use, but it will happen.

Land is one of the most valuable commoditys on the planet. Many people think Macdonalds takeaway is in the fast food industry, but really when you remove the wool from your eyes you see that Macdonalds is in the real estate market.
</rant>

[tec0]

There is nothing left to say. The youth league started up again this time stating outright they will use violence. This is fact it was stated in the open on Television in full view of reporters and followers alike.

The question now is: Is it not time for "other" politicians and entities to consult the United Nations and get peace troops emplace to protect those that is in need of protection?

[Citizen X]

A two thirds majority is required to amend fundamental rights.
1. This is how the Constitution stands(unamended) as at today’s date:
“ Property
(1) No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.
(2) Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application-
(a) for a public purpose or in the public interest; and
(b) subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court.
(3) The amount of the compensation and the time and manner of payment must be just and equitable, reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected, having regard to all relevant circumstances, including-
(a) the current use of the property;
(b) the history of the acquisition and use of the property;
(c) the market value of the property;
(d) the extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property; and
(e) the purpose of the expropriation.
(4) For the purposes of this section-
(a) the public interest includes the nation's commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa's natural resources; and
(b) property is not limited to land.
(5) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis.
(6) A person or community whose tenure of land is legally insecure as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to tenure which is legally secure or to comparable redress.
(7) A person or community dispossessed of property after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to restitution of that property or to equitable redress.
(8) No provision of this section may impede the state from taking legislative and other measures to achieve land, water and related reform, in order to redress the results of past racial discrimination, provided that any departure from the provisions of this section is in accordance with the provisions of section 36 (1).
(9) Parliament must enact the legislation referred to in subsection (6).

[Citizen X]

The question of land redistribution in South Africa defies a short answer. There are compelling arguments for and against land redistribution. I stand apposed to involuntary land redistribution without compensation. I support voluntary land redistribution with full compensation. I submit that no Government of South Africa present or future can justly postulate a working model on involuntary land distribution without compensation simply because of our Apartheid legacy of forcibly removing people from their land and/or property. To engage in such policies will simply be to repeat the very mistakes that the repugnant apartheid government committed which in essence will make you no better but in fact much worse because you doing it after the fact of apartheid and after the fact that knowing its wrong! It’s common cause that land redistribution does really need to take place to redress past unfairness’s. This cannot be seen to suggest that land invasion Zimbabwe style is the way forward.
I’m not for racial issues, never was and never will be. I am for humanitarian causes. The only requirement you have to comply with to have human rights is that you must be a human being. There remains no other requirements whatsoever! Our leaders should engage in nation building not fueling racial tensions!
1. We need to understand land reform within our Constitutional framework and background. We had a peaceful transition from the Apartheid government and the ANC.The result was the constitutional assembly which drafted the interim constitution. The result was the Constitution of 1996. We did not have the type of revolution experienced in Russia in 1917. Violent redistribution of land has its historical routes there. By virtue of the fact that we had a peaceful transition with ubuntu and reconciliation as corner stones we cannot accept a situation where on the 7 June 2012 we now talking about land invasion and using innuendo to suggest that if White farmers don’t voluntarily hand over their land it will be forcibly taken;
2. As non whites we were simply not strong enough to over throw the Apartheid regime by coup or revolution in the context of the French revolution and Russian revolution. One must appreciate this fact! If a violent revolution occurred then, yes, there would have been the obvious forceful land redistribution. This was not the case in South Africa
3. In the 17 century White settlers essentially ended up owning more than 80% of the land. Our liberation struggle and transition was completely different from that of Zimbabwe and Mozambique. In both these liberation struggles the common denominator was land. This was not the case with our South African struggle even though it was common because that past unfairness’s need to be redressed. It’s common cause that land redistribution does need to take place to redress past unfairness. You cannot allow a situation where land invasion Zimbabwe style takes place. You cannot condone a situation where people are forcibly removed from their land. This is exactly what the Apartheid government done. To engage in similar activities makes you just as repugnant as the Apartheid government; We had peaceful negotiations between the NP and Madiba. The result was an interim Constitution and finally the Constitution of 1996.
4. It’s common cause that colonialism and apartheid systematically undermined African agriculture. No one disputes this. No one disputes that past unfairness needs to be redressed. As mentioned in the previous post, the Constitutional home for land is section 25 of the Constitution of 1996. Section 5 reads as follows: “The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis.” It is this sub section that will ultimately govern what is done regarding land redistribution, land tenure reform and land restitution. We know that the Judiciary is tasked with interpreting legislation. The question is how the Judiary will interpret section 25(1) of the Constitution of 1996 in particular section 25(1); (2)(a) &(b) which read as follows:-No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property. Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application- (a) for a public purpose or in the public interest; and (b) subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court.
5. Ronald Lamola’s comment that we should have a ‘Minister of Expropriation without compensation,’ was distasteful and cannot be reconciled with the Constitution of 1996. If this comment is read in conjunction with his other comments such as “We as black people cannot continue apologising to white people in this country for things they have done,” and his comment something along the lines of if Whites don’t voluntarily hand over their land he could not guarantee the safety of the “Van Tonders and the Van der Merwes on farms", alludes to genocide as a very specific community is identified namely the White Afrikaner community.
6. Voluntary land reform with full compensation is perhaps a more reasonable approach. When the land was initially taken, it was a barren veld. As at today’s date, the farm owners have added value to this land in the form of buildings, boreholes, wells and other visible and tangible improvements. They have also invested into the fertilization of such land. One must never marginalize the benefit they’ve added to our economy directly and indirectly. In my layperson’s opinion this benefit they’ve added to the economy should be seen as some form of payment for such land. These farmers have actually already paid their debt to our society for past unfairness by promoting economic growth which benefits us all. The Constitution of 1996 should be amended to state that no White farmer will ever be forcibly removed from their land with no compensation;
7. A struggle song especially a reggae struggle song is relative to whomsoever is being subjugated and oppressed on the basis of race at any stage in history. This is why reggae remains timeless and universal.
8. In 1963 the emperor of Ethiopia, Haile Selasie(whom I personally see only as an interesting figure and nothing more, respect etc to people who see him in a different light, a conversation for another day, I’ve extensively studied Selasies’s life and all his speeches for about 20 years!), delivered a speech to the United Nations It largely focused on discrimination on the basis of race and the consequence of such discrimination. Bob Marley recorded a song called ‘war,’ in 1976 on the Rastaman vibration album. I love the artwork on the cover of that album, Marley is depicted in military uniform.
"What life has taught me I’d like to share with those who want to learn: Until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned: That until there are no longer first-class and second class citizens of any nation; That until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes; That until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race; That until that day, the dream of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained; And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes that hold our brothers in Angola, in Mozambique and in South Africa in subhuman bondage have been toppled and destroyed; Until bigotry and prejudice and malicious and inhuman self-interest have been replaced by understanding and tolerance and good-will; Until all Africans stand and speak as free beings, equal in the eyes of all men, as they are in the eyes of Heaven; Until that day, the African continent will not know peace. We Africans will fight, if necessary, and we know that we shall win, as we are confident in the victory of good over evil..."
Just recently Robert Mugabe was also using the ‘Boer,’ term in a distasteful manner. It’s noteworthy that it coincides with whatever else is taking place in South Africa these past 3 weeks in particular. In short Mugabe called on the ANC to ignore a court order in which authorities in South Africa are ordered to investigate human rights atrocities outside its borders.
Mugagbe had this to say:-. "That judgment by that boer like the outrageous ones of the SADC Tribunal is a direct assault on our sovereignty by shameless forces afflicted by racist nostalgia."

[gac]

Vanash, you're being way to kind to the "wet behind the ears" Lamola and his other can't get a real job ANCYL clowns by providing such a detailed civilised debate. I think their response to your intelligent perspective would be "eh um eh um..." or similar. Its a joke that they're given so much publicity and news space in SA.

This Land Redistibrution thing is simple for me. If I received land for free (inherited or gifted to me and for which payment cannot be proved) AND can be proved to have been taken forcibly from someone else, then and THEN ONLY consider taking it away on one condition - that it be given back to a person or provable direct descendant of the person it was originally taken from. If not, and there is proof I paid for it OR it cannot be proved that it had been forcibly removed AND FROM WHOM, regardless of who I bought it from, then buzz off.

[Citizen X]

This Land Redistibrution thing is simple for me. If I received land for free (inherited or gifted to me and for which payment cannot be proved) AND can be proved to have been taken forcibly from someone else, then and THEN ONLY consider taking it away on one condition - that it be given back to a person or provable direct descendant of the person it was originally taken from. If not, and there is proof I paid for it OR it cannot be proved that it had been forcibly removed AND FROM WHOM, regardless of who I bought it from, then buzz off.

I am non partisan.If one were to assume that the unthinkable, the inconceivable really takes place, then it begs a very simple question: Who are these poor Black people who will get this land? Are these poor Black people: Julius Malema, Ronald Lamola , the ANC, all their friends and family?? Are these the poor Black people who must get the land??? In my opinion certain ANCYL leaders are having delusions of grandiose: I can get some land for free and bui9ld myself a nice hotel to make millions for myself, I can get some free land and build myself a nice casino and make millions, I can get developed land with many buildings and properties for free. I invite the poor of South Africa to study the opulent and luxurious lives some of the ANCYL leadership have.
It’s noteworthy that the preamble of the Constitution of 1996 provides as follows:-
“Preamble
We, the people of South Africa, Recognise the injustices of our past;
Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land;
Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and
Believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.
We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic so as to-
Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights;
Lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law;
Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; and
Build a united and democratic South Africa able to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations.
May God protect our people.
Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika. Morena boloka setjhaba sa heso.
God seën Suid-Afrika. God bless South Africa.
Mudzimu fhatutshedza Afurika. Hosi katekisa Afrika.”
The ANC has double standards. Any reasonable minded third party would simply have to conclude as such: Bret Murray’s painting of Jacob Zuma was portrayed to be a crime against humanity but Ronald Lamola’s clear reference to land invasion of White owned farms is not a big deal! Julius Malema is expelled for among other things calling Jacob Zuma a dictator but Ronald’s Lamola’s comments about no guarantee for the safety the ‘van tonders,’ and the van der merwe’s if they don’t give their land voluntarily is not even grounds for a discipline hearing.
It’s noteworthy that Julius Malema visited Robert Mugabe on 3 April 2010. During his visit to Mugabe he called for Zimbabwe style seizure of both mines and farms. On his return to South Africa, the ANCYL released a statement praising Robert Mugabe and the land seizures that took place in Zimbabwe. Just conduct a survey with all Zimbabweans and ask them how they feel when they go to bed hungry? Are they really praising Mugabe or are they cursing him? I think the latter. Regardless of what our leaders think about Robert Mugabe and regardless about what Robert Mugabe thinks about himself: There is an old poster that dates back to the wild west and it goes something like this: Wanted: Dead or alive. A hangman’s noose is waiting for Robert Mugabe for crimes against his own people. As I type these very words, Scotland Yard’s SO15 War Crimes Team is investigating Mugabe for crimes against humanity. Ex-Liberian President Charles Taylor was convicted at the International Criminal Court for murder and using child soldiers. It’s noteworthy that Saddam Husein and Gadhafi were executed by their own people.
South Africa had a peaceful transition into a Constitution democracy. South Africa is for all South African’s regardless of their race, religion and political opinion

[tec0]

Let's take a look at Africa, is it not true that regardless of the fact that they are "majority only" and the fact that world has given millions upon millions upon billions to help them, all they got was guns to intimidate each other? Is it not true that in some places it is so bad that not even the Red Cross can enter and help?

Is it not fact that despite all the aid provided that bad things still happen?

I will say it again it is not about majority owned or minority owned land, government or stuff like that. It is about "who is in control" In some of the African countries good people are in control and you see good things happening. In other parts of Africa there are bad people and you see bad things happening. This is fact.

In the end it comes down to the fact that the followers must look at their leaders and make a decision is this leader a good person that wants good things? Or a bad person that wants bad things? Only when these questions are answered truthfully is there any hope…

[Justloadit]

In the end it comes down to the fact that the followers must look at their leaders and make a decision is this leader a good person that wants good things? Or a bad person that wants bad things? Only when these questions are answered truthfully is there any hope…

You only have a luxury of this decision making in a democracy, else you will be quietly snuffed out to not incite other members of the public to revolt against the 'bad' leader'. There are currently a number of examples.

[Citizen X]

You only have a luxury of this decision making in a democracy, else you will be quietly snuffed out to not incite other members of the public to revolt against the 'bad' leader'. There are currently a number of examples.

The executive, which is in essence the police force are currently a world wide mickey mouse show! How do you really expect your typical metro cop from not soliciting a bribe when your top brass are implicated in a numebr of irregularities and offences. One must remember this very simple fact: The fish rots from the head! It's a crime against humanity for Bret Murray to portary our president in the way he did. It's a serious disciplinary issue worthy of expulsion for an ANCYL member to call the president a dictator but it's quite alright 'to shoot the boer,' to call Indians, 'Coolie,' in public, to state publically that there is no gaurantee for the safety of white farmers should they not voluntarily hand over their land! No expulsion for Ronald Lamola to suggest that,in a Constitution democary where human rights and the rule of law atre supreme and further where the State is limited to the rule of law, land invasions will take place and the safety of Whites can't be guaranteed! South Africa is for all South Africans regardless of race, religion and political opinion. We must choose lawful, equitable and peaceful resolutions. Our leaders cannot remain silent at a time when a genocide is suggested...