By Rochelle Maphoto

South Africa is a sovereign state, and any effort to rescue and heal its people from its past should be defended and pursued zealously. Denying a sovereign state, the space to take proactive measures to resolve a long-standing issue of national interest should be frowned upon by all peace-loving progressive members of the international community. Unfortunately, democratisation of South Africa was founded on elite deals about non-elites.

Arguably, during the first fifteen years of democracy, South Africa enjoyed the comparative advantage of both effective institutions and a shared willingness of varied domestic and international stakeholders to the renewal project in the belief in the power of mutual cooperation on several key economic policies, including land. The democratisation project was built around distinct sub bargains: one which resulted in a deal that was struck between white capital and the new political leadership at the time of transition; this deal included a commitment to the rule of law and the protection of private property in particular, in exchange for economic transformation through the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) program. Therefore, the current challenges of land inequality that South Africa is grappling with reflect the legacy of settler colonialism, tied in part to foreign capital, that laid the basis for emergent capitalism, and produced extreme inequalities that capitalism always produces in oppressed and dominated countries and continues to seek high(er) rates of profit from.

The recent furore over SA’s expropriation Act points to both internal and external factors contributing to the slow-paced land reform for South Africa. The world will have to note that the “willing seller, willing buyer” model failed dismally. Originally the model was posited as a recommendation by the World Bank and has for many years enjoyed the elevated status as the only viable policy option on land reform in South Africa. Therefore, the new expropriation Act is seen as an attempt to renege on the initial policy position adopted with the influence of the World Bank, which advocated for voluntary reforms. The threats from the US President and the established local community of commercial farmers including lobby group AfriForum and some international corporations representing the broader global neo-liberal capitalist interests to de-invest or freeze aid and new investments into South Africa should the state avidly pursue land reform are reminiscent of Zimbabwe’s isolation after the adoption of its Fast-Track land reform policy.

What the world needs to know is that South Africa’s commercial farming was built on the back of an exploited and vulnerable African workforce. When the Glen Grey Act became law in 1894, more Africans were conscripted to labour and prohibited from owning land in areas designated for white ownership. One considered reason for enacting the Land Act of 1913 was that the continuation of thriving African production family units would restrict the access of the gold mining industry and commercial agriculture to cheap labour of Africans. South Africa and Great Zimbabwe in this regard share a common history of settler colonialism that resulted in large scale land dispossession. They both experienced violent forceful removals from their indigenous land at the hands of colonisers. The world will have to be reminded that through colonial conquest, indigenous people of Southern Africa, went through various forms of displacements and years of systemic dispossession of their minerals and land rights through a grid of apartheid legislation. The world should recall the continued grand scale pillaging and plundering of land and property by colonial interests for hegemonic ambitions.

South Africa, for macroeconomic policy considerations, severed and watered down a lot of liberation inspired land policy positions developed during the heyday of formal apartheid to make way for international interests. The severing was also to allow for South Africa’s smooth integration into the global economy. A deeper challenge throughout history has always been that government needed to balance macroeconomic caution with ambitions for major reforms in key sectors of the economy. In no uncertain terms, conservative private business, agribusiness, and the influence of the international financial community are to a large extent responsible for the ANC’s aversion on ambitious reforms. This risk aversion approach permeates across all sectors of the economy including land reform.

There is a correlation between dominant macro-economic factors, local and international actors, acting in concert to undermine land reform efforts. These and other dominant structural challenges point to deeply embedded limitations for policy autonomy by USAID dependent low-income African countries on domestic affairs. South Africa cannot untangle itself from racially based capitalism, which is interwoven with the global system of capitalism, benefitting from the re-concentration of land to a minority. The World will have to note that South Africa with the current constitutional scheme, without the newly passed Expropriation Act in its current form will not be able to incrementally bring about the restoration of land at an accelerated pace.

* Maphoto is a land reform specialist with the national department of agriculture, land reform & rural development.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.