Disrupted Land Documentary

DISRUPTED LAND DOCUMENTARY – EDITED Agriculture has made the largest contribution
by a significant margin to the improved growth of our economy in the second and third quarters
of 2017. This year we will take decisive action to realise the enormous economic potential
of agriculture. We will pursue a comprehensive approach that makes effective use of all mechanisms
at our disposal. Guided by the resolutions of the 54th National Conference of the Governing
Party, this approach will include the expropriation of land without compensation. To say that we stole the land, we should not
even take note of that. We don’t want half the freedom, we want full
control, rights, ownership, land of our country. The use of land as a political tool has to
be disruptive. As a result of past injustices, we now have
a problem. Title was introduced as early as the 1600’s,
the 17th century. There is a lot of pressure on the economy
of scale. History is not only the domain of historians
or academics anymore, it has become a tool or even a weapon in some cases. Ons het geen dokumentasiereg op die land nie.
[We do not have any documentation right to the land].
Die enigste reg wat ons het is die bakens. [The only rights we have are the landmarks.] The whole story is lost in the midst of time,
we have to reconstruct it. The land is for the people, you cannot deny
that. We remain a conquered nation because white
monopoly capital still owns the means of production and at the centre thereof is the land question.
We remain as we were even before 1994. It is only through the expropriation of land
without compensation that our people will be the rightful owners of this country. We
cannot keep on saying South Africa belongs to all who live in it, yet we have nothing
to show. To vote against this is a waste of time. We are already giving our people the
land and we are not ashamed of that. People of South Africa, where you see beautiful land,
take it, it belongs to you. CHAPTER 1
TARGETING BOERS After the implosion of the White Minority
Government and the advent of a national democracy in South Africa, the country has experienced
a fair amount of economic growth. The economic growth that followed as a result of South
Africa’s reintroduction into the international marketplace, is often attributed to the efficacy
of the ANC government, since the ANC happened to preside over the system that oversaw the
process. All the while the ANC insisted on enforcing a National Democratic Revolution
which implies an aggressive centralisation of power in the state, the erosion of private
property rights and a severe restriction on economic freedom. During the presidency of
Jacob Zuma and his deputy, Cyril Ramaphosa, the ANC declared that it was ready for a second
transition in the revolution. According to the ANC the first wave of its revolution was
the attainment of control of the state, while the second wave implied the utilisation of
state mechanisms to achieve the goals of the revolution, which would ultimately lead to
the creation of a socialist state in South Africa. This is pursued under the banner of
Radical Economic Transformation. When you study the history, you will understand
how it came about. If that is what you really believe, why not also apply it to other parts
of the world where white people came after the indigenous people that were already there,
like America? Do they really believe that white people in America should go back to
Europe, or white people in Australia? Do they think that is feasible? If they say no, why
apply it to the white people of South Africa? It is a fact that land should be returned
to those that are landless. White people who own land in South Africa
today are all beneficiaries of land theft, a crime against humanity that was committed
against our black ancestors. It is clear that white land will be redistributed
to the people. Many young people are migrating to urban cities. We must have the means to
expropriate land to enable them to reside on well-located land where they can walk to
work. Our people are in need of land where they
can build their homes and where they can farm and where they can also build facilities for
various amenities. A number of these places are strewn right across the length and breadth
of our country and some of them are in urban areas. It makes no sense to give land to people who
do not have the expertise, the training, the education to use the land. There has been
an attempt to take land and just give it to people who have no knowledge whatsoever. I think we must be careful when we talk about
history. Politicians love to give a one-sided view on history. They thrive on it. Our current
politicians love the idea that the whites came in and stole the land and now they must
give it back. This cuts deep into the emotions on both sides; on the side of the blacks,
who then look at you and think of you as having stolen their land; or on the side of the whites,
who are saying, you are calling me a thief. This is political rhetoric. It would be best
to shelve it and move away from it. The exposure to this type of thinking is constant, it carries
on and on. It is as if the world was created just a few minutes after the black man arrived
in Africa. What happened prior to that? This world is much older than the arrival of Jan
van Riebeeck. We know that Africans moved down from the northern part of Africa. This
is political rhetoric for short-term political gain. History is never as simple as that, it is
nuance. There are all kinds of stories attached to the land. Wherever you go in South Africa
and you delve deeply enough into history, you will find a different story. After the inauguration of President Cyril
Ramaphosa, parliament adopted a motion that the state should be empowered to expropriate
private property without compensation. The policy position was motivated by the underlying
notion that white people are illegitimate landowners and that white-owned land have
to be expropriated and transferred to black people. There are, however, three major problems
with this position: Firstly, it is an a-historic view that does not take cognisance of how
white landowners acquired their land; Secondly, it is based on a false presupposition of a
hunger for rural land among black people; Thirdly, while it is claimed that this position
would strengthen the economy, it is fundamentally based on the erosion of property rights, aggressive
state control and central planning over the economy, all of which have served as the ingredients
for the most catastrophic economic collapses of the 20th century. CHAPTER 2
RADICAL ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATION The South African term came to our shores
through the alliance between the African National Council and the South African Communist Party,
but the term has a cold-war sound to it, because it is in essence a revolution driven on the
basis of a class struggle that comes from a communist orientation, and it aims at overturning
the current economic structure and that is why the ANC and the SACP have for a very long
time promoted the nationalisation of the banks and the nationalisation of land. They mean a complete reorganisation of society
along the lines of their ideology, which has been in their DNA for some time now. It boils
down to centralising power in the hands of the state and directing their patterns of
property right distribution of human settlements across society. Radical Economic Transformation is part of
the ANC’s Marxist socialist agenda. It is nothing more than them wanting to increase
state ownership of resources, of land, of keynotes of the economy. Talk about radical
economic transformation is really code language for increased state control over the economy. You need a government that will be strong
and straight and who will push the socialist and communist kind of government to ensure
that the land and the economy of the country benefits the majority. When they say radical economic transformation,
they specifically want to zoom in on the economy, the distribution of ownership and even intervention
within specific companies, to organise how they manage their production processes and
how they link up with other companies. It is basically thinking of society in terms
of state direction of the economy based on old socialist ideas, some technocratic socialism,
as well as a strong dose of racial engineering. In South African Law you can only steal immovable
objects, so you cannot physically be convicted of the crime of stealing land. It is a term
often used by politicians with reference to the apartheid era, they mean the dispossession
and all that, but it is not physical stealing. So it is an unfortunate concept because it
has a political undertone, but it is not the correct legal term. The Constitution does not say you can take
this land without compensation, it actually says that it has to be done with compensation.
For instance, as government you can take land and make it available for building roads.
If you wanted to build roads, you can approach individuals and say we want a certain portion
of your land because we want to build a road here for general use of the people of the
country. Section 25 of the Constitution has what we
call a negative guarantee. It does not say that anyone is entitled to the property, it
says no one may be deprived of property except under a law of general application. So, if
you have property, it is protected to some extent. Agriculture is an economic process and one
should apply market principles to ensure one gets the best farmer to produce food for the
country. The ANC government has an ideological and political agenda and they use land as
a political tool to gain votes. It is very complicated, because at the end of the day
food security is at stake and you lose production value. In reality almost 95% of their not-even-aggressive
transfer of land is out of production at present. The government’s approach to this complicated
issue is irresponsible. The South African Government has adopted different
programmes as part of its land reform plan. The first is a programme of restitution, according
to which people whose ancestors or communities have been deprived of land, can file land
claims in order to receive compensation, either in the form of financial compensation or obtaining
the land. The second is a broad process of redistribution with the aim of enforcing equality
regarding landownership on a racial basis. This process involves government buying land
from white people in the open market and redistributing the land to black beneficiaries. The term
“redistribution”, however, is misleading and this process is followed regardless of how
white landowners obtained their land and whether any community was dispossessed of that land.
The second phase of the national democratic revolution imposes the ideology that land
shouldn’t be bought from white people, but expropriated without compensation. This is borne of a misunderstanding. Most
people who ask for land don’t want land because they want to farm – because to make money
out of land, you need a lot of training and education – a lot of our people who ask
for land want residential land, and that is different from wanting a farm. We do know cases where some, when offered
land over money, took the money. Yes, 93% of cases. Thabo Mbeki said that black people should
not be enticed to take the money, but rather take the land. 93% of them said we don’t want land, we want
money. 7% said yes, I would like the land. This is exactly the problem with this type
of thinking. We have the State President at the State of the Nation Address saying, we
are angry with you because you say you want money, we want you to want land. Don’t say
you want money, come back and say you want land. So they are prescribing to black people
how they should think. Which is correct. So they should prescribe to black people how
they should think? Yes. The ANC thinking is grounded in Marxist-Leninist
Soviet-style thinking, obviously softened and tempered for a 21st century social democracy
age. The other country that the ANC really likes to look at these days is China. The
ANC looks at these countries and take the wrong lessons from China and Soviet Russia.
It forms the intellectual bedrock of the ANC policy. If you could layer over that tribal
feudal thinking where land is controlled by chiefs and people who live on tribal land
with no specific individual property rights ownership, that notion dovetails nicely with
notions of communism and a lack of private property ownership and guides the ANC in the
direction of disregarding the importance of private property rights. The ANC does not
like decentralised power, it wants centralised power, centralised control, it wants to make
decisions. When you read their strategy and tactics documents, the goal is more and more
state control with clean communism rather than corrupt communism, but I believe that
communism ultimately tends to be corrupt communism because you create the perfect environment
for corruption when you institute a system of centralised state control. When you read
about how it thinks about the country, it sees South Africa as a big social experiment
and it sees ordinary people on the ground as subjects to be experimented upon. This
is consistent with Marxist-Leninist thinking, of totalitarian thinking, that society is
the social experiment for the intellectual and political elite to experiment upon. In rural areas, particularly the former homelands,
we have land in communal ownership, which is formally vested in the traditional tribal
authorities, but where ordinary individuals only have customary use rights. They have
plots which have been allocated to their families, sometimes for generations, which they have
the right to use. But it is an informal right with no legal title which means that they
are vulnerable to having the land taken from them and reallocated to someone else by the
traditional leader. It is a very powerful indication that if you want prosperity, you
must protect property rights as part of economic freedom in the real sense, not the sort of
distortion that Julius Malema and the Economic Freedom Fighters here are trying to portray
as the essence of economic freedom. To do anything productive, you need a place
to do it. In that sense we need space and land and property. That forms the means of
production, that is how we produce and build wealth. So a lot of land is very important
to the wealth-creation process. The problem is that land has come to be seen as the sole
means and mechanism of wealth creation and that is an erroneous understanding, a false
understanding of the importance of land in the economic process. This concept is unfortunately
being sold in South Africa as a solution to poverty, wealth and equality and it is not
a constructive approach to the problem at hand. There are far more important things
to fix in the political economy of South Africa to enhance people’s prospects, to raise incomes,
to create employment and the like. CHAPTER 3
OBTAINING LAND 55% of South Africa is water scarce to the
extent that pastoralists would not be able to survive on it. We often make a terrible
mistake of judging what is going on now and then trying to superimpose it on the past.
That is a fundamental blunder. If one looks at the first national census for South Africa,
the total country population was only 6 million. Think of the increase from 6 million to 55
million. The different Bantu-speaking tribes originated
in Cameroon and moved down towards the Great Lakes Region, splitting into two groups: one
went towards Namibia and the other via Mozambique into Southern Africa. This occurred around
300 AD. It was a very sporadic event. There is no history to prove why they came.
Whatever people wrote about that migration, is speculation. Perhaps they clashed with
other tribes or became overpopulated in certain countries in Central Africa. Before the white
people came, most of these tribes did not settle permanently on one piece of land, they
moved about because the land was there. The languages of tribes that came down and
went east of the Drakensberg mutated into what we call Nguni today, and those who went
west into the Sotho languages. That migration didn’t happen overnight, it
could have taken three centuries of gradually moving south. The Xhosa people, the Nguni
tribe, arrived in the Cape, more or less where the Fish River is today, not long before the
white people arrived in South Africa. So when the whites started moving up the east coast,
they met the black people more or less at the Fish River. The black people probably
arrived in the Eastern Cape in the mid-16th century. They found other Africans, the Khoi and the
San, living here. These people occupied the territories known today as KZN, Free State,
Lesotho, all these territories going that way. Most tribes settled on the east coast; the
west coast was mainly inhabited by the Khoi and the San. In retrospect they might now
say the land did belong to us, but they did not have formal landownership as we know it
today. Most of the white people respected that the land between the mountain and the
sea, or between the mountain and the river, belonged to the Zulu, but the individuals
amongst the Zulu – and all the tribes in Africa – didn’t see themselves as owning
that land, the tribe owned it. It was communal landownership in the name of the king. The Khoisan people are the indigenous people
of Southern Africa. The Bantu-speaking people moved southwards, they had iron-age technology,
which was much more advanced than the stone-age technology of the Khoisan. After various conflicts
with the Bantu-speaking people, the Khoisan were dispersed throughout the rest of the
country. They moved into the mountainous and semi-desert areas. Ek kan niks amptelik praat nie. [I cannot
say anything officially.] Hier moet ek praat uit ‘n pyn en hartseer.
[Here I must speak from pain and sorrow.] As ek my amptelikheid het, moet ek myself
kan help. [If I have my officiality, I must be able to help myself.]
Ek moet na my mense se behoeftes kan omsien. [I must be able to look after the needs of
my people.] Ek moet na hulle boodskap kan luister. [I
must be able to listen to their message.] Ek moet by hulle huise kan ingaan. [I must
be able to call at their houses.] Ek moet na hulle toestand kan sien. [I must
be able to look after their condition.] Maar ek is ‘n vreemdeling in my eie land.
[But I am a stranger in my own country.] Wat word van my kinders? [What becomes of
my children.] Wat word van my kleinkinders? [What becomes
of my grandchildren.] Wat word van my volk? [What becomes of my
people?.] Wat word van die Boesman-gemeenskap? [What
becomes of the Bushman community.] Wat word van hulle kulturele regte? [What
becomes of their cultural rights.] Wat word van hulle grondregte? [What becomes
of their land rights.] Ons is onder ‘n skerm, ons word toegemaak.
[We are under a screen, we are covered.] Die administrateur is bo. Die hof is bo. [The
administrator is above. The court is above.] Prokureurs is langsaan. Ons is die voetvelle.
[Lawyers are on the side. We are the doormats.] Hulle praat mooi boodskappe aan die węreld,
wat ‘n leuen is. [They give pretty messages to the world, which are lies.]
Grond is die fondament van die Boesman. [Land is the foundation of the Bushman.]
Grond is die testament van die Boesman. [Land is the testament of the Bushman.]
Grond is die woning van die Boesman. [Land is the dwelling of the Bushman.]
Grond is die land van die Boesman en hy respekteer dit. [Land is the soil of the Bushman and
he respects it.] Kom ons lieg nie. [Let’s not lie.] They were pushed into that arid part of the
land by the blacks and later the whites. The blacks slaughtered them – and there are
various references about how the black people treated the Khoi and the San, especially the
San – and also the white people when they arrived. The Khoi and the San generally were nomadic.
They moved from place to place and enjoyed the prosperity and fertile territory. When
we arrived in these big formations, they were driven out of there, defeated, taken over;
many of them were incorporated, but many others ran away. No human being would have chosen
to live in dry territories like the Kalahari when there was a whole territory with plenty
of water. We began to dispossess them and take these territories. The Bantu sections
were the second arrival, not the first and original arrival. The Dutch East India Company was founded in
the Netherlands. Their main aim was to establish trade with the East to import spices, fabrics
and the like to Europe. They wanted to establish a refreshment station at the Cape of Good
Hope. The Suez Canal had not been built at that stage and it was long way around the
Cape to reach the East. The very first white people that landed here
were not even coming to South Africa, they were going to the East Indies for other purposes. The journey to the Cape from Europe took about
three months, so they needed fresh food, fresh water and a place to tend their sick. In 1652
the Dutch East India Company sent Jan van Riebeeck to establish this refreshment station. Before this advent, there was no title. You
couldn’t say this is my farm. No land was bought and sold. People just settled on the
land and moved when they wanted to move. With the introduction of title that came from the
feudal system in Europe, people then started this process. The Dutch East India Company had laws preventing
the enslavement of local people at their refreshment stations or trading posts. However, in 1658
they imported a boatload of slaves. In ancient history Greek enslaved Greek, Roman
enslaved Roman. If you owed me money and we were both Romans or Greeks, I could sell you
into slavery to get my money. Slavery had nothing to do with racism, it started as a
system. They found that these are Africans like us, but they are not like us, they speak
in a manner different from us, for instance, Ba Borwa of the south. So the Bantu-speaking
factions of the population arrived here in bigger formations. We made bigger and better
weapons than them. The fundamental schism in South Africa in
those days would have been between two groups, the hunter gatherers and the pastoralists.
The evidence shows that they were in conflict right from the word go. This caused terrific
difficulties between the San and the Khoi-Khoi and later between the San and the black African
groups that had moved down from Central Africa, who were not going to tolerate hunters poaching
their livestock. There was war between different tribes in
this country before the advent of whites. There was a period in our history called Difaqane,
a generalised war, where some tribes defeated other tribes and took them over and took their
property. As the settlement expanded towards the east,
the need for land increased. Eventually white settlers, who would later become known as
the Boers or the Afrikaners, met with Xhosa settlers on the eastern frontier. Initially
a border was created between the Boers and the Xhosas, but the border was disregarded
by both parties resulting in eight border wars between white and black settlers. The settlers living on the eastern frontier
were mainly from Dutch and German descent. They came with the Dutch East India Company
and had a very specific culture different to the British. Hendrik Biebouw was the first
European to actively associate himself with Africa instead of Europe in 1707 already.
The 17-year-old boy was running through the streets of Stellenbosch being chased by the
magistrate because he had been unruly. When the magistrate attempted to give him a hiding,
he shouted, “But you are not allowed to hit me, ik ben een Afrikander”, meaning “I am
an Afrikaner”. He saw himself superior to the magistrate who was Dutch born while he
was South African born. This was a watershed moment, because a group of people had now
actively started associating themselves with Africa. People from Europe who settled in Africa,
decided to turn their backs on Europe and turn towards Africa. They did not see their
future in Europe, but saw themselves as Africans. It is now a few hundred years later and Afrikaners
have been here for many generations, but it is unfortunate that some people are still
not regarding Afrikaners as Africans. In the early 19th century a severe power struggle
ensued amongst different black tribes in Southern Africa, which eventually resulted in what
had become known as the Mfecane or Difaqane. This was mainly the result of the expansionist
wars by Zulu King Shaka and the reign of Mzilikazi, chief of the Ndelebe, also known as the Matabele.
By 1815 a wave of destruction, unmatched in South African history, was released. The Zulus had a lot of fights with different
tribes. You may name them, but there were so many tribes that fought with the Zulus.
But the Zulus emerged and they won all the wars. Mzilikazi came to the fore as one of the generals
of Shaka. Shaka sent him on an expedition against the Sotho to the interior to raid
cattle. He returned and Shaka then asked tribute of them, he wanted some of the cattle, but
Mzilikazi challenged Shaka’s authority. Shaka sent two expeditions against him with the
second one finally resulting in Mzilikazi fleeing northwards, taking about 300 of his
men with him. As he fled northwards, he conquered other tribes and incorporated them into his
own tribe. By 1830 he occupied and he ruled over almost the entire area north of the Vaal
River. He was a very powerful warrior with large tracts of land under his control. By
the end of Mfecane, which lasted more than a decade, it is believed that only the Venda
remained in their original position. The rest of the tribes had been dispersed, some fleeing
as far north as Tanzania and Zambia to get away from the carnage. Up to 2 million people
were killed during these wars, a significant number of the people living in Southern Africa
at that stage. During the 1911 census there were only 4 million black people in South
Africa. The Cape was annexed by the British in 1795
which initiated friction between the Boers and the British that would last for more than
a century. The subsequent colonisation of the Cape by the British was one of the many
factors that led to the Great Trek of 1838. The Voortrekkers then sent the Commission
Trek into the interior to assess the situation. They found vast open spaces left open as a
result of the Mfecane tribal wars that caused people to flee the central parts of South
Africa. Three Commission Treks left the Cape. Their
main aim was to establish if there was open land for a viable settlement for the people
wanting to move out of the Cape colony. The one in Natal was significant as it was led
by Piet Uys. Upon arrival in Natal, he negotiated with Dingane for a piece of land between the
Tugela and the Umzimvubu Rivers where they intended to settle. Dingane actually agreed
to this at that early stage. Upon his return he communicated this to other potential Voortrekkers
and that is why they chose Natal initially. Retief was the first democratically elected
leader in Southern Africa as he was the first governor elected by the Voortrekkers. In this
position he went to Dingane in Natal to ask him for the piece of land that Piet Uys had
originally agreed with Dingane, to establish the Republic of the Voortrekkers. Dingane
agreed on condition that he recovered his cattle from Sekonyela who had raided his kraal.
Piet Retief complied, they sent an expedition and recovered the cattle and some extra for
Dingane. Upon their return, Dingane signed the treaty that they could occupy the piece
of land between the Tugela and Umzimvubu Rivers. A couple of days later Dingane ordered his
warriors to kill the whole delegation. They had them tied and beaten to death while Piet
Retief watched. He was the last to be killed. A few months later the delegation’s remains
and a saddle bag containing the treaty between Dingane and Piet Retief were found. Both parties
had signed it, so it meant that that area of land was officially the property of the
Voortrekkers. Shortly after Retief’s murder, Dingane sent about 67,000 of his warriors
out to exterminate all the Voortrekkers within the boundaries of Natal. They attacked at
night and killed more than 500 people in that single night, most of them women and children
and the servants that accompanied the Voortrekkers on the Great Trek. After the murders of Retief and the massacres
at Bloukrans and Weenen, Andries Pretorius was elected to replace Retief as leader. Pretorius’s
commando of 464 found themselves surrounded by a Zulu army of about 12,000 men. Against
all odds, the Zulu army was defeated at the Battle of Blood River after which the Voortrekkers
went on to establish the Republic of Natalia based on the treaty between Retief and King
Dingane. As the events unfolded on Retief and Pretorius’s expedition in Natal, another
trek under the leadership of Hendrik Potgieter, was attacked by the Ndebele of Mzilikazi.
The attack was averted at the Battle of Vechtkop. Potgieter, along with a number of supporting
black tribes who had been displaced by Mzilikazi, then entered Mzilikazi’s territory to initiate
a counter-attack. Potgieter, along with some of the other black
chiefs that were dispersed due to Mzilikazi’s wars, sent out an expedition and dispersed
the Ndebele who then had to flee. So the Voortrekkers were, by right of conquest, the new owners
of this area of land. Hendrik Potgieter then allowed the allies who fought on his side,
to occupy the land they had previously held north of the Transvaal that Mzilikazi had
sent them away from. So the Voortrekkers, along with many of the black tribes, fought
against a tyrant who killed their families and caused them to leave their homelands. In our tradition, if you are conquered, then
that land belongs to me. Even your people belongs to me. If I come and fight you and
I conquer you, then you must know I am taking over that land and I am taking over your people,
you must follow me wherever I go. I will be a ruler there because you were defeated. That
was how it worked a long time ago. White people knew that this part of the land
was occupied by a certain tribe, but because the black people did not have a concept of
owning land, they didn’t see it as a permanent arrangement. All over Europe and the world
the land that they then took was seen as spoils of war, it was yours. You won the war, you
take it. It happened in Europe, in America, and even in Australia. The Matabele today
don’t live in South Africa anymore, they moved to the Limpopo River into Zimbabwe, which
they conquered from the Shonas who lived there before. All Hendrik Potgieter’s allies in his war
against Mzilikazi received their land back. One of the groups even received the great
stretch of land from Taung to modern-day Mafikeng. To say that all the land was taken by conquests,
is absolutely untrue. If is only certain areas of South Africa and it is a minority of the
land.. Ironically, today just about all of it is under land claims now. After the conclusion of the Great Trek, the
Voortrekkers established several republics. This included the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek,
which was also known as the Transvaal Republic and the Republic of the Orange Free State.
These republics were, however, soon targeted as a result of the British expansionism which
led to the First Anglo Boer War in 1880. Within four months the British were defeated by the
Boers. The Second Anglo Boer War was declared in 1899, but this time on a much larger scale.
After the British captured the capitals of the Transvaal Republic as well as the Republic
of the Orange Free State, the Boers resorted to guerrilla warfare, resulting in several
decisive victories in the field. In response, the British initiated the scorched-earth policy
through which Boer farms were burnt to the ground. The wives and children of Boers, as
well as thousands of black people, were captured and sent to concentration camps, where tens
of thousands died an agonising death. As a result, more women and children were killed
during the Second Anglo Boer War than Boer and British soldiers combined. After the British
victory, the Union of South Africa was formed in 1910 with the unification of the various
British colonies and Boer Republics. The Union of South Africa was an internal, self-governing,
autonomous dominium of the British Empire. The controversial Natives Land Act was introduced
in 1913. The big mistake that was made in the 1913
Land Act, was to make it so rigid. It allowed ownership in certain areas for certain race
groups only. As a black you could own land, but only in certain places, and as a white
the same applied. The problem was it was not flexible enough to cope with an enormous growth
in population. It is a fact that on more than 30% of South
Africa’s land surface it is impossible to survive without the necessary technology to
dig boreholes for life-giving water, and land reform activists are therefore falsely arguing
that black people occupied 100% of South Africa’s surface before the arrival of white people.
In line with this reasoning, it is widely believed that the Natives Land Act of 1913
resulted in large-scale dispossessions and forced removals of black people in order to
move them to areas that comprised only 13% of South Africa’s surface. What is not said,
however, is that the Beaumont Commission found at the time that the black people occupied
only about 12% of South Africa’s surface and that the areas that were designated to black
tribes, according to the 1913 Land Act, were largely a reflection of where black people
already resided. Another controversial piece of legislation was the Group Areas Act of
1950 which was built on the provisions of the 1913 Act. This act was championed by the
Minister of Native Affairs, Hendrik Verwoerd, who later became the South African Prime Minister. Many people say that Verwoerd was the architect
of Apartheid, but it is a very simplistic way of looking at Verwoerd. I think Verwoerd
was a philosopher. He had an ideal that he wanted to reach and this ideal was to establish
a country very much like Europe, the make-up of different countries with borders next to
each other, but they had different cultures, different languages and in each country people
could develop along their own lines. Verwoerd had the same dream for South Africa. He wanted
to enable the different groups in South Africa to be governed by their own people, to study
in their own languages and develop along their own lines of their own cultures. So Verwoerd’s
idea was not necessarily to separate the races because he saw one group as inferior to the
other, he wanted to separate the races because he wanted them to be able to develop to their
utmost potential within their own communities. A process of forced dispossessions and transferrals
was initiated in the 20th century, which many regard as the most controversial act of the
white minority government. This process made provision for the creation of a variety of
nation states for different tribes in South Africa. This was motivated by the government
as a push for the improvement of living conditions and the establishment of self-determination
for different people. While it is often argued by land reform activists that these dispossessions
were merely a form of government brutality and oppression, an investigation into the
history of these dispossessions reveal that the true picture is much more complicated.
A set of minimum requirements was developed by the state which had to be complied with
before any such programme could be initiated. These included the sufficient establishment
of water supply, sanitary facilities, housing at a certain minimum standard, medical clinics,
school facilities, grocery stores, access to roads. New towns to which black urban groups
were moved, were developed into semi-independent border towns in white areas, with the goal
of allowing black workers to commute to work. Newly established black areas and border towns
presided over all the facilities provided to white areas and was largely an improvement
on the areas from which they were moved. Black people were also compensated during these
dispossessions. Land that was in private black ownership was bought and compensation was
paid for alterations to the property. While it is often argued that no notice of dispossession
was given to black people, an investigation again revealed that history was not that simple.
As an alternative to written notices, meetings were organised with local communities and
committees were established on which local stakeholders could serve in order to assist
with the process. After the dispossession, new committees were established with local
stakeholders as a measure to ensure the necessary communication channels in order to find solutions
to problems which arose as a result of the dispossession. Housing and food were provided
to those affected. In 1960 Verwoerd initiated a referendum which led to South Africa departing
from the British Commonwealth, steering it to become the Republic of South Africa. The
Anti-Apartheid Movement, however, kept gaining ground after the banning of various anti-apartheid
movements under the Suppression of Communism Act of 1950. After a fierce power struggle
between rival organisations, the African National Congress, backed by the Soviet Union, was
able to establish itself as a de facto representative of black people and became the impersonation
of the struggle to bring the apartheid system to a fall. The system imploded in 1990 when
President FW de Klerk revoked the banning of the ANC and other communist-aligned organisations,
effectively signalling the end of apartheid. There first non-racial national democratic
election took place in 1994, leading to the advent of ANC rule in South Africa. CHAPTER 4
OWNERSHIP In 1996 the Department of Land Affairs said
that the government controlled 26% of the land in the country. It was taking account
of the land which had been owned by the state itself, which was about 12% in 1994. It was
also taking account of the land in the homelands, which was always about 13% of South Africa’s
land area. That was land which had always been controlled by the traditional authorities
and ultimately vested in the state. So it still ultimately was state land. That immediately
brought it up to 25%. They thought 26%, taking account of various other factors, and if you
added the municipal land, subsequently put at about 2 million hectares, the overall amount
was probably about 27% in 1996. The next land audit that came out in 2013 said that the
state had only 14% of South Africa’s land area, which was a very odd figure, because
somehow they had seemed to have dropped all the state land that used to be owned and a
lot of the homelands land. If anything, they were talking only about the land which had
been in the homelands and not about the land which had been in state ownership. A very
strange figure. More recently they brought out another land audit, which was to look
at privately owned land and they looked at the deeds registry in particular as a source
of information and then they assigned a racial ownership where they could, using data held
by other government agencies. They also came to the conclusion that about 61% of land in
South Africa is owned by companies and by various forms of collective ownership, and
that it is not possible to assign a racial identity to these sorts of organisations.
So they would only look at privately owned land owned by individuals. So their land audit
immediately left out about 61% of privately owned land in the country, which is a major
problem and which the ANC keeps failing to acknowledge when it talks about the results
of that land audit. In relation to commercial farmland it said that black South Africans
owned 4% of that. It is difficult to know whether that is accurate, it is a shockingly
low figure, but it may also reflect the fact that it has been the ANC’s policy for many
years to make sure that black people would not obtain private title to land. If it is
restitution land, it has gone to communal property associations or traditional authorities.
If it is redistribution land, it is mostly being held by the state. So naturally the
figure for privately owned black land is lower than it might be if the government had not
had policies of this kind. The biggest flaw is that we simply don’t know about the racial
ownership of 61% of the land in the country. AgriSA had also compiled figures which painted
a very different picture and they did assign a racial identity to companies and trusts
and so on, and they did so primarily by looking at surnames and geographical information and
they were cautious, they had said if they could not be clear that this was black ownership,
then they assigned it to white ownership. And on that basis they came to the conclusion
that black ownership of land which is owned or controlled by the government or previously
disadvantaged individuals, amounts to 27% of the land in South Africa on the whole.
But if you look also at land potential, what is the most valuable land in the country in
terms of its carrying capacity, the well-watered land in the eastern seaboard, which for obvious
reasons had always been the land the most held and occupied by Africans, then it goes
up to about 47%, which is held either by the State or previously disadvantaged individuals.
That is likely to be a more accurate figure, but it had been discounted by the government,
particularly now in the debate about whether we need the expropriation without compensation.
It obviously serves the government’s purposes to focus on the 4% of commercial farmland
in black ownership and to discount all the many problems in that figure. CHAPTER 5
THE ISSUE OF HUNGER In my experience through the years of handling
land claims, I came to the conclusion that more than 90% of the beneficiaries don’t make
a success of the farming, simply because they should not have been granted a piece of land. Die land gaan lamgelę word. [This country
will be paralysed.] Ek het hier met hulle gepraat in 2003. [I
spoke to them here in 2003.] Toe vra ek, “Meneer, jy gee vir daai man 10
skape, het daai man enige landbou- ondervinding en -kennis?” [And I asked, “Sir, you gave
that man ten sheep. Does that man have any agricultural experience and knowledge?”]
Nee, maar ek verstaan nie, die geld gaan vir die armes van die armstes. [No, but you don’t
understand, the money goes to the poorest of the poor.]
Ek vra, meneer, het daai man landboukennis? (I asked, “Sir, does that man have agricultural
knowledge?”] Toe die man daai tien skape ontvang, toe slag
hy twee daai tyd, hy vat twee, hy verkoop dit vir kanne wyn, en hy maak vuur en hy braai
vleis. (When that man received the ten sheep, he slaughtered two, he took two and sold them
for cans of wine and he made a fire and barbequed the meat.]
By die einde van die week is al tien klaar verkoop. [By the end of the week all ten were
sold.] Toe is daar niks meer nie. [Then there was
nothing left.] We are dealing with a very different country
today than back in say 1913. The country is now urbanised. Soon 75% of our population
is going to be living in our metropolitan collective urban areas. 75% of the population
will therefore not be able to produce enough food to sustain themselves. We have to look
at how we are going to attain a rural sector that can actually produce sufficient food
for the urban sector of this country. It is absolutely imperative that whatever land reform
initiatives government wants to use to carry out their constitutional duty, they balance
that with the necessary production to keep their urban areas alive. If they don’t, the
country will be plunged into anarchy anyway. I don’t think that there is any real hunger
for farming land. There is a great need for housing to be made available in the urban
areas, but that is a different debate. The ANC has for a long time been seeking to use
the land injustices of the past as a wedge issue to get closer to achieving an objective
very close to its heart, which is to eliminate existing property rights. But from the land
the ANC can move to many other types of property, and there is also a fundamental, really fraudulent
claim at the heart of the ANC’s promise of redress, because when it says it is going
to expropriate without compensation so as to give land back to the people, what it really
says is that the state will end up as the owner of all that land and it is the ANC’s
policy not to give black people title to land. So they have nothing with which they can go
to the banks for collateral, which sets them up even more for failure, and this explains,
at least in part, why so many of the land reform projects have failed. When the ANC
says it really cares about returning land to the people, that it wants to provide them
redress for past injustices, it is simply a cloak that’s being thrown over its intention
to give the state ownership and control of land in South Africa, and perhaps from land,
any number of other property as well. CHAPTER 6
TO BE A FARMER I realise that this is a journey. I just came
into farming, not realising that there’s a challenge after all. I am struggling to stand
on my feet on a commercial level, that is why I am now trying to diverge in a way, but
it is hard. All in all I am a fulltime farmer. I have everything here, but the link with
our government is not very conducive. I’m struggling with implements in particular.
Government is trying to help, but different people with different programmes. They will
give a tractor to someone who does not have an agricultural ideal. You are killing the
esteem of other farmers who are emerging around the place. You are killing my perseverance.
Last year I nearly dropped this and went back to taxis. But now I see that the government
is trying to lend me and I’ve received grants, but it wasn’t the full package of grants.
I was supposed to get the diesel, seeds, chemicals, herbicide stuff and fertilizer. I only received
two things, the diesel and the seed. The rest, they say the government doesn’t have money. In our case it is the department, they came
to the community, they came to the people, they promised people things they could not
do. So in the end we, as committees, end up failing the projects. People think we are
failing them, but we are failed by the department. We identified the challenge of land reform
some 15 years back as something that needs to happen but in a controlled environment.
We got involved in land reform to achieve it on our own terms and not on terms that
had been forced down on us by politicians. We felt it was important to continue and persevere
for the benefit of our children, because if we could not find an environment where all
communities could prosper together, there was not going to be a future. In 2007 we were
approached by some fellow farmers who had a project that they were working on and contemplating,
but they couldn’t fill in the business side, and being an agricultural economist by education,
a farmer by calling, they asked our involvement and we put together a business model which
we felt had a sustainable future. I’m here on a farm, it’s communal property.
Everybody of this community is a beneficiary. It is a headache farming near a community.
I’m on a farm, it is vandalised, I’m willing to upgrade, I cannot. I am too near the community,
I cannot run things. Crime happened to me, I lost 1,000 litres of diesel the previous
season, and I sold two heifers to buy other diesel. So that’s a drawback. It may sometimes
be better if you got the help in getting farms to hire. Agriculture doesn’t get any subsidies from
the government, except for a smallish subsidy on diesel, so you need to be profitable. With
the decline in the value of our currency, it is very difficult. You gain on exports,
but the rand is strengthening at present and it makes it unbelievably difficult. Here I’ve got a National Development Profile
from the government. I will receive seeds, then I will receive help to farm. It has been
five years since I’ve applied for a farm. Here is my brand mark, after I started to
buy my six Simbrahs, the letter from Agriculture and Forestry officials for marking. This is
a contract proposal for me that I am using now. Wian Coetzee, the man who is mentoring
me and helping me, what I am, is because of that man. He is a white man, but he is helping
the poor farmers around me. Government shouldn’t be involved, because
government doesn’t know how to run farms. They should leave farms to people who know
how to run it. Everything we are doing is successful, not because we know better, but
because we have commercial farmers from Melmoth helping us. We are not doing it on our own.
When we got the farm, we had nothing, we didn’t know where to start. Our nkosi went and found
us help. When the department came, they promised us legal and other help, but they attended
only two meetings and then they vanished. If our kids grow up believing in the same
things we do, continue the relationships we have with the commercial farmers, we will
have the successful generation. We have a transformation programme to uplift
Coligny and Tlhabologang. For the past three years roleplayers have been planning the rehabilitation
of the environment and the unlocking of the potential around Coligny. Getting the 12,000
hectares of agricultural land into production will make a difference to our community. The
obstacle now is that nobody wants to become involved or really knows why the government
system is not working. They want more land in South Africa, but why not unlock the potential
on the 12,000 hectares they already have? CHAPTER 7
go back into South Africa’s history, people would not have had title deeds or pieces of
paper that were registered in the deeds office, but if they occupied, homesteaded, fenced
off and worked a particular piece of land that was identifiably and self-evidently theirs,
then that was their land. And if that land was forcibly taken from them, if they were
removed from that land unjustly, and if that can be proven, then that is a legitimate land
claim. An illegitimate land claim is some general territory of land that was unoccupied,
that was unhomesteaded, where they have not fenced it off, protected it, worked it, mixed
their labour with it, that kind of land cannot just be claimed as owned. One doesn’t arrive
at a huge piece of land and claim simply by verbal declaration, you actually have to go
and claim land and you have to go and work that land and prove that it is yours by homesteading
it, protecting it and working that land. What about all the available land owned by
the state. If you put that together, there is more than enough land available to satisfy
the demand. It is one of the complete grey areas in the
country but it does seem very ironic that race classification was one of the most iniquitous
racially discriminatory laws for which South Africa was pilloried right across the world,
and yet we still have an informal system of race classification. By now race classification
could be something which no young South African person has any knowledge of, something which
was done to their parents but that has completely fallen away. Most privately owned commercial farms of both
black and white commercial farmers, are huge successes. These farms create food security
in the country and give us food to feed our people. However, according to the Minister
of Agriculture himself, 95% of farms expropriated or bought by government fail. There are a
number of reasons for this, but within only a few years there would be a huge deterioration
in those farms and almost no productivity. It is astonishing to see farms next to each
another; on the one side of the road you see the successful farm with massive productivity,
and across the road a farm taken by government, a dismal failure. The paradox is evident. Probably no more than 1% or 2% of land transferred
so far is successfully utilised. The Makgoba people lost their land before 1914, but the
government was still prepared to compensate them or give them land. A large stretch of
land owned by the tea company was made available and millions of rand went into that project.
Nothing came of it. There are so many examples of failures. Government should understand that the present
commercial farmers are more than willing to assist black farmers coming into business,
but they need to reassess the structure on how to be successful. Once cannot just put
a person on the land and he will be successful. It took me ten years before I was in a position
to go to my father to say I am ready to purchase your farm. There are two sides to this: where black farmers
buy the land themselves and apply the production factors correctly to ensure that sustainable
production methods are used on those farms, they are successful. Market principles are
the decisive criteria on whether the farmer will be a farmer or not. Where government
gets involved and transfers the land to people who are not applying the agricultural methods
correctly, you have failures. That is what we experience in South Africa today. The Minister of Land Affairs has admitted
that as much as 95% of the land reform projects have failed. Half the problem of our current
land reform scheme is that we never ever pick the right beneficiaries. Restitution is giving back to those who were
unfairly dispossessed, you give them their land. The government of today must correct
the mistakes of the government that went before, and that is why the Constitution says you
must compensate if you take that land as government. You must do that. Redistribution means you
will now give land not only to one faction, you open it up, anybody who wants to have
land, can have it. It is not a question to say, I am Mr Ngwenya and I must be given land
because I am a black. That is apartheid in reverse. It is exactly what we were fighting
to get rid of. Redistribution is a political concept grounded
in socialism and aimed at political goals rather than goals of justice, whereas restitution,
is aimed at goals of justice. People are starving, people need employment.
These two issues are very sensitive. Land that was claimed by claimants is lying unused.
That land was very productive before it was given to our people, but we did not have implementation.
When it comes to land expropriation, we see a lot of unused land. We cannot decrease the
value of the land because of expropriation without compensation. They are not even going
to have the food they are talking about. When people hear of that, they will grab any land
and at the same time loot that land. That cannot bring any peace or any development,
because our people are not trained to be the farmers. They need to be trained how to farm.
There are skilful people who can farm, but not enough. At the moment the government is taking the
land and it goes to the government. That was never part of the land reform schemes of the
past and will never succeed. They have to back their beneficiaries. When you pick the
right guy, you must give him the land. You cannot top him up every year because he thinks
he can’t survive, he must learn how to survive. That’s the only way you can do land reform
in practice and expect it to work. There is no other way. The Free Market Foundation has done some good
analyses and work on township title deeds and it would seem that by and large township
property structures are basically still apartheid-era property structures, which means that people
do not own their properties in townships because they don’t have title deeds. Because the ANC
has such low regard for private property, this has never been a priority of the present
administration, which is astonishing as there are millions of people who occupy, and have
occupied for many years, land and property within townships, who should own that land.
It is rightfully theirs, they’ve owned and occupied it for many years and no one else
has a particular claim on that land. The Free Market Foundation has done some great work
to help township dwellers get title deeds to their properties. This is a great step
forward in land restitution, land justice in South Africa, and it gets rid of an apartheid-era
policy. It is the old status mindset. Even Jean-Jacques
Rousseau in his French Revolution had the idea that the government is a popular government
and it represents the people. That becomes the actionable organisation in society. If
you give something to the people, it means you give it to the state. If the state does
something, then the state says, no actually the people did it. So, it is absolutely not
in government’s plan to give land back to private title holders and communities, it
is to maintain power over that land and have it seated within the domain of the state. CHAPTER 8
THE WAY FORWARD I firmly believe that you don’t change perception
with facts – you can put all the facts on the table, you will never change that; you
change a perception with another perception. As soon as you change perceptions with perceptions,
the people coming into business will be successful. The minute you centralise power, your scope
for corruption increases dramatically and a corrupt system is guaranteed to perpetuate
inequality. It is easy to evaluate history from your modern
perspective. We look at things differently because we have a different set of values
and different factors influencing our lives today. When you look at history, you must
understand where those individuals who made certain decisions came from, or why certain
things happened. Geld, nasionale status, politieke mag, politieke
beheptheid, as daai drie bymekaarkom en hulle baklei met mekaar, dan maak hulle ‘n plan
om te keer dat die waarheid moet uitkom. [Money, national status, political power, political
obsession, if those three come together and fight with each other, then they make a plan
to prevent the truth from coming out.] We still have to educate and train large numbers
of black children in this country to enable them to ask for land from the government and
to work it, produce and contribute to food and, like anybody else, own as much land as
they can work. The ANC should already tell from their obsession
with race that so-called white commercial farmers are not the enemy, they want to make
a contribution to give access to farming opportunities through various communities. The entrepreneurial skills among the black
people are huge. What support do they get to grow their businesses? We use them but
they hardly get any support from government to develop their entrepreneurial skills to
become very competitive in those environments. Land and focusing on skewed landownership
and whites as the problem, completely distracts attention from the ANC’s own failures in government
over so many years. It promised black South Africans a better life for all back in 1994,
and yet it failed on some of its most important responsibilities, to improve the schooling
system, to improve health care, to ensure that we have a rapidly expanding economy,
to ensure that we have jobs in the sort of numbers that we need. All of these failures
of governance are now being drowned out by the focus on land, the possibility of redress,
which is a false promise, so the ANC as the state can own and control the land. Whether
this is a good or a bad thing, it now has almost the entire attention of the media and
one wonders how easy it will be for opposition parties to get a hearing on the ANC’s failures
of governance in the run-up to the next election. It will be very difficult for black and white
people to live together because the black nation is becoming more frustrated and more
depressed every day and the cause for their depression and frustration is that they are
inactive in the economy. We are sitting on a ticking time bomb which might explode at
any time if the issue of land is not resolved. Sometimes the question is, what is the right
way to solve a problem? We can have a debate and everybody can propose something and some
may lead to a better outcome. It would be easier to ask, what should be stopped? Sometimes
the action suggested to solve a problem, may actually worsen the situation. Even if you
don’t have a better action, just stopping the current action may already lead to a better
situation. The great irony is that until we actually
move beyond the land question and deal with it specifically, it will be a deadweight on
the economy. It is easy for us to judge someone living
in the Middle Ages for believing the earth is flat, but those were the biggest thinkers
of their time and even that fact could have changed because of technological advancements.
We should not judge people throughout the history of South Africa through our modern
lens. We have new opinions and we have new ideas and new influences. We should rather
try to look at the world through their eyes and only then can we really have an idea of
what life was like and why certain decisions were made and certain things took place. Die Boesman is skuldig teenoor sy volkere
in sy land. [The Bushman is indebted to his people and his land.]
Vrede, liefde harmonie, gelykheid. [Peace, love, harmony, equality.]
En ons vandag sit met korrupsie, diefstal, verkragting, moord. Ons land is siek. [Today
we sit with corruption, theft, rape, murder. Our country is diseased.]
Ek sou die land saam met hulle wou bestuur. [I would’ve wanted to manage the country with
them.] Ek, as Boesman, sou nooit ‘n witman, ‘n bruin
man of ‘n swartman se waarheid afstry as hy vir my sę man, ek het tegniese kennis hier,
ek het wetenskaplike kennis hier, ek het landboukennis hier.[I, as a Bushman, would never have argued
with the truth of a white man, brown man or a black man if he said to me man, I have the
technical knowledge here; I have the scientific knowledge here, I have the agricultural knowledge
here.] Ek gaan hom nie afstry nie. [I would not have
argued with him.] Ek sou vir hom gesę het, meneer, ek het jou
hulp nodig, help my, wys vir my die pad. [I would’ve told him, sir, I need your help,
help me, show me the way.] You will enrich yourself if you position yourself
within the opportunities available. There are huge opportunities for black entrepreneurs
and black businessmen who want to move into agriculture and understand that they could
create their own wealth with the support of the present commercial growers. Stop marginalising
commercial growers because of the belief that we oppress our workers. Rate and categorise
us and say who is prepared. Evaluate what we do on our properties and how we incorporate
black people in our businesses and invest in them for those people to eventually have
the opportunity to own their own property. The way market systems work is that they are
very good at decentralising knowledge and they essentially thrive on decentralised knowledge.
When anyone wakes up in the morning and they are in their particular situation and they
have the best idea of what they need to do that day to improve their lives, whether it
is going to their job, trading, looking for work, whatever it is that they plan to do
that day, they do it with one goal in common, that by the end of that day their life is
a little bit better than it was when they woke up that morning. This process cannot
be centralised. This process is something that each individual has to be in control
of, because if they are the locus of decision-making of their own lives, they themselves know their
subjective preferences and their choices that they face that particular day. It is all very
well someone from government saying, I don’t think that person should work for less than
the minimum wage, and therefore I am going to ban them from working for less then the
minimum wage. But they don’t know the choice-set that that particular person is facing. That
person has chosen to work for less than the minimum wage, because any other choice that
they face is worse than that choice. So all government has done by banning them from working
for less than the minimum wage and therefore from working at all, because the employer
now won’t therefore hire them for a higher wage, is actually worsening their set of choices
and make it more likely that they would go to bed that night in a worse position than
when they started in the morning. We, the people of South Africa recognise the
injustices of the past, honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land, and respect
those who have worked and built and developed our country and believe that South Africa
belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity. It is not difficult to realise what effect
disrespect for property rights or an effort to centralise economic decision-making would
have. One only needs to look at history. The expropriation of land without compensation
has been tried in Venezuela and Zimbabwe and the effect is there for everyone to see. Not
only are landowners negatively affected, but investors, if they are not confident that
their property would be safe, they simply don’t invest. Without investments, the economy
will collapse. Our government is trying policies that have failed dismally elsewhere and people
with a socialist inclination never acknowledge these failures, they say well we will do it
differently. It is in the interest of everybody in our country that we show respect for property
rights and not try to plan the economy centrally. We should uplift people through policies where
we really empower people to participate in the economy, rather than through handouts.
To simply give people land, you have to take it away from others without paying for it.
This will not stimulate the economy. The same people you want to benefit, will be negatively
affected in the end. By the time when the South African Parliament
adopted a motion on expropriation without compensation, about 95% of land claims had
already been settled. 82% of all land claims were filed in urban areas. 93% of all land
claimants have opted for financial compensation as opposed to land. 95% of land reform projects
in South Africa have failed, with commercial farms being transformed into subsistence farms
or squatter camps. Of all the land the state has acquired since the initiation of the land
reform process, only 6% has been transferred into private ownership. The number of South
Africans who believe that more land reform would improve their lives, is 1%. Support
the campaign for property rights and prosperity in South Africa. Visit www.expropriation.co.za

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *