The silence on land reform: A political compromise or strategic delay in the GNU?

By Michael Andisile Mayalo 

Land reform in South Africa is a thorny issue, and its relative silence in the public and political discourse over the past few years speaks volumes about the underlying tensions, the shifting dynamics within the ruling party, and the broader socio-economic challenges the country faces.

While land reform has long been a rallying cry for many marginalised communities and political parties, the slow pace of progress can be seen as a matter of logistical difficulty and a consequence of political compromise, fear of economic fallout, and a lack of coherent policy direction. Is the silence on land reform a strategic delay, or is it a sign of deeper unresolved tensions within the Government of National Unity (GNU)?

A Historical Perspective: The Legacy of Land Dispossession

It's essential to recognise the historical context to understand the current situation. The forced dispossession of land from indigenous South Africans during colonial and apartheid eras remains one of the most profound injustices of the country's past. Under apartheid, over 80% of the land was reserved for the white minority, displacing millions of Black South Africans to less fertile, overcrowded areas. Since the advent of democracy in 1994, the government has made land reform a central pillar of its policy, pledging to redress this imbalance by redistributing land to Black South Africans who had been dispossessed under apartheid.

Yet, nearly three decades later, land reform remains a contentious and largely unfulfilled promise. While there have been some initiatives, including the redistribution of land and various compensation schemes, progress has been slow and patchy. A key reason for this slow pace is the reluctance to disrupt the economic structures that were built around land ownership, coupled with fears of the potential fallout that a more radical approach, such as expropriation without compensation (EWC), might provoke.

The Role of the Government of National Unity (GNU)

South Africa's ruling coalition, the Government of National Unity (GNU) comprises the African National Congress (ANC), the South African Communist Party (SACP), and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU). In addition, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), while not part of the formal coalition, exerts significant political pressure. This broad-based, albeit sometimes uneasy, coalition has been a key factor in shaping South Africa's approach to land reform.

On one hand, the ANC, as the primary governing party, faces competing pressures. While its roots in the liberation struggle demand action on land restitution, it also must balance the interests of more conservative factions within the party and its business allies, who fear that radical reforms could destabilise the economy. On the other hand, the SACP and COSATU, along with smaller parties like the EFF, have been vocal advocates for more radical approaches to land reform, pushing for expropriation without compensation. But within the ANC itself, the debate remains unresolved, with different factions pulling in opposite directions.

The resulting compromise has been a policy of gradualism. The ANC has chosen not to pursue radical land reform measures like EWC, which would require a constitutional amendment. Instead, it has focused on incremental reforms, such as the Restitution of Land Rights Act and efforts to improve land redistribution through government programs. But this approach has often been criticised as insufficient in addressing the scale of the problem, leading to frustration among grassroots activists and opposition parties.

The Economic Dilemma

One of the major factors behind the silence on land reform is the economic implications of such reforms. South Africa’s economy, heavily dependent on mining, agriculture, and a complex web of private property rights, is reluctant to embrace large-scale changes to land ownership. While land redistribution is seen as a moral imperative by many, the reality is that it carries significant economic risks, including concerns over agricultural productivity, foreign investment, and the stability of property markets.

The ANC has been deeply concerned about the potential economic fallout of more radical measures. For instance, if land were expropriated without compensation, it could discourage investment in agriculture, real estate, and other sectors that rely on secure land tenure. This could lead to a decline in agricultural output, with potential consequences for food security and rural employment. The risk of creating further discontent among white landowners, coupled with the threat of capital flight, has created a climate of caution around land reform.

Moreover, the legal process for land reform is complicated. The current constitution, which allows for land expropriation with compensation under certain conditions, has already been amended to permit greater flexibility. But any further change—such as allowing for outright expropriation without compensation—requires a difficult and politically fraught constitutional amendment process. The ANC, which faces declining popularity, is wary of pushing such an amendment through a divided parliament, particularly in the face of vocal opposition from conservative political forces and landowners.

A Political Stalemate

This mixture of political, economic, and legal factors has led to a stalemate on land reform. While the ANC's promises to tackle land redistribution remain a key part of its rhetoric, actual policy changes have been slow, and there has been little progress on the ground. The public debate has largely shifted towards other issues, including corruption, state capture, and the economic fallout from COVID-19. As the ANC grapples with internal divisions, the party’s leadership has focused on appeasing its coalition partners, particularly in an election year, rather than pushing through potentially divisive land reform policies.

In the absence of clear leadership or decisive action, the debate has largely been sidelined. The government’s silence on the matter may be less about the ideological agreement and more about strategic delay—a way of postponing difficult decisions until political circumstances are more favourable.

A Missed Opportunity for True Reconciliation?

Land reform remains a litmus test for South Africa’s commitment to true reconciliation and equality. The continued silence on the issue points to deeper questions about the nation’s willingness to confront its past and redistribute wealth in a more equitable manner. While political considerations, economic risks, and legal challenges can not be dismissed, it is also clear that the longer South Africa waits to implement meaningful land reform, the more entrenched inequality and disenfranchisement will become.

The challenge for the ANC and the broader government is to find a balance between the demands for social justice and the practical realities of governance. Until this balance is struck, the silence on land reform will continue to speak volumes about South Africa’s political paralysis and its failure to resolve one of its most critical and unresolved issues.

Mayalo is an independent writer, analyst, and commentator