Tag Archives: political history

Land ownership and grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting – Part 1 (7)

Title: Landownership and grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting – Part 1 (7)

Gabriel P Louw

iD orcid.org/0000-0002-6190-8093

Research Associate, Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa (Author and Researcher: Health, History and Politics).

Corresponding Author:

Prof. Dr. GP Louw; MA (UNISA), PhD (PU for CHE), DPhil (PU for CHE), PhD (NWU)

Email: profgplouw@gmail.com

Keywords: Age-old custom, colonist, frontiersman, humanity, impoverishment, indigenous people, land grabbing, landless, landownership, land redistribution, political history, radicalism, terrorism, unemployment

Ensovoort, volume 40 (2019), number 6: 1

1. Background

1.1.   Introduction

Our entry into this world may be arbitrary, but the world that greets us is not. Numerous forces vie for our attention and loyalty. Our minds are a battleground for competing ideas. The outcome of this battle determines who we become and the society we create. But the forces that win out are not necessarily the ones that serve us best. Over the course of human history, countless people have been conditioned to defend oppressive ideologies, support destructive regimes and believe downright lies.

Although the ideological, cultural and religious labels that divide us are not inherent in our nature, history suggests that the capacity to identify with them for arbitrary reasons is. This capacity enables the easy transmission of bias, prejudice and ignorance from one generation to the next. If we are to expand our freedom, we need to question our beliefs and values and the forces that brought them about. Why do we hold the beliefs that we do? Why have we formed the habits that we possess? And, crucially, whose interests do they serve? Questioning the religious, economic, social and political paradigms of our time is as urgent as it has ever been. To shape identities is to fashion the future — but what future are we creating? Today the world is scarred by war, extreme inequality and environmental devastation. If we are to create an alternative future, we can’t just reproduce the thinking that shaped the past.1:26

Seen in perspective, the matter of expropriation of land (with or without compensation) from Whites in South Africa, as presently driven by the ANC regime, seems to be fully enveloped in a history of White-Black conflict in which the racial factor is prominent. In this history, as already analysed in depth in the published articles 1 to 6 of the project on land-ownership and expropriation, bad behaviour-conditioning — to serve and to uphold exclusively oppressive ideologies and to support destructive regimes, as well as to believe downright lies and myths on the matter — stand out pertinently. The dividing forces of bad ideology, culture and religion, stretching over years, enable the inculcation of bias, prejudice and ignorance in many South Africans’ mindsets.  Prominent is the role played by such negative ideology, culture and religion that still inform our current beliefs, habits and values as active forces in seeking to mislead and to abuse us with one single object: to make us serve the interests of a delinquent master. The 1994 South African Political Dispensation and its Constitution are viewed more and more by the large mass of poor and landless Blacks to be serving only the disguised, self-centred and selfish aims and interests of the opportunistic religious, juridical and political masters of the country. It does not matter if these masters are Black or White.

The pertinent use and role of religion, law and politics, especially from 1913 until today, in an effort to bring a so-called “final solution” to the South African land-ownership dispute, need to be elucidated.

1.1.1. The failed divinely-ordained approach

From the beginning, Christianity played a very decisive role in South African efforts to solve or to address major problems when its people arrived at personal, political, social and economic obstacles and crises which seemed unsolvable to them. Prominent were also the immense personal, political, social and economic obstacles and crises central to the Blacks’ reconciliation process with Whites when the 1994 Political Dispensation arrived. Side-by-side, with the creation of juridical and political foundations for activating reconciliation and to start the new post-1994 democracy, stood the Christian religion and its message of forgiveness for the immense human and political sins of the past in a direct effort to heal and to solve especially the distrust, suspicion and hatred of Blacks for Whites and their Apartheid. The role of Christian religious ministers, from all the races and denominations, played a prominent role after the 1994 Political Dispensation to institute the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), totally outside the traditional juridical and political frameworks, in an effort to heal the emotional and spiritual wounds of Apartheid and to bring personal, psychological and spiritual reconciliation between Blacks and Whites. A religious salvation was seen as a kind of anointed solution by the leaders of the various religious denominations. Two prominent ministers of religion (one Black and one White) took the lead here, namely Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu as chairman, with Dr Alex Borraine as deputy chair of the TRC.2

But this religious inclination to solve personal, group and national hindrances and crises (and politics) was not limited to the direct impact of reverends, but also part of the opportunistic thinking and actions of South African political leaders in 1994; although indirect and faceless, they were active from a distance in an effort to sidestep their own guilt and responsibilities, as well as to prolong their wrongdoing. The long political history of South Africa shows that much (if not all) of these so-called “god-anointed” outcomes of salvation, as those that the TRC religious leaders prayed for, stayed unanswered. Very striking is the phenomenon that most of South Africans’ “religious interactions” with “their Christian God”, stretching from the early years until today, were mostly not successful, leaving many of these “anointed role-players” dead in the end or at least highly aggravated “their God” had not answered their prayers. The examples are manifold, such as Jacob Zuma’s slogan “ruling safely till Jesus comes”.2-7

Prominent here regarding such anointed-outcomes-going-bad is Chief Kgosi Mamphoku Makgoba of Limpopo, who, filled with “god-anointing” in the maintenance of his tribal land in the old Boer Transvaal, summarily lost his head in the end at the hands of another “blessed servant” of the seemingly same “Christian God”, General Piet Joubert of the ZAR. Joubert himself, notwithstanding his so-called initial “god-anointed, divinely-ordained, god-willed and god-favoured” status, was also politically eliminated when the British forces demolished the ZAR in 1902,  grabbing his fatherland, and left more than 30 000 Transvaal’s burghers dead, seemingly because “their God had changed his mind on them”.5

HF Verwoerd, in his heyday of the practitioner of Apartheid and land grabbing from non-Whites, also believed on the 6th September 1966 that “his God” was solely on his side in the practice of racism, missing out on the reality that “his God” also in the meantime had changed his mind, allowing an assassin to freely put a knife to his heart.2,3,6

Even one of the two prominent ministers who founded the TRC (with duration April 1996 to October 1998) was not so sure if “his God” was really always with the TRC and the victims of Apartheid. Pertinent stands out here the doubt of the reverend Dr Alex Borraine. In this context Chris Barron7 writes on Borraine’s gut feeling, reflecting the absence of the supposed “ever-present of his God to steer justice and godlike honesty”, as follows7:17:

He felt the TRC failed to uncover the full truth about the violations committed during apartheid, particularly by the security forces in the 1980s. The generals were “evasive and smart” and treated the TRC with “disdain and contempt.”

He said the TRC did not secure even a minimal amount of justice for those who drew up the policies of apartheid that resulted in death squads, torture, detention without trial and assassinations.

Because many of the incriminating documents were destroyed in the run-up to negotiations there was no paper trail linking senior politicians and generals to their crimes.

He said the TRC had failed to persuade the ANC government to grant swift and adequate reparations to the victims.

He thought the TRC’s demands for action against apartheid perpetrators should have been stronger.

It is clear for the critical observer that God in South African history (in this case the Jewish God/Christian God/South African Christian God) does not always (or ever?) intervene or interfere in people’s political, social and economic crises and sufferings, especially around the unique issue of land grabbing in South Africa. This, notwithstanding their intense “talking to” and their constant public praising of “their own  God”, and their often seemingly “schizophrenic” claim to be his “anointed servants”, blessed to be able to execute certain actions which they see as so-called “anointed actions”. This outcome has been reflected over many years in the so-called Christian communities of South Africa (and which, it seems, for the late reverend Alex Borraine, was also lacking in overseeing a “godsent justice” during the TRC). The false “god-besottedness” of many persons since pre- and post-1994 South Africa to address the country’s political problems as well as theirs through a “divinely-ordained solution” as the only correct one,  was in reality an action which had taken away their own cognitive reasoning and responsibility in finding constructive solutions to their crises and sufferings. On this kind of “solution” of problems the historian and philosopher Yuval Noah Harari gives a clear guideline on how to target and regain exclusively our “political sanity”, and thus to overcome the many dangers of “religious vanity” (and religious insanity) which lacks trustworthiness and seems never to have solved South Africa’s political problems.8,9

Michele Magwood9 describes in terms of Harari’s philosophy the falsity around the exclusive application of religion as “an only remedy” by people to solve their problems — which gives us insight into how many naive South Africans have messed up their politics and thus may also find it enlightening as regards the present landownership debacle — as follows9:61:

When you have the power to reengineer life, your views on “right” and “wrong” acquire cosmic importance. But you don’t need religion in order to have a good moral compass. For morality doesn’t mean “obeying God” — morality means “reducing suffering”. In order to act morally, you just need to develop a deep appreciation of suffering.

Secular people abstain from murder not because some god forbids it, but because killing inflicts suffering on sentient beings. There is something deeply troubling and dangerous about people who avoid killing just because “God says so”. Such people are motivated by obedience rather than compassion, and what will they do if they come to believe that their god commands them to kill heretics, witches or gays?

And it is noteworthy that secular morality really works. The most peaceful and prosperous countries in the world such as Canada, New Zealand and the Netherlands are secular. In contrast, deeply religious countries such as Iraq and Pakistan tend to be violent and poor.

The above warning of Harari8 about the danger of a so-called “holy inspiration to obey God just because God says so” must be seen in terms of his own biblical knowledge of the immense murder spree in old Israel under the two Jewish leaders Joshua and Moses (the last-mentioned being a cold-blooded fugitive murderer and savage from Egypt) when they started to occupy early Palestine on behalf of the so-called “Jewish nation” by “order” of their so-called “exclusively Jewish God”. This murdering occupation of the Palestinians by the Jewish leaders Joshua and Moses took place immediately after they became emotionally and cognitively “grabbed by their Jewish God” to “cleanse” Palestine of so-called non-Jews and infidel Arabs.8,9

On this madness and murder as part of a divinely-ordained “grabbing” in their effort to justify political and personal self-enrichment by the Jews of the Old Testament (and  in modern politics still today), Louw writes as follows10:2:

The Jews of the Old Testament perpetrated violence tantamount to a rape of humanity, shedding the blood of the innocent. It did not matter if the victims were men, women and children in their own homeland. Their actions were justified as a divine command. Today these murderous biblical acts of ethnic and racial cleansing and land grabbing would be classified as psychopathic and mentally disturbed behaviour on the part of political and religious leaders.

It is this same “Jewish demanding” God who also became the “demanding” God of the Christians worldwide and who, in terms of Harari’s metaphorical example, is asking, it seems, them again by times today to “obey him just because he says so”, for example in their murderous warfare in the Middle East.

In this context of dangerous anointment (and much in line with the TRC “anointed” drive), is also to be found the example of the American ex-president George Bush’s murderous thinking and doing equal to Moses’s and Joshua’s decision-making  on “god-grabbing of others’ land”, which bordered on dangerous hallucinations and delusions. Chomsky11 prominently focussed on Bush’s blind “quasi-political-religious infections”, or better “his holy inspiring to obey God just because God says so”.  In this context, doing the same murdering for his “Jewish God cum Christian God”, as did Moses and Josua for their “Jewish God”, Chomsky11 reports that Bush proclaimed11:108: “God told him to strike at al Qaida,” which he then did, and then “…again that God instructed him to strike at Saddam,” which he again did. Chomsky11 reports further that Bush said he11:108: “…received the command of the Lord of Hosts, the War God, to fight the problems of the Middle East.” What is prominent in this case of Bush’s “anointment”, besides possible psychopathological thinking, is that the Iraqi political problems are today more severe than in the times of Bush, with ISIS/al Qaida in a very strong position.11,12,23

Reading the above, it cannot escape the mind that the same “Jewish God”, as with the American Bush and his men, was transferred to the proto-Afrikaners and Afrikaners’ mindsets as their “South African Christian God”, which, it seems they many times “obeyed just because he said so”, resulting as often in their murderous actions beginning in 1652 in South Africa. Louw writes13:19:

The “goodness” or “badness” of political leaders is often linked to the racial or ethnic tension that accompanies the person’s reign. Such tensions re-awaken people’s sense of belonging to either the majority or the minority group. It also rekindles feelings of revenge. Conflicts that had been over rise again (think for example of the Great Trek and how these ideas were rekindled during the First and Second Anglo-Boer Wars). Past conflicts and ideas are rekindled however inapplicable they may be, because followers want to go back to what worked in the past. This happened in 1948 with the Afrikaner Nationalists. They were guided by outdated and dangerous ideas. The immoral ideas that led to the changes in 1948 dated from 1908. The founding fathers of Afrikanerism felt strong resentment directed at English-speaking White South Africans, dissident Afrikaners and Black South Africans par excellence. Outdated racist ideas with their foundation in the Cape of the 1700s were invigorated by the nationalist Afrikaners’ executive political leaders (persons like DF Malan, HF Verwoerd and BJ Vorster, with a smack of religion and/or Nazism in their political mindsets) and such ideas became engrained in the mindsets of many very naïve Afrikaners. They used these ideas and emotional appeals to gain power.

It is clear that for South Africans, in many ways similar in terms of violence, poverty and extreme religious adherence to those of the deeply religious Iraq and Pakistan, that the TRC and other exercises, wherein religion is used as an instrument to cleanse the country’s “bad past” and to “bring harmony” between Black and White, was an outright failure and a mistake. Other approaches are needed to address the country’s serious constitutional and political-historical problems. Land expropriation is such a demanding problem which needs a lasting solution on future landownership.14-22

1.1.2.   Failed judicial and political approach

On the other hand, it is clear that a pure juridical foundation to address crises like the ongoing land issue around its exclusive White ownership, has also failed the test of quality, effectiveness, justice and honesty, as the inappropriate present Constitution confirms. The use of court cases, based on an existing faulty Constitution to solve these kinds of troubles, only works in the short term when the political and military power is concentrated in autocratic, dictatorial or fascist regimes, as the NP regime’s behaviour from 1948 to 1994 reflects. When the minority loses political and military power, as the Whites in Magube’s Zimbabwe, the Constitution and the law-enforcement system failed many times, not just in its overall decisions, but also to hear the objecting minority. In this case the process reverses to autocratic, dictatorial or fascist (unconstitutional) ruling, changing a political, cultural and historic matter such as land expropriation into land grabbing.23-27

In this context we are seeing at the moment the legal conundrum surrounding the banning of displays of the old South African flag as such an outcome, where the law suffers under the pressure of the politics of the majority who do not view the rights of the minority positively (and where revenge sometimes seems to be a prominent driver of behaviour). This flag case, brewing since the late 2017s, has now, besides the involvement of various prominent social and political organisations has now also attracted the minister of justice’s attention. The intense endangering of the legal rights of the minority of Whites is well illustrated by the CEO of the Nelson Mandela Foundation (NMF), a said Sello Hatang, when he blindly and bluntly said that any gratuitous displays of the flag constituted so-called “hate speech against and harassment” of Blacks under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (Pepuda). Within this overtly political grouping is also to be found the South African Human Rights Commission, a body which must be impartial but supports the same criminalisation of the flag. This is tantamout to planned legal censorship on any White response to attacks on their role in South African history. For them, the flag has also become a symbol of objection against discriminatory Black rule and the delinquent acts of the ANC. In response to the flag which Whites see their constitutional right to object and to exercise free speech, and thus as equal to the judicial right of Whites to their present land, we find the one-sided argumentation of the NMF28:9:

“On its face, the 1928 flag itself was a vivid symbol of white supremacy and black disenfranchisement. Displaying the flag of apartheid South Africa represents support for that crime… a total rejection of tolerance, reconciliation and all of the values underlying the constitution.”

Concomitant to this kind of juridical failure to safeguard the minority’s interests, is the failing of the South African Parliament and its lawmakers when a political party such as the ANC, notwithstanding its majority legal mandate, becomes ineffective through its criminal delinquency to rule properly. Its elite lacks the abilities and skills of statesmen to steer land expropriation in an orderly and legal way with the single aim to benefit every citizen, including the correct decisions on landownership.

Judging from the current insufficient tackling of land transformation and the continuing failed and conflicting approach by the antagonists and the propagandists, the present land matter can and will never be justly and successfully solved by the present-day Constitution, nor by its lawmakers in the Parliament. The South African courts may play at the outset a certain role to solve the matter but, as seen above in the flag issue, never really bring an acceptable and lasting solution. As with the religious approach, it is doomed to failure, leaving South Africa even in a worse situation at present in 2019, with the ANC regime unable to address and to solve the issue of landownership.

1.1.3.    King Solomon’s wisdom approach

A totally new approach is needed to address the South African landownership matter and to bring a lasting solution, free from the negative impact of racism or contaminated religious, judicial  and political solutions. The primary need here is an in-depth reflection on the facts and truths, and separating the emotive from the cognitive, in order to arrive at at reasoned solution. An evaluation of the present-day situation, freed from any remnants of the past, is required.

In reflecting on the past and its negativism in order to completely overcome it, an overview of articles 1 to 6 would suffice to gain a perspective on a cognitive approach to finding a lasting solution to the South African land-ownership matter. Articles 3 to 4 reflect in-depth on the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists versus the counter arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the propagandists in articles 5 and 6, pointing specifically to the impact of the contamination of the truth by myths and lies. This offers an applicable and appropriate approach to screening the lies and myths (the rootedness of which is shown in articles 3 to 6), leaving pure facts and truth at the end in order to reach conclusions and a dictum on the land-ownership matter. It is an absolute pre-requirement that the “judgement” must be guided by compassion and an in-depth understanding of the present suffering of the masses of Blacks plagued by poverty, inequality, landlessness and unemployment. For a correct “judgement” it is essential that it be guided and steered by a good moral compass, as well as logical thinking which may result in a “responsible, human and logical” solution, one which is uncontaminated by the falsities of religion, juridical and political influence and manipulation.8,9

When taking the contents of articles three to six into account, it seems, to make sound conclusions and to deliver a wise dictum, we need old King Solomon’s wise judgements here: it seems as if one step too much to the left or one step too much to the right, may spell immense conflict and bring utmost failure.  For the “judge” can draw a wrong conclusion and deliver a wrong judgment which would not only mean the end of his “honourable seat on the bench”, but also the end of his “certification” regarding his virtue, wisdom, integrity and trustworthiness. Solomon’s proverbial reputation was unique and is described as follows I Kings 16-27:29:325-326

“Word of the king’s decision spread quickly throughout the entire nation, and all the people were awed as they realized the great wisdom God had given him”.

The central question is here: what does a “Solomon judgement” mean in real, modern life? This brings two primary questions to the fore: how did Solomon make his judgements of excellence and what were the tools used to reach findings which in the end assured him the characterisation of having great wisdom with his successful judgements? This leads to a further question: Are his “judgements and solutions” not also vested in a religious and/or a juridical foundation? The truth is the opposite when studying Solomon’s so-called “wise” judgements.29

The most prominent example of his many “wise” judgements is how he brought a lasting solution in the re-awarding of a baby to a woman whose motherhood was disputed by a false mother. As prominent tools stand out: his in-depth understanding of the suffering of humanity (in this case motherhood), his good moral compass, his logical thinking and action (who is the true and rightful mother) and his exclusive focus on the present and the future (ignoring the past and its rights).29

The under-mentioned biblical text on how Solomon had, from a pure cognitive viewpoint, addressed the conflict and determined the true parenthood of the boy, offers a good guideline on how South Africans may today, outside the contaminated and corrupted religious, juridical and political ”judgements and solutions” so far used, deal with the intended land expropriation by applying pure cognitive reasoning and wisdom. There is no doubt that a satisfactory, appropriate conclusion and finding may be reached through a cognitive approach on 1) who owns what land, 2) what are the immediate remedial actions needed, 3) what are the consequences if land reform is not introduced. In this context the outcome in 1 Kings 3:16-27 may serve as an excellent example of cognitive reasoning, totally free from the compulsion of religious and judicial contamination when it comes to decision-making. As a guideline for the approach needed to address and to solve our land reform problem logically, freed from past-contaminated influences, it was thought appropriate to quote the text. It reads as follows29:515-516:

Soon afterwards two young prostitutes came to the king [Solomon] to have an argument settled.

“Sir,” one of them began, “we live in the same house, just the two of us, and recently I had a baby. When it was three days old, this woman’s baby was born too. But her baby died during the night when she rolled over on it in her sleep and smothered it. Then she got up in the night and took my son from beside me while I was asleep, and laid her dead child in my arms and took mine to sleep beside her. And in the morning when I tried to feed my baby it was dead! But when it became light outside, I saw that it wasn’t my son at all.”

Then the other woman interrupted, “It certainly was her son, and the living child is mine.”

“No,” the first woman said, “the dead one is yours and the living one is mine.” And so they argued back and forth before the king.

Then the king said, “Let’s get the facts straight: both of you claim the living child, and each says that the dead child belongs to the other. All right, bring me a sword.” So a sword was brought to the king. Then he said, “Divide the living child in two and give half to each of these women!”

Then the woman who really was the mother of the child, and who loved him very much, cried out, “Oh, no, sir! Give her the child—don’t kill him!”

But the other woman said, “All right, it will be neither yours nor mine; divide it between us!”

Then the king said, “Give the baby to the woman who wants him to live, for she is the mother!”

Critics of Harari’s so-called “agnostic” view can now argue that the above “Solomon approach” is a return to the outdated and failed religious approach (and a “Hand from Above” to help again!), as was used previously by the TRC’s Bishop Tutu and the reverend Dr. Borraine; or that it is a legally-coded and guided device in an effort to solve the land issue, but the truth is far from it.

When reading critically the biblical text showing Solomon’s approach to drawing his conclusions and offering a solution, it is at most only a biblical-historical story. Although the remark is there that God gave him great wisdom, the text lacks any reference to Solomon having prayed even a single time to his God and asked for “divine insight” or asked his God to “divinely guide” him in his conclusion and solution in determining who is the true mother. The determining of the true motherhood by Solomon was an exclusively personal, logical and human decision, free from partisanship, as well as blurring emotions and lies. His cognitive mindset leads Solomon to the reaching of a personal conclusion, totally in line with the philosophy of Harari: a decision lacking the dangerous and blind principles of “obeying God” and “just because God says so” in his judgement. In practice, as said, it was an action solely based on his cognitive and pure human abilities, steered by a good morality, a sound insight and observation of people in their strife. He also had the ability, after the applicable information was offered to him by the two fighting parties, to separate the single truth and fact from many lies and myths, which contaminate the whole picture and which mislead the average observer.8,9,29,30

Looking further back on his above “judgement and solution”, Solomon was free at that time (making his decision easier) from the complications brought by the progress of modern-day medical science where a child can legally and biologically have two mothers by way of a donor mother and a surrogate mother. But on the other hand, lacking modern-day medical science, which can easily and quickly determine, using very specific and precise blood and DNA testing, the legal maternity of a child,  and thus reach a legal conclusion on who the true biological mother was, it was undoubtedly far more difficult for Solomon in his decision-making. In the timeframe and case-setup in which Solomon found him self, he overcomes the use, or more precisely, ignores fully any legal guidelines or prescriptions by a Constitution and a religious mandate to reach or not to reach a conclusion. He handles the problem purely in terms of his common sense and empowerment as a tribal leader who must make decisions for his subjects. Indeed, looking again at the contents of the text 1 Kings 3:16-27, Salomon29 did not, as said, use any legal code to support his finding, but, as already indicated, relies on his cognitive and moral abilities (free from contaminated emotional, religious and statutory influences and partiality) to make an excellent division between truth and many lies. Central is his intention to reduce the present suffering of the innocent victim (the true mother who was in the process of losing her child to a crook).8,9,29

From the literature, the so-called divinely-ordained and god-supported approach, in an effort to find a solution to the present land expropriation matter is greatly side-stepped by the antagonists. It is clear that an outright legal approach, namely to challenge the ANC regime’s intended land redistribution through the law-makers of the Parliament, the Constitution and the South African courts, up to the Constitutional Court, has been followed by the antagonists. This “legal” approach, similarly to the failed “religious” approach, is also viewed with a high degree of skepticism by many South Africans as to its capacity to bring a lasting success. In Zimbabwe the land issue was extremely successfully fought initially in courts there by the antagonists (mostly White landowners), but proved to be a total failure in the end. The present so-called court-case orientation here in South Africa, as driven by the antagonists — although at the moment only in a start-up process — also seems destined for outright failure. The advice from the White farmers in present-day Zimbabwe to the South African antagonists is to ignore the court solution, and instead to look at their present condition in a cognitive, open-minded, friendly and unemotional manner. They should also look in the same way at the condition of the other people in South Africa, their needs and demands, evaluate our political history and find through such an approach find, informed by facts (free from the past’s rights, etc.), a constructive, practical working solution to the land-ownership matter.23-27

1.2. Aims of articles 7 and 8

In this research project on the matter of land expropriation, introduced to the reader by six previously-published articles, the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists against it, as well as those of the propagandists for it, were described in depth. It is clear, in comparing and analysing the information, that facts and truths versus lies and myths on the intended land expropriation by the ANC regime have led to positioning by all the role-players. Although the present land expropriation, specifically without compensation, is reflected as a complex problem, one which requires extreme wisdom, divine and legal intervention and interference to steer and to solve it, this conclusion is far from the truth. On the contrary, it is a simple process to close the dispute on landownership when guided primarily by facts and the truth, and if sound cognitions outside, personal, emotional, political, judicial and religious influenes, are in place. Balancing the facts against lies and myths (see article 3 to 6), show that the facts indeed form a very small, central nucleus. A prerequisite is the outright disregard and refutation of unfounded and foolish arguments, opinions and viewpoints of both the antagonists and propagandists, to project a profile on the facts that must only serve as an instrument to drive the process of land reform in all its facets, from land expropriation with compensation to expropriation without compensation.  Central should be the use of the King Solomon’s wisdom approach in the selection of the facts and the disregard for fallacies.

We do not need more Desmond Tutus, Alex Borraines, TRCs, Constitutional Courts and Constitutions, or the court interventions of AfriForum and Solidarity to put a well-founded land redistribution program and landownership in place. We have more than enough persons of sound cognitive and objective minds, political maturity, free from religious, emotional, political and legal contaminations, to solve the present land-ownership matter with great success, applying the King-Solomon’s-wisdom approach .

2. Method

The research has been done by means of a literature review. This method aims to construct a viewpoint from the available evidence as the research develops. This approach has been used in modern political-historical research where there is often not an established body of research, as is the case with the ownership of South African soil for the period 1652 to 2018. The sources included articles from 2018, books for the period 1944 to 2018 and newspapers for the period 2017 to 2019. These sources have been consulted to evaluate and to describe the facts that must guide us to steer successful land-reform from 2019 in South Africa.

The research findings are being presented in narrative format.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Overview

The current conflict and uncertainty on landownership has been seen by many political analysts as  a result of the so-called “racial curse of revenge and counter-revenge” of South Africa, which is stemming from the disturbing of the earlier political and socioeconomic positions of its various migrating peoples. The current hostility for instance of some Blacks towards Whites and their unfounded rejection of them as an indigenous tribe, is a predictable political, psychological and pathological responses within the framework of the Herodotus philosophy, how much inappropriate and unrelated this hostility is. This kind of wanton socio-political setup makes a dramatic land-redistribution policy and programme many times an inevitable outcome as the one in Zimbabwe under Mugabe.23-27,30,31

South Africa’s present-day land reform is therefore no longer an innocent national conversation to be naively solved by foolish public utterances and delinquent intentions from either the right or the left in our politics. South Africans, especially the government as executor of just landownership, must follow a different methodology to the blunder created by Zimbabwe’s nationalism in the dispute around the future ownership of land.

The big temptations are still there to solve the botched South African landownership by criminal prosecutions and civil action against the culprits of apartheid, or by reconciliation between Whites and Blacks with respect to Apartheid crimes. These are political approaches which have in practice nothing whatsoever to do with the present topic of landownership and the redistribution of land in terms of a historical and humanely just system. There is neither sense nor reason to address South Africa’s complex past politics, racism, discrimination, indigenousness, Black and White colonialism, or the many Black persons’ unsolved personal, emotional and psychological issues and their enormous financial difficulties which are rooted in the racial discrimination that began in 1652, to activate a just land redistribution. These issues need to be addressed apart and independent from the issue of land transfer and redistribution by initiatives such as an Individual Citizen’s Land Reconciliation Commission, a South Africans Poverty Obliteration Commission and a South African Court for Apartheid Crimes.

3.2. Myth and lies busting: a retrospective

In the previous four articles (Articles 3 to 6) show-cased the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists and propagandists for a change to or against a change to Section 25 of the Constitution to effect land expropriation with or without compensation. These opposing arguments, opinions and viewpoints presented by the antagonists as well as the propagandists represent many lies and myths, and reflect an approach to falsify the truth. The myths and lies will be revisited in this subdivision (see under 3.2.1 to 3.2.11) with a retrospective to bust this contamination in addressing the present-day land expropriation matter appropriately and correctly, as guided by the King-Solomon’s-wisdom approach.  In the under-mentioned subdivisions 3.2.1 to 3.2.11 the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists and propagandists were weighed to reveal many of their misleading arguments and opinions and manipulation of information in their effort to steer the matter of land expropriation opportunistically and often mischievously, exclusively in their own interest.

It is clear from studying the under-mentioned subdivisions 3.2.1 to 3.2.11 of the discussion 3.2. Myth and lies busting: a short retrospective, that only a limited number of the arguments, opinions and viewpoints, as reflected in the previous four articles (Articles 3 to 6) on the land matter, may be taken seriously.

It must be noted that the discussion on the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists and propagandists, as reflected in the previous four articles (Articles 3 to 6) on the land matter, will be continued in subdivisions 3.2.13 to 3.2.23 of the next article (Article 8, titled: “Land-ownership and -grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting – Part 2 (8).

3.2.1. The all-over presence of acquired indigenousness in South African landownership

Neither of the races nor groups living presently in South Africa are natural indigenous people to it. Landownership was in the past and is still today based on a vicious circle of land grabbing, coming over centuries and effected by various early migrating strangers from each other, making all South Africans from 1652 up to today a lot of land thieves. Landownership in South Africa is not an issue of indigenousness versus colonialism as many political radicals falsely claim today. The so-called African/South African indigenousness of Blacks, Coloureds, Asians, Indians, KhoiKhois, KhoiSans and Whites is acquired with time by their own and their ancestors’ stay in South Africa.25,32-39

Natural indigenousness to South Africa is absent from all present-day South Africans, including Julius Malema and cannot play a role in the exclusive allocation of land.65

3.2.2. Biological assimilation of Blacks and Whites in nation-building impossible

The postulation that biological assimilation of Black and White in South Africa is impossible is a myth. The Whites as the minority and as an increasingly weaker one, are culturally, racially, politically and biologically slowly being overpowered by the stronger Blacks. Although this process of integration has been taking place very slowly and insignificantly from the beginning of the 1830s, it is becoming comprehensive in our time. South Africa’s complex multiracial society reflects clearly the four intertwined steps: firstly cultural assimilation; secondly economic assimilation; thirdly social assimilation coupled with political assimilation; fourthly biological assimilation.25,32-39

At present the Afrikaners are inside biological assimilation with the Black population. This finalizing of a new South African Nation, wherein the Afrikaners are going to be dissolved by intermixing with the Blacks and by their natural extinction as a specific group, has now been activated.25

The belief that biological assimilation between Blacks and Whites is impossible is a myth.

3.2.3. There is not a demand and an urge for rural land by Blacks

The present domination by White farmers of the agricultural sector and opportunities, limited the opportunities for Blacks in this sector. Prominent is the low compensation of Blacks as labour-employees on farms and the poor treatment of them in the past by their White land-owners, a direct reason why the poor and landless Blacks moved to the cities, and not so much a real eagerness to become city-dwellers. The present so-called low interest of 8% Blacks to farm or to own land is an outcome the perilous setup into which poor Blacks in South Africa found themsleves within the post-1994 dispensation after the disastrous centuries of economic exploitation by Whites.  There is no doubt if the process of the 1994 land-redistribution should be rerun correctly today in terms of justice and the improved economic and political positions of Blacks, the repossession of Blacks of their so-called “stolen land” by Whites since 1652 may be 50% and higher.5,2141-43,45-47

The hard fact is that the cities cannot accommodate all the poor and jobless Blacks. The lack of employment in urban areas today is forcing many back to the countryside. Prominent is the immense contingent of the unemployed Black population. Immediate Black economic empowerment is a prerequisite to institute a mass of Black landownership as farmers and the creation of optimal working conditions for the Black labourers on Black or White farms.5,2141-43,45-47

The two postulations that 1) only 8% of Blacks want land or want to stay in the rural areas or 2) that Blacks are not interested in farming or land and that they want only urban jobs, are patently false. 5,2141-43,45-47

There is an urgent demand and an urge for rural land by Blacks to farm on.

3.2.4. There is not a place for a contingent mass of independent sufficient-producing farmers and farm labourers

The constant decline in South African commercial farmers from 116 000 in 1950 to more or less 35 000 in 2018, is incorrectly used to claim that more than the present ±35 000 commercial farmers in South Africa are not financially viable and sustainable.  There is no evidence that the bringing in of a contingent mass of different types of Black self-sufficient farmers will be a failure.10,13,25,48,50-57

Statistics on the so-called “commercial” 35 000 farmers in South Africa reflect that only ±3 600 of them contribute between 90% and 95% to the country’s food security. The other more or less 31 400 farmers are so-called sufficient-producing farmers. This means that these farmers produce enough food and other agricultural produce to make them and their immediate families financially independent from social grants, as well to steer themselves successfully albeit slowly into the status of financially independent landowners and active farmers. This is the intended path to follow with the contingent of incoming Black farmers. Data from present-day Zimbabwe, Botswana, Israel, Belgium and Britain reflect well on the successes of these sufficient-producing farmers and their financial independence and contributions, especially locally as to essential products.10,13,25,48,50-57

Evidence shows present-day sufficient-producing farming is working well for most of the 32 400 White farmers with a turnover of less than R5 million per annum, to stay viable and sustainable for years totally outside the small circle of ±3 600  so-called “food-security producing” farms.10,13,25,48,50-57

For the present unemployed mass of Blacks, living in shacks in cities under parlous conditions, the development at last of a contingent of land-owning Black petty bourgeoisie, may be launched. There is a place for them; no evidence exists to contradict it, except racial and political prejudice. In terms of the ratio of ±1:10 between White farmers and Black farmers, the Black farming sector has the potential to be extended to 350 000 farmers and the present Black labourers working on farms from ± 800 000 to 8 000 000.10,13,25,48,50-57

Within this Black farming sector the intention is also to create a better marketing system for the sufficient-producing Black farmers’ products through their own chain shops to bring their products directly at a good but affordable price to consumers. This will be away from the White business bullies’ present monopolistic chain shops and comprehensive local and international markets wherein all the farmers receive in general a low, limited price for their produce.10,13,25,48,50-57

There is a place for a contingent of mass, independent sufficient-producing Black farmers and farm labourers.

3.1.5. There is an absolute need for the future existence of an Afrikaner/White farming sector

The so-called importance and need of White landownership and farmers — especially the Afrikaner farmers — to maintain the present-day economics of the South African farming sector and to guarantee food security, is more and more being erased by their dwindling numbers as a so-called “tribe” within the total population. This places their future position as an absolute financial asset for the country in jeopardy.10,21,25,47,50,58-71

The ratio between the ±35 000 mostly Afrikaner commercial farmers to the rest of the Afrikaner population is 13:1000 or 1.3% of the group, while for the 35 000 farmers the ratio to the White population is 7:1 000 or 0.7%. This reflects an almost insignificant correlation between the broader Afrikaner/White population and the Afrikaner/White farming population in terms of financial interest, such as ownership of land or direct income from farming. This fact makes the direct impact of lost farmland through the planned land expropriation on most Afrikaners/Whites outside the farming sector minimal. Evidence also shows that many of the ordinary Afrikaners have started to cut their cultural cord with the so-called “Afrikanervolk” after 1994, indicating that most of the emotive rhetoric on so-called land grabbing come from a small band of Afrikaner/White individuals and groups with direct financial interests in agriculture. This exclusive farming sector represents at most 10% of Afrikaners/Whites, making the present so-called all-out “Afrikaner fight for their Afrikaner soil”, together with the exclusive need for them by the broad South African population, a myth.  Also, the ±90% Whites and neo-Afrikaners outside the farming sector accept that a new generation of South African farmers, not associated with Afrikaners/Whites, has to be born as quickly as possible to ensure food security.10,21,25,47,50,58-71

The postulation of the absolute need for an Afrikaner/White farming sector “because only they can ensure food security” is false.  It is an over-estimation of Afrikaner/White farmers as a special group in South Africa.10,21,25,47,50,58-71

On a group-count basis the White farmers are irrelevant and are part of the bigger White population’s natural dying-out.

3.2.6. The so-called 90% failure of the 1994-2019 farm-redistributions program is true

The determination that 90% of farms redistributed to Blacks in the 1994 – 2019 land-redistribution programme, were failures, is very controversial and one-sided. It must be noted that the criteria used to decide on the “success” of the so-called “functioning Black farms”, seem to be very vague and undefined. There is an indication that the whole argumentation is arbitrary.5,10,16,25,41-43,46,51,72-74

Hard evidence erases the postulate of a 90% failure-rate since 1994. The truth is that today’s farming as an enterprise and a career can be tough, ignoring the fact that it must be equally applied to the established White farmers or incoming Black farmers:.The large financial loans by the Land Bank and other commercial banks to finance the White farmers’ daily activities, is an excellent example of this struggle even by Whites.5,10,16,25,41-43,46,51,72-74

The recent request in January 2019 by the formal farmers’ sector, specifically the White ones, for R3-billion drought emergency from the government, confirms this overall struggle. The multi-year drought of 2018 left five of South Africa’s nine provinces critically parched and two others extremely vulnerable, writes Strydom.75 In this context, seven out of 10 farmers are struggling. This contradicts the antagonists’ and White politicians’ arguments that the so-called “Black 1994 to 2019 land-redistribution programme”, to establish exclusively Black farmers, was a failure. The definition of “farmers’ failure” is applicable fully to the formal (mostly) White farmers with a need of R3 billion to rescue them.75

In this ratio of 7:10 of mostly White farmers seeking rescue, it must further be noted that this represents ±24 000 (out of the total of 35 000 formal farmers) affected who are not truly part of the 3 600 farmers supplying 90% of the county’s food, but the so-called “sufficient-producing farmers” who only contribute between 5% and 10% of the food stock. The question is: if the so-called White sufficient-producing farmers are being kept alive in the farming community, notwithstanding their failure, why could this not also be done with the incoming Black farmers and their so-called failures since 1994?75

Further evidence from the country’s negative political history shows that the same kind of failures, as the alleged 1994-2019 farm-redistributions program, had happened, even on a more extreme level, under the White SAP regime and the White NP regime over many years under the government of the Union of South Africa as well as the “Verwoerdian republic”. In these White cases, long-term development corrections were allowed and constant financial governmental assistance offered. Hereto must it be noted that the NP-regime in 1994 overloaded the incoming ANC-regime with many serious political, economical and social problems, like poverty, inequality, unemployment and landless of the Blacks, which the ANC has to address with an effort of a fast driven farm-redistributions program and a Black population unknown with the formal agricultural culture.5,10,16,25,41-43,46,51,72-74

For the ANC regime to rectify in the short period of 25 years this immense South African socio-economic and political chaos, created by the various White regimes over hundreds of years, was totally impossible. To claim that the 1994–2019 farm-redistributions program was a failure, is inappropriate and reflects political opportunism.5,10,16,25,41-43,46,51,72-74

The so-called 90% failure of the 1994-2019 farm-redistributions program is false.

3.2.7. The political history of South Africa confirms that in most cases landowners were compensated for dispossessions of their land

The South African White regimes and its White inhabitants from 1652 to 1994 followed mostly a policy of land expropriation without compensation towards the Blacks. Included in this lack of compensation for occupying of Blacks’ land, are serious atrocities committed against Blacks in driving them off their land.10,16,25,51,55,76,78-88,91

The White South Africans’ own RET from 1652 to 1994, specifically that of the nationalist Afrikaners between 1948 and 1994, was so immense and of such broad spectrum that it can never be quantified in a monetary value. In this immense harvesting of wealth we find today 5 million privileged Whites against the devastating poverty of a mass of ±29-million Blacks.10,16,25,51,55,76,78-88,91

It is a myth and a total misconception that during the continued land dispossession in South Africa, starting in 1652, most of the owners had ever been compensated. Most of the cases of so-called “transferring of land” were outright land grabbing, often leaving the dispossessed owners landless and in poverty.

3.2.8. The need for land reform insignificant

The initial outcomes of the parliamentarians’ countrywide testing of the public’s opinion on the change to Section 25 of the Constitution shows that there is a strong public need by Blacks to own land. The emphasis is that land expropriation is an immediate requirement that has to be implemented.5,21,41-43,45-47

The  postulation that there is not a need for more landownership by Blacks was statistically erased on the 4th December 2018 when so much as 209 MPs voted in favour (with only 91 votes against and zero absentees) to amend the Constitution to effect land transfer (without compensation) from Whites to Blacks.5,21,41-43,45-47

The First State Land Audit of 2013 shows that the difference between the total land area and the sum of the state-owned and private land is as follows: 14% state-owned land, 7% unaccounted-owned land and 79% privately-owned land. This shows that the state does not own enough land to satisfy the total need for land by the landless and poor Blacks to farm. The Second State Land Audit of 2017 identified close to 94 million hectares as privately-owned, reports Africa Check. (A breakdown by race was only provided for privately-owned land by individuals and not for land owned by companies, trusts and community-based organisations). Agricultural land owned by individuals made up 30% of the total land area. Farms and agricultural holdings (in hectares) owned by individuals in terms of race, are the following: White: 26 663 144 (72%), Indian: 2 031 790 (5%), Coloured: 5 371 383 (15%), African 1 314 873 (4%), Co-owned 425 537 (1%), and Other: 1 271 562 (3%).89

From above is it clear that an absolute imbalance between White landownership and Black ownership exists: Whites: 72%: Blacks: 4%.89

The need for land reform is significant and is driven by a mass of Black citizens and Black politicians of status. This makes the notion that the need for land reform is insignificant by opportunistic politicians as well as the antagonists an untrue postulation.

Drastic land reform and an immense need for land by Blacks, is a burning issue.

3.2.9. The doubtful success of a new farming system within land-expropriation planning

The planned founding of a large sector of financially independent Black farmers, strongly based on inclusive capitalism and the introduction of a new sufficient-producing farming system, driven by specific farming models — varying from small-scale subsistence farmers to small-scale commercial farmers and commercial middle-level farmers — have the potential to erase the  vast debt of more than R160 billion of the majority of present-day farmers (possibly as much as 32 000 and mostly White). But at the same time it offers immense opportunities for millions of emerging farmers, specifically Blacks. It has the potential at the same time to assure food security for the country, as well as the improvement of its local food production at far more affordable costs. The incoming and the to-be-established Black farmers have the potential to be on the same level as the existing White farmers’ sector. They can dramatically improve the present 5% to 10 % contribution to the country’s food security by the present ±32 000 sufficient farmers’ sector, to 30% and more.41,42,49,92-95

This planned new farming system, based on new technology, agricultural science, fertilizers and irrigation systems, can rapidly turn much of the present-day barren rural land in South Africa into productive soil and farming areas. The turn-around characterising the modern-day East-Asian farm system (China, Japan and South Korea) is an excellent example. The East-Asian farming reform and progressive management of farming, which was very successful in the uplifting of millions of poor Asians, brought phenomenonal delivery of affordable agricultural products to their local as well as international markets, and has limited the importation of food and lowered food costs. Most of all, the system erased to a great extent the inequalities in wealth with the gradual enrichment of previously landless poor people, after placing them in financially-secure careers as new farmers and farm workers. This outcome is equal to what the ANC planned with their incoming land reform and the creation of a new generation of mass Black farmers, varying from small and commercial to mega farmers, within a comprehensively functioning Black farming community.9,95,96 In this context, is it important to note that the WIBC-organisation (Wouldn’t It be Cool) of Dr Michael Magondo already established — on unused rooftops of buildings in Johannesburg — 20 farms and six agro-processing sites. Each one of these farms represents three to four jobs, creating an income of between R15 000 and R25 000 a month. How small farming is successfully established already, is illustrated by the 35 farms in the Philippi Horticultural Area (PHA). A 2017 study by the department of agriculture found that the PHA farmland yielded a yearly turnover of between R440 million and R480 million, while creating 3 000 direct jobs and 30 000 indirect jobs. Produce is supplied to Woolworths, Shoprite, Nulaid and Checkers.9,95,96

The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries plans to create countrywide so-called Aquaculture Development Zones (ADZ) to enlarge at low cost the existing small-scale aquaculture sector. Prominent stands the incoming of new Black farmers. These areas are earmarked for aqua-culture value-chain activities with official support and the upgrading of the existing basic infrastructure, writes Khumalo.  Governmental authorisations for a start-up had been received for place as Saldanha Bay, Western Cape, Qolora, Eastern Cape and for the Coega (Eastern Cape) ADZs. The intention is also to develop infrastructures at the Amatikulu (KwaZulu -Natal) ADZ and the Algoa Bay ADZ. Further is the Department, in cooperation with the provincial departments, piloting aquaculture in the Van der Kloof Dam (Northern Cape) and in Richards Bay (Kwa-Zulu-Natal). The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries also plans to establish multi-species hatcheries in the Eastern and Northern Cape. In these cases the incoming Black farmers will be provided with stock and their skills development. The intention is also to establish communal aquaculture farms.98

It must also be noted that the amount of land needed by Blacks is not, as often stated by antagonists against the land redistribution program of the government, a masse of land or a whole farm to make a living on. A 2004/2005 Human Sciences Research Council study including Limpopo, Free State and Eastern Cape found that 75% of those Blacks who needed land, wanted five hectares or less.  Similarly, a 2006-2007 study in five rural Western-Cape towns showed that the majority of households said they wanted a hectare or less. This shows that comprehensive and concentrated farming units do not need to be rural-oriented and can be executed on smallholdings of one to five hectares near city markets.89

It is clear that post-2019 government policy will activate the immense development of small-scale farmers.  It is also clear that this development will be government-orientated, free from the so-called “generosity” of the large private businesses’ domination with their agricultural inputs. This development will also be free from the present monopoly dominance of the agricultural-processing industry and food retail of the big businesses. The intention is to radically reconfigure and to expand the agricultural supply chain to make Blacks beneficiaries of it via their farming sectors.99

The doubtful success of the new farming system for post-2019 South Africa with the advent of land-expropriation planning is without foundation. It can work efficiently.

3.2.10. A sound balance in house ownership in South Africa in terms of racial demographics is in existence

The present-day one-by-one-person racial comparison, which is based on the definition: who are the owners of what property in South Africa, as done by the opponents of land expropriation, ignores the true numbers of the various racial populations’ holding of ownership per person of land. This comparison and reflection of the total White population of ±5-million versus a sub-population of 5 million Blacks, as represented by the official holding of land and property ownership, is an outright manipulatory equalization of the various races, giving the ratio 1:1, which is an outright myth. In reality the comparison must be of the total White population of ±5-million versus the total Black population of ±45 million, being the only correct one, giving the ratio of ±1:10. This means, unmasking the manipulated equalization of the various races regarding, in reality, ±ten Whites owning a property against only one Black owner of a property. In theoretical-statistical terms it means that for the 5 million Whites who owned in some way houses, only 5 million Blacks also own houses, with in reality as much as ±40 million Blacks being homeless or lacking the ownership of houses.41,42,49,92-95

The above selective and manipulative definition of ownership also ignores the low quality of the so-called present-day “other houses” of most of the ±40 million Blacks living everywhere in South Africa. These “other houses” (excluding the low quality RDP houses) theoretically accommodate ±35 million Blacks. In this category we find the comprehensive negative “house environments” wherein millions of the other Blacks are living: the so-called shack-dwellers who lack facilities such as electricity, water, toilet facilities; living in unfavourable areas with poor or no roads and situated in isolated and underdeveloped areas, lacking public transport, shops, public schools and medical facilities. These areas are mostly ridden by crime and not integrated into rich, even middle-class White housing areas; and often located on river banks exposed to constant floods and other life threats.25,46,100

A trustworthy value guide on the present-day ownership of houses in South Africa, specifically in terms of race, is offered by the Second State Land Audit of 2017. [Note: This audit only provides a breakdown by race on privately-owned erven (houses) and sectional title units by individuals and not for land-owning companies, trusts and community-based organisations]. Africa Check reports in terms of the Second State Land Audit of 2017, focussing on the individual ownership of 1) erven (which includes houses), which make up 0.6% of the total land area, and 2) sectional title units, which make up 0.009% of the total land area, in terms of White, Indian, Coloured and Black, as follows:  A) Erven (hectare): White: 357 507 (49%), Indian: 55 909 (8%); Coloured : 54 522 (8%); African 219 033 (30%), Co-owned 14 322 (2%) and Other 21 365 (3%), and B) Sectional title units (hectare): White 5 118 (45%), Indian 5556 (5%), Coloured 2 375 (21%), African: 1 989 (17%), Co-owned: 655 (6%), Other: 703 (6%).This confirms an absolute disproportial ownership of erven and sectional tile units, favouring exclusively Whites.90,96,97

In terms of ownership based on race, Whites own 49% of the erven (houses) and 45% (sectional titles), while they represent only ±9% of the total population.

It is an outright lie to say home ownership in South Africa matches the racial demographics.

3.2.11. White socioeconomic and political cooperation with the ANC regime overshadowing White socioeconomic and political resistance against the ANC regime

There is critical thinking, planning and action in present-day South African politics and socioeconomic planning within the greater Afrikaner/White community, especially the White farming community, in relation to Black empowerment in general. The basis for Black empowerment — which often leads to conflict — is that the contingent of privileged South Africans, mostly Whites, can no longer remain comfortable while the majority of the country languishes in squalor and poverty. This inequality must be addressed and the best way is through an official empowerment of the poor, through landownership.101-107

Many of the constructive changes planned by the ANC regime to better South Africa’s financial, political and racial environment, are just outright unacceptable to and resisted by the White group’s leaders by all means. Especially the issue of land ownership, as part of the Whites’ exclusive financial interests, figure prominently in this resistance. This immense resistance fully overshadows the Whites’ commitment to freely and willingly participate in land reform.101-107

White socioeconomic and political resistance against the ANC regime’s politics overshadows White socioeconomic and political cooperation with the ANC regime to uplift the poor and landless Blacks.

4. Conclusions

In this article the antagonists’ and the propagandists’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints against or for the changing of Section 25(2) of the South African Constitution to enable land expropriation without compensation or not, were brought directly into comparison through the use of King Solomon’s wisdom approach to logically differentiate between truths/facts and the mass of lies/myths.

It is clear from studying subdivisions 3.2.1 to 3.2.11 of the 3.2. Myth and lies busting: a short retrospective, that only a limited number of the arguments, opinions and viewpoints, as reflected in the previous four articles (Articles 3 to 6) on the land matter, can be taken seriously. Or, better, as Harari describes this mass of untrue information, hanging on in the mindsets of many South Africans: they are mindsets deluged by the positing of immensely irrelevant information by political opportunists, exlusively to gain political power and are in fact fallacies.

In the sequential Article 8 [titled: “Land-ownership and grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting – Part 2 (8)”], subdivisions 3.2.12 to 3.2.23 will further reflect on the truths/facts that are needed to lead the thinking, planning and action on land expropriation after May 2019.

As to the analysis and evaluation of this article, it is at this stage clear, from the studying of subdivision 3.2.1 to 3.2.11 that myths and lies played an enormous role in misleading and misinforming the general South African public on the good intentions of the intended land expropriation and the amendment of Section 25 of the Constitution. It seems so far as if an untrue, distorted picture was created, obstructing the good intentions of land reform. Land reform seems to be an urgent matter which needs immediate implementation. This postulation will be further tested in the sequential article 8.

A full conclusion will be offered at the end of Article 8, titled “Land-ownership and grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting – Part 2 (8)”.

5. References

  1. Martinez R. Creating Freedom. London: Canongate; 2016.
  2. Barron C. Alex Borraine: Architect of TRC, but the felt it failed SA. Sunday Times (Obituaries). 2018 Dec. 9; p. 17.
  3. Dousemetzis H. Messenger of death. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 Nov. 25; pp. 1-2.
  4. Dousemetzis H. The man who killed Apartheid. Pretoria: Jacana; 2018.
  5. Makgoba T. Community needs, not politicians, should lead the redistribution debate. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 23; p. 21.
  6. Smith T. Understanding an assassin: a new look at the man they called insane. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 Nov. 25; p. 2.
  7. Bright J. A history of Israel. London; SCM Press; 1972.
  8. Harari YN. 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. New York: Jonathan Cape; 2018.
  9. Magwood M. Which turn will the 21st Century take? Sunday Times (Review). 2018 Sept. 26; p. 61.
  10. Louw GP. Who are colonists and who are indigenous people in South Africa (1). Ensovoort Volume 38 (2018). Number 12:1: 1-75.
  11. Chomsky N. Masters of Mankind. London: Penguin; 2015.
  12. Collins J. Good to Great.  London: Random House; 2001.
  13. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of South Africa: 1652 to 2018. Part 2: The entities in government and society that executive political leaders used to aid their political behaviour. Ensovoort, 2018; 38: 6(2): 1-38.
  14. Du Pisani K. Jan Smuts: Van boerseun tot wêreldverhoog. Pretoria: Protea; 2017.
  15. Ferguson N. The War of the World. London: Penguin; 2007.
  16. Friedman B. Smuts: A reappraisal. Johannesburg: Hugh Cartland Publishers; 1975.
  17. Holomisa B. South Africa is in the grip of ‘citizen rage’. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Feb. 4; p. 18.
  18. Kenney H. Verwoerd: Architect of Apartheid. Cape Town: Jonathan Ball; 2016.
  19. Pirow O. James Barry Munnik Hertzog. Cape Town: Howard Timmins; 1958.
  20. Roberts JM. The Penguin History of the World. London: Penguin; 1995.
  21. Tomlinson FR. Samevatting van die Verslag van die Kommissie vir Sosio-ekonomiese Ontwikkeling van die Bantoegebiede binne die Unie van Suid-Afrika. Pretoria: Government Press; 1955.
  22. Verwoerd WJ. Verwoerd: Só onthou ons hom. Pretoria: Protea Boekhuis; 2001.
  23. Du Plessis C. Baie emigrante kom terug na Suid-Afrika. Beeld (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 16; p. 14.
  24. Land expropriation talk spreads to Namibia 28 years after independence. [Cited 2018 Apr. 10]. Available from https://www.biznews.com/africa/2018/09/28/namibia-land-grabs-poverty?utm_source= Biznews.com+Main&utm_campaign=e99d7
  25. Louw GP. The crisis of the Afrikaners. Beau Bassin, Mauritius: Lambert; 2018.
  26. Mangu X. Early Zimbabwe land reform showed the value of small-scale farmers. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Sept. 9; p. 22.
  27. Steyn P. Zim-boere dink nuut oor grond. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 12.
  28. Germaner S. Old-flag flutter heads to court. Sunday Times (News). 2019 April 28; p. 9.
  29. 1 King 3:16-27; pp. 515-516) In: Life Application Bible. The living Bible. Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers; 1988.
  30. Joshua 11:14, 11:16 and 11. 23; pp. 325-326. In: Life Application Bible. The living Bible. Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers; 1988.
  31. Dalrymple W. From the Holy Mountain. London: Harper Perennial; 2005.
  32. Kapuściński R. Travels with Herodotus. London: Penguin; 2007.
  33. Afrikaners are black. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 July 8]. Available from http://www.news24/Afrikaners-are-black-20130223
  34. Afrikaner genes could hold key to diseases. Bioformatics Database.[Internet]. [Cited 2018 Aug 27]. Available from http://ichts.tripod.com/Julyupdate/trJuly9-3.html
  35. Boon M. The African way: The power of interactive leadership. Sandton: Zebra Press; 1996.
  36. Giliomee H. Afrikaner Nationalism, 1870-2001. In: A Fisher, M Albeldas (eds). A Question of Survival Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
  37. Greeff J. Deconstructing Jaco: Genetic Heritage of one Afrikaner. Annals of Human Genetics: 2007; 71(5), 674-688. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Dec. 5]. Available from https://DOI:10.1111/j.1469-1809.2007.00363.X
  38. Population genetics and Huntington Disease. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 May 2]. Available from http://web.stanford.ed/group/hopes/cgi-bin/hopes_test/population-genetics-and-hd/
  39. South African History Online (SAHO). History of Slavery and Early Colonisation in South Africa. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Mar. 4]. Available from http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/histiry-slavery-and-early-colonisation-south-africa
  40. The purity of Arthur Kemp’s People: The Afrikaner. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Nov. 18]. Available from http://www.geocities.ws/kempcountrymen/afrikaner1.htm
  41. Barron C. Tread carefully on new land reform. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 9.
  42. Bruce P. EFF’s Dr Charming pulls a fast one on TV. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 May 20; p. 16.
  43. Joffe H. Urgency needed in fixing problems that fed into recession. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 9; p. 2.
  44. Van den Heever CM. Generaal J. B. M. Hertzog. Johannesburg: AP. Boekhandel; 1944.
  45. Mamphele R. Set aside these myths about land reform and let the healing begin. 2018 Mar. 11; p. 21.
  46. Opperheimer M. Six myths about land reform that show the folly of meddling with Bill of Rights. Sunday Times. 2018 May 13; p.18.
  47. Speckman A. Little consumer relief in GDP data. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 2; p. 3.
  48. Bernstein A. Jobs crisis needs new approach. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 30; p. 21.
  49. Derby R. Sober address should set the tone for ministerial introspection. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 2.
  50. Fourie J. Herverdeling neem ons oog van die bal af. Rapport (Sake). 2017 March. 12; p. 4.
  51. Geen MS. The Making of the Union of South Africa. London: Longman and Green; 1945.
  52. Khumalo A. Once empowered argument may have outlived its history. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 May 6; p. 10.
  53. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of South Africa: 1652-2018. Part 1: Leadership characteristics in perspective. Ensovoort, 2018; 38: 6(1): 1-27.
  54. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of the South Africa: 1652 to 2018. Part 3: Factors that influence the development of executive political leaders. Ensovoort, 2018; 38 (2018): 7(1): 1-46.
  55. Louw GP. Perspectives on the background to the landownership dispute (2). Ensovoort, 2019; 39: 1(1): 1-61.
  56. Malope L, Van Rensburg D. Presidensie vat nou oor. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 4.
  57. Speckman A. Corruption ‘limits SOE contribution’. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 8.
  58. Brun B. Africans must be first in line for empowerment. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 22.
  59. Bruce P. EFF’s Dr Charming pulls a fast one on TV. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 May 20; p. 16.
  60. Bulger P. A melting pot in which the flavours refuse to mingle. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 June 10; p. 20.
  61. De Lange J. Grondwet kan op vroegste middel Mei 2019 verander. Rapport (Nuus) 2018 Sept. 23; p. 4.
  62. De Jager T. ‘n Mening: Met onteiening is meer as plase op die spel. Rapport (Sake). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 3.
  63. De Jager T. Grond: Koeël is nog nie deur kerk. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 19; pp. 4-5.
  64. Jordan B. Land: first fix state’s own tenant crisis. Sunday Times (Busines). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 10.
  65. Malema J. Land restoration began five years ago with the birth of the EFF. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 July 22; p. 3.
  66. Khumalo F. Beloved book, still crying. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 September 30; p. 17.
  67. Mthombothi B. This week’s protests had faults, but flying the apartheid flag was the least of them. Sunday Times. 2017 Nov. 5; p. 25.
  68. Mamphele R. Set aside these myths about land reform and let the healing begin. 2018 March. 11; p. 2.
  69. Nortje B. Lessons from our close neighbour’s house fire. Sunday Times. (Business). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 10.
  70. Ngcukaitobi T. Land could right so many wrongs. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 July 8; p. 23.
  71. Skenjana S. SA must make most of investor interest. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 10.
  72. Speckman A. Treasury rallies to aid of a recovering SARS. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 8; p. 125.
  73. Vilakazi HW. The probability of revolution in South Africa. In: M. Albeldas, A. Fisher. (eds.). A Question of Survival. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
  74. Powell J. Talking toTerrorists. London: Penguin; 2014.
  75. Strydom TJ Farmers seek R3bn in drought emergency. Sunday Times. (Business Times). 2019 Jan. 27; p. 1.
  76. Barron C. Now’s the time for business to open its wallet. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 29; p. 9.
  77. Bruce P. Careful moves as the endgame begins. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Dec. 31; p. 12.
  78. Eisenberg G. A shadow regime has hijacked control of SA’s borders. Sunday Times. 2018 May 20; p. 17.
  79. Haffajee F. State capture – it isn’t over. And you’re still paying. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 8; p. 2.
  80. Jonas M. The future state of the nation. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 Dec. 2; pp. 15-16.
  81. Jonas M. We need to act on a systematic and practical basis to generate inclusive economic growth. Only then will South Africa emerge from poverty. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 17.
  82. Maimane M. The DA’s 2019 promise is to bring change that builds one SA for all. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Oct. 14; p. 22.
  83. Mkhondo R. We need to tell our kids about racism, the heroes and its perpetrators – right back to Adam. Sunday Times. 2018 Sep. 2; p. 25.
  84. Mokone T, Makinana A & Deklerk A. Cyril takes over North West. Sunday Times (News). 2018 May 13; p. 2.
  85. Stremlau JJ. Obama’s Mandela lecture comes at an auspicious time for democracy. The Star (Inside). 2018 July 16; p. 11.
  86. Mthombothi B. Gupta heist was an inside job, but the insiders are about to get away with it. Sunday Times. 2018 May 20; p. 17.
  87. Tshabalala M. Beware, the snake might  be dead but these who share its secrets can still bite. Sunday Times. 2018 Jan. 7; p. 13.
  88. Tabane OJJ. Should the media take sides in elections? Sunday Times (Opinion). 2019 Jan. 6; p. 10.
  89. African Check. FAQs about land in SA. City Press.2019 April 21; p. 1.
  90. African Check. Farming hard and smart. City Press. 2019 April 21; p.13.
  91. Wa Afrika M. State airline’s R2.4bn fuel con. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 1.
  92. Corrigan T. There’s madness in the land debate, but not in pointing out the risks. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 22.
  93. Derby R. Land reform is a necessary fix for the faultiness in our economy. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 22; p. 2.
  94. Derby R. Beware the traps of populism in dealing with land reform. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 2.
  95. Versluis. J. SA bewaringsboere wys grond se gehalte. Rapport (Sake). 2019 March 17; p. 3.
  96. Huisman B. Fight to preserve farmland. City Press. 2019 April 21;p.13.
  97. Peter Z. No land? No problem. City Press. 2019April 21. ;p.13.
  98. Khumalo K. Aquaculture Development Zones in the planning stage. The Star. 2019 April 10; p. 16.
  99. Ngcukaitobi T. The Land wars of 2019: Analysing the EFF and ANC manifestos. Mail & Guardian. 2019 Feb. 8-14; pp.10-11.
  100. 100.Haffajee F. Who owns the land? It’s not all black and white, audits reveal. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 6.
  101. Koornhof N. Gematigdes moet lei. Beeld (Middelblad). 2018 Apr. 18; p. 17.
  102. Leon T. On expropriation, let’s not be glad to settle for half a loaf. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 18.
  103. Light is being shone in dark, festering places all over the country. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 16.
  104. Ngcobo S. Land rights activist who was snubbed by town hall: 1969-2018. Sunday Times (Obituaries). 2018 May 27; p. 20.
  105. Grindrod S. What does the DA actually stand for? Sunday Times (Opinion). 2019 Jan. 13; p. 14.
  106. Umraw A. Same old same old likely from ANC manifesto. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2019 Jan. 6; p. 8.
  107. Tsotetsi PB. With our country in ferment, let’s stir in some youthful idealism. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 22; p. 21.

PEER REVIEW

Not commissioned; External peer-reviewed.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author declares that he has no competing interest.

FUNDING

The research was funded by the Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa.

UNSUITABLE TERMS AND INAPPROPRIATE WORDS

Please note that I, the author, am aware that the words Creole, Bantu, Kaffir, Native, Hottentot and Bushman are no longer suitable terms and are inappropriate (even criminal) for use in general speech and writing in South Africa (Even the words non-White and White are becoming controversial in the South African context). The terms do appear in dated documents and are used or translated as such in this article for the sake of historical accuracy. Their use is unavoidable within this context. It is important to retain their use in this article to reflect the racist thought, speech and writings of as recently as sixty years ago. These names form part of a collection of degrading names commonly used in historical writings during the heyday of apartheid and the British imperial time. In reflecting on the leaders and regimes of the past, it is important to foreground the racism, dehumanization and distancing involved by showing the language used to suppress and oppress. It also helps us to place leaders and their sentiments on a continuum of racism. These negative names do not represent my views and I distance myself from the use of such language for speaking and writing. In my other research on the South African populations and political history, I use Blacks, Whites, Xhosa, Zulu, Afrikaners, Coloureds, KhoiSan (Bushmen), KhoiKhoi (Hottentots) and Boers as applicable historically descriptive names.

Land ownership and grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting – Part 2 (8)

Land-ownership and -grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting: Part 2 (8)

Gabriel P Louw

iD orcid.org/0000-0002-6190-8093

Research Associate, Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa (Author and Researcher: Health, History and Politics).

Corresponding Author:

Prof. Dr. GP Louw; MA (UNISA), PhD (PU for CHE), DPhil (PU for CHE), PhD (NWU)

Email: profgplouw@gmail.com

Keywords: Age-old custom, colonist, frontiersman, humanity, impoverishment, indigenous people, land grabbing, landless, land ownership, land redistribution, political history, radicalism, terrorism, unemployment

Ensovoort, volume 40 (2019), number 6: 2

1. Background

1.1. Introduction

This study, a continuation of the previous article: Land-ownership and -grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting: Part 1 (7), analyses and discussses further the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists against, as well as those of the propagandists for, land expropriation. The focus is again, as in Article 7, on a comparison and an analysis of the information with the intention to separate facts and truths from lies and myths that have became intertwined into the fight around landownership. Prominent is once more the use of the King-Solomon’s-wisdom approach central to the selection of the facts and the disregard of fallacies. Sound cognition, outside, personal, emotional, political, judicial and religious contamination, is also the central the guide here, in order to bust unfounded and foolish arguments, opinions and viewpoints of both the antagonists and the propagandists, enabling us to project a profile on the facts that must drive the process of land reform in all its facets, from land expropriation with compensation, to expropriation without compensation.

1.2. Aims of articles 7 and 8 (continued)

The primary aim of this article (Part Two: Article 8) is thus to continue the reflection on these various elements and role players as already described in the previous article (Part One: Article 7). In this context of manipulation and misrepresentation around the South African land expropriation matter, it is important to note that Chomsky1 points out that modern politics often hampers rational thought: It allows the practice of freedom, but limits the pursuit of truth, thus creating ignorance among a large percentage of the population in many countries. This notion is very much applicable to the thinking of South Africans on the landownership matter and its concomitant drivers of indigenousness and poor political and personal integrity. This contaminated paradigm limited the pursuit of truth and blocked the development of a critical role for leaders of integrity and independent thinking in the country’s skewed political system. This vacuum caused a lack of responsibility to provide students, individuals, citizens, politicians, and the wider public, with the knowledge and skills they need to be able to learn how to think rigorously, to be self-reflective and to develop the capacity to govern rather than be governed.

For Chomsky1 it goes much further and deeper. He postulates that it is not enough for the voter to learn how to think critically, but that engaged intellectuals must also develop an ethnic imagination and sense of social responsibility necessary to overcoming the politicians’ blocking of the truth, as well as to make power accountable to the drivers of politics around demanding matters tending towards conflict. It is for Chomsky the intellectuals’ duty to deepen the possibilities for everyone to live dignified lives infused with freedom, liberty, decency, care and justice. It is in this emptiness that the antagonists and propagandists, together with opportunistic and delinquent politicians, exploited the South African fight around landownership. The lack of knowledge and understanding, absolutely needed for sound cognitive thinking, created the opportunity to propagate lies and myths around the country’s critical landownership issue. These widely propagated fallacies bring us nowhere besides the creation of racial and political unrest, with the potential for revolution.1

The aim in this context is to evaluate further the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of both the antagonists and propagandists and to bust their unfounded and foolish arguments, opinions and viewpoints where applicable, in order to project a profile on the facts that must drive the post-2019 process of land reform in all its facets, from land expropriation with compensation, to expropriation without compensation.

2. Method (continued)

The research has been done by means of a literature review. This method aims to construct a viewpoint from the available evidence as the research develops. This approach has been used in modern political-historical research where there is often not an established body of research, as is the case with the ownership of South African soil for the period 1652 to 2018. The sources included articles from 2018, books for the period 1944 to 2018 and newspapers for the period 2017 to 2019. These sources were consulted to evaluate and to describe the facts that must guide us in steering successful land reform from in South Africa from 2019 onwards.

The research findings are being presented in narrative format.

3. Results and discussion (continued)

3.1. Overview

As illustrated in the previous article, Landownership and grabbing in South Africa: King Solomon’s wisdom approach in myth and lies busting – Part 1 (7), there is again a determined and focussed intention to bring clarity to the current conflict and uncertainty around landownership. The various kinds of arbitrary sociopolitical ideologies and delinquent actions by role players to damage a future land-redistribution policy and programme must be noted and unmasked.

3.2. Myth and lies busting: a retrospective (continued from article 7)

In the previous seven articles there was an in-depth analysis that showed not only the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists and propagandists for a change to or against Section 25 of the Constitution to make land expropriation with or without compensation possible, but also that both the antagonists and the propagandists represent many lies and myths in their presentations, and an intention to falsify the truth. These myths and lies (as was previously done in Article 7: 3.2.1 to 3.2.11) will be revisited in this subdivision (see understanding 3.2.12 to 3.2.23) with a retrospective to bust this falsification, as guided by the King-Solomon’s-wisdom approach.

3.2.12. Various statements by the antagonistic White group against the ANC’s land reform are free from comprehensive misrepresentations and suspicion mongering

The present generalising writings in newspapers by various journalists, especially those coming from the antagonistic White group, constantly point out how ill-conceived the planned land expropriation of the ANC is, the wrong way the expropriation is going to be implemented and the evil outcomes to be expected from the land-redistribution program. These generalisations are mostly absolutely misleading and consist of unnecessary suspicion mongering. Specifically the allegation of the inflated political scores that the ANC as a party and its leaders such as Ramaphosa, had allegedly gained through the recruiting of so-called unruly and indecisive Black voters during the past 2019 election with the inclusion of comprehensive land expropriation without compensation as a vote magnet, is without foundation and ill-disposed. On the contrary, the ANC, notwithstanding its propagation of “land grabbing”, performed worse than in the 2014 National Election.

The plethora of ongoing orchestrated false allegations and propaganda regarding the total nationalision of the White farming sector and the redistribution of land away from Whites are plainly foolish and baseless. It lacks evidence. What the antagonistic White group successfully did with their false allegations was to create hostility within the White population against not only the ANC as a regime, but also against Black people in general. Specifically the mass of poor and landless Blacks were fingered. Many ordinary Afrikaners/Whites, even those outside the farming sector and the capitalistic business sector, became fearful of their future in the country. This placed Black and White on a collision course, with the Afrikaners/Whites mistakenly seeing the poor and landless Blacks as the “takers” of their property, forcing the country into a dangerous face-off between “haves” and” have-nots”.1-26

These misreprsentations and suspicion mongering seem to be anchored in the mindsets of some Afrikaners/Whites; essentially because they selfishly want more attention, privileges and benefits than the rest of the South African races and ethnic groups. It reflects a limited understanding and honesty on their part about the true and good intentions of land reform by the ANC regime. Such intentions are blindly and bluntly ignored, together with the exclusive and immense wrongdoing of the proto-Afrikaners and nationalist Afrikaners between 1652 and 1994, which is politically calculated to put the ANC regime under suspicion.1-26

There is conclusive evidence that it is not the post-1994 ANC which is responsible for today’s mass of poor and landless Blacks, but a failed racial-political setup, directly linked to the pre-1994 White rulers’ monopoly on political power, creating almost exclusively White wealth. In reality, it is the Afrikaners/Whites and their ancestors who had robbed millions of Blacks over centuries not only of their self-respect, but plunged them into poverty. This led to a social structure in which millions of Blacks are still today lacking self-respect and dignity, while inequality, poverty, unemployment and landlessness are dominant features of the present South African Black lifestyle.1-26

The present misrepresentations and suspicion mongering, specifically against the person and leadership of Ramaphosa, is cemented in the contaminated mindset of those Whites who wantonly create false allegations against Black rule and politics in post-1994 South Africa. This is a malicious attitude that is directed against any other Black in a leadership position, as Nelson Mandela also quickly came to experience in South Africa after 1994 at the hands of the so-called Afrikaner/White rescuers and saviours, just because he was a Black ruler of the country.1-26

Most of the various statements by the antagonistic White group against the ANC’s land reform is undoubtedly comprehensively misleading and based on suspicion mongering. In general they are false and cannot be taken seriously.

3.2.13. Alleged crookery, corruption and other crimes are uncommon to the South African Black and White executive political leaderships from 1652 up to 2019

The present-day ANC’s alleged corruption and immense political delinquency from 1994 to 2019, thought to be unique to South African political history, is a myth. The presence of crookery, corruption and state capture under the Zuma regime, which the Ramaphosa regime fully inherited in 2018, cannot be disputed. However, various pre-1994 White regimes also clearly stand out as immensely affected. This is a process that commenced in 1652.3,11,15,20,27-44

The early political history of the country’s corruption statistics and records reflect large-scale evidence of corruption and theft of state assets. Prominent are the delinquent actions by Simon and Willem van der Stel. There is further the evidence that the various White regimes under the NP between 1948 and 1994 were also saturated with serious political and socio-economic misdemeanours in which state money played a central role. It indeed cost John Vorster his prime-ministership.3,11,15,20,27-44

It is wrong to assume that South Africa since 1652 has not been betrayed by many of its executive political leaders through their crookery, corruption and other crimes.

3.2.14. The role of terrorism, autocracy, fascism and undemocratic actions in the obtaining of South African landownership is unique to the ANC

The accusation that the ANC is a terrorist organisation which, as a result, is alleged to lack the integrity and ability as a legal government to make constructive social, economic and political contributions to improve South Africa for every citizen but has failed since 1994 to uplift the mass of poor Blacks, may also be levelled at the various White regimes since 1652. The process of terrorism, specifically around land grabbing by the Whites had just played itself out more slowely and over a longer period, namely 1652 to 1910, 1910 to 1948 and 1948 to 1994. This stretched time-frame makes it less obvious than the alleged delinquent actions of the ANC between 1994 and 2019. The various White regimes were also unable to run passable governments or to improve the quality of life of all South African people, beyond their provision of handouts mainly to Whites. Especially prominent among such handouts were those received by the Afrikaners from 1948. The Blacks’ as well as the Whites’ historical and modern land grabbing, have thus been founded on liberation actions and the committing of terrorism alike.3,11,30,31,39,45-47

Evidence contradicts outright the allegations of the ANC as an autocratic, fascist and undemocratic regime in terms of the governmental rules agreed on by the 1994 Political Dispensation and embodied in the Constitution. The labels of racial discrimination, autocracy and fascism are more applicable to the Whites’ various regimes stretching from 1652 to 1994. Democracy as practised in the politics of South Africa under the various White regimes from 1652, especially those from 1913 to 1994, was an exclusive “Whites-only democracy”. This was one which was enjoyed solely by the Whites occupying and owning 93% of the country known as South Africa. It was executed with an exclusive policy of White one-man-one-vote, based on absolute autocracy and fascism predominating during this White era, subjecting the voiceless majority of the Black population to the status of second-class citizenship.3,11,30,31,39,45-47

Terrorism, autocracy, fascism and undemocratic behaviour in the obtention of landownership for Blacks exclusively are at this stage absent from the ANC. It is indeed characteristic of the various White regimes during the period from 1652 to 1994.

3.2.15. Political and racial radicalisms associated with the present-day ANC are early manifestations of land grabbing within Mao-Stalin-Mugabe-horrors

The prospect of the horrors of land grabbing as reflected by Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Stalin’s anti-landowners inclination or Robert Mugabe’s land-grabbing policy in Zimbabwe, to establish and uplift the poor via agriculture, features prominently in the arguments, opinions and viewpoints of the antagonists against any form of land reform. The antagonists offer Mao’s, Stalin’s and Mugabe’s delinquency as examples of how bad the present-day South African land expropriation can or will turn out. Such representations represent planned malevolent distractions from South Africa’s present economic and political realities by the White antagonists for opportunistic reasons. The so-called sudden rise in and presence of farm-murders as indicators of a Mao-Stalin-Mugabe-scenario-in-waiting are part of a well-planned false-news media system, consisting of manipulated information which is sent out constantly and continuously to the world by the antagonists. It is the use of “stretched statistics” by a section of the Whites from within their constant supply of outright “false news” and their ongoing White supremacy. It is totally contradicted by true hard statistics.11,15,48-59

The racial factor is undoubtedly present in some of the post-1994 South African incidence of murder (primarily with Whites as the victims), but it is insignificant as a cause of murder in general in South Africa. The average Black’s inclination and attitude are very positive towards Whites and absolute lacking murderous intent based on the landownership of Whites or as a form of revenge because of Apartheid.11,15,48-59

Political and racial radicalism, associated with the present-day ANC, as early manifestations of land grabbing within Mao-Stalin-Mugabe-horrors, are falsities.

3.2.16. The probability of racial genocide, driven by revenge and counter-revenge in the future political history of South Africa, is absent or minimal

Racial and ethnic genocide had started in 1652 at the Cape Settlement. It was executed in time by Whites as well as Blacks all over South Africa. It was first practised by the Dutch and the British authorities at the Cape. This is evidenced by the Dutch and the British authorities’ extreme suppression and abuse of the indigenous inhabitants at the early Cape and of the proto-Boers, as well as the British genocide during the Second Anglo Boer War (1899–1902) against the Boers and their families (as well as a contingent of non-Whites). The proto-Afrikaners’ and later Afrikaners’ political delinquency against the non-Whites equals these earlier genocides. Also the political crimes of the Black tribes against each other during the first and second Black colonisations of South Africa between 1810 and 1840 (which represent South Africa’s first known full-scale genocides), had led to brutal ethnic wars and the murder of Blacks by Blacks for landownership. Many of these various genocides were anchored in revenge and counter-revenge.7,47,60-81

It is a myth to accept the statement that genocide in some form is not a general phenomenon in the South African political history. It was indeed practised by most of its people. Thus we have to reject the statement that some of the radical racial groups will not get involved again in revenge or counter-revenge in an effort to rectify what they see as the wrongs of the past. Prominent in this regard are the poverty and inequality of more than 60% of the Black population who can retaliate against the failure of the ANC regime to improve their situation dramatically now after it won a mandate to rule for the sixth time.7,47,60-81

The probability of racial genocide, driven by revenge and counter-revenge in the future political history of South Africa, is not absent or minimal.

3.2.17. Anarchy, revolution and political coups are not specific future outcomes of the Black masses’ poverty, landlessness and inequality

In many of the bloody civil wars, the availability and ownership of water, food, accommodation and land played central roles when these essential shortcomings occur for long periods in the greater community. In the pre-1994, as well as in the post-1994 periods, all-out revolutions and coups, prominently driven by the poor and landless Blacks, have been absent from South Africa.48,52-54,82-85

Chronic anarchy has shown up the last decade in some form or another. The landownership issue has played a prominent role here. This is an outcome which has been driven by the poverty, human indignity and inequality of the mass of neglected Blacks. This conflicting and unstable situation was created over many centuries by the delinquent actions of White regimes. This outcome is not because the mass of landless and poor people are Black (meaning any group can reacts with this kind of behaviour under circumstances of political, social and economic stress, as the Boers reacted at the early Cape against the British), or because Blacks have an inborn characteristic to commit anarchy and revolution (If it was an inborn characteristic, the Blacks would long ago have reacted against their wrongdoers).48,52-54,82-85

It must also be noted that there are no political intentions to derail by military or other physical means the present-day land reform by the ± 4-million modern thinking and politically-orientated Afrikaners/Whites. These ± 4-million Whites clearly dissociate themselves from the at most ± 300 000 so-called White antagonists who undoubtedly show serious hostility against Blacks.48,52-54,82-85

But, taking certain indicators into consideration, it must be acknowledged that revolution seems undoubtedly a strong possibility if the poverty and landlessness of the mass of Blacks are not sufficiently and immediately addressed, meaning that human deprivation and misery can be the primary drivers. The chances for a coup in terms of political ideologies and party-political interests are minimal at this stage in South Africa. Although there are clear links between the Zimbabwe’s politics, the Arab Spring and the collapse of the communist regimes in Europe in 1989 and present-day South Africa, the current South African situation differs far more from those examples, than it shows any similarities. Prominent here is the country’s sound democracy since 1994, which the present ANC regime underwrites and will respect if they lose any National Election. In addition, the South African Defence Force is not much connected to domestic policies, and will probably not participate in a coup favouring the ANC or an opposition group. Land expropriation as a primary driver of revolution because of the Whites’ enormous holdings of land and thus bringing death to White land owners, is out.48,52-54,82-85

Anarchy, revolution and political coups are not natural outcomes of the personal and political characters of South Africa’s poor and landless Blacks. But those could be specific future outcomes if the South African poor and landless Blacks’ immense poverty, landlessness and inequality, accumulated over many years, are not rapidly addressed.48,52-54,82-85

The postulation that anarchy, revolution and political coups will not and cannot be specific future outcomes of the Blacks’ poverty, landlessness and inequality, is a myth.

3.2.18. The absence of Black poverty within present-day South Africa’s  wealth

It is a myth to accept that the years of isolation of the mass of Blacks in Black territories (areas representing in practice only 15% of the total South Africa geography), did not contribute directly to the present-day immense Black poverty and the Blacks’ political and economical disempowerment. A long-term programme of comprehensive land redistribution is an absolute must to rectify the economic condition of the poor and landless Blacks.11,86-110

The negative impact of poverty and inequality on the Black population is well described by the fact that out of the total population of South Africa (±55-million) who need some basic income to be able to live, only 15 million are working in some form of established job. Of the± 55-million the Blacks form ± 45-million with 29 million living in poverty. This immense Black poverty and discrepancy with the Whites’ wealth in general, shows up when comparing Whites versus Blacks: the ratio for Whites is ten in work against 13 unemployed (10:13 or 71:100), while the ratio of Blacks employed versus unemployed is 10:28 (36:100). Technically it reflects, in terms of numbers, a White unemployment of ±1.5 million persons against a Black unemployment of ±29 million persons. The official unemployment number, putting the unemployment of Whites at 7% versus 30% for Blacks, is untrue. The 30% for Blacks is more likely to be ±60%.11,86-110

Compared to the various White regimes’ official socio-economic uplifting of the so-called Poor Afrikaners (1830 -1939), as well as the uplifting after 1938 to 1960 of Whites by nationalist Afrikaner politics — especially with its extreme racial favouring of the remnants of the still poor and unsuccessful Afrikaners in the economically progressive South Africa — there was an absolute absence of financial uplifting of Blacks in the political history of the country. The post-1994 BBBEE and land redistribution policies have been totally insignificant and incomplete. They also came also too late after a period of more than 300 years of immense deprivation.11,86-110

The awarding of land through land expropriation to the poor and landless Blacks, using Majority Procurement (MP), after their suffering for many years under the extreme practice of Minority Empowerment (ME) of the Whites’ discriminatory politics, is a prerequisite in a balanced democracy.11,86-110

To posit that there is an absence of Black poverty within present-day South Africa’s wealth, is a wanton lie.

3.2.19. The increase of inclusive (social) capitalism will endanger exclusive (classic) capitalism and the economy stability of South Africa

The present condition of mass poverty and inequality needs a form of capitalism that seeks to put society rather than profit at the heart of decision-making, away from the manipulating actions of business bullies and the rich (which includes mostly the Whites) whose exclusive contemporary capitalism places profit in a central position. The postulation that society always has in the past, and will again benefit from exclusively capitalist instruments, is opportunistic and false.11,21,22,31,51,112-116

The model of exclusive (classic) capitalism in South Africa’s economic and political thinking, planning and doing, has been going on for ages — a model which imitates the economics of the Western world with outcomes that are not always good — has only resulted in the growth of a small group of super-rich and the growth of a mass of super-poor, bringing immense poverty to as much as ± 29 millions of poor and marginalised Black people in South Africa.11,21,22,31,51,112-116

The introduction of inclusive capitalism is not intended to erase exclusive capitalism or to change South Africa’s economic system to an exclusively socialist or Marxist model. It is a separate economic-financial model that is needed, parallel to the exclusive capitalistic model, but intertwined to form a progressive socio-economic system to benefit every citizen as well as the country as a whole. This model reflects the justified redistribution of the financial assets, including the redistribution of land to the poor masses, which have been discriminated against outright since 1652.11,21,22,31,51,112-116

The proposed implementation of inclusive capitalism, to drive and to establish land expropriation, is just an extension of the old existing inclusive capitalistic model emanating from the pre-1994 use of the South African state-owned enterprises (like today’s Transnet, SABC, Eskom, SAA), as well as primary and secondary education, etc. It is a financial policy which was also extensively used by the early White regimes to uplift the poor and landless Whites. It indeed reflects, notwithstanding the outcry of the antagonists, the country’s own socialistic-capitalistic governmental system, dating back to 1910.11,21,22,31,51,112-116

Inclusive capital must be seen as intertwined with exclusive capital. It is a supportive system to improve the present-day disadvantaged people as was done many times during the uplifting of the Poor Whites in South Africa.11,21,22,31,51,112-116

It is a myth that increasing inclusive (social) capitalism will endanger exclusive (classic) capitalism and the economy stability of South Africa.

3.2.20. The functioning par excellence of the 1994 Dispensation within the mandate of South Africa’s Bill of Rights

The South African Bill of Rights is not an internationally-lauded constitution which is premised on freedom, dignity, and equality, as it is described by the antagonists. Its most prominent shortcoming is its lack of understanding for the country’s indigenous problems, realities and challenges to make South Africans true Africans. It is a piece of legislation which exclusively favours Whites and has so far stood in the path of a totally South African Rehabilitation. It did not clear the immense backlog created by the centuries-old comprehensive deprivation of non-Whites and led to further financial imbalance after 1994.1,3,7,31,125,130-132

The 1994 Dispensation and the Constitution represent (and safeguard) a still self-appointed European supremacy, as in pre-1994 South Africa. Its premise is “to plan and to may think” for Blacks on democracy, human rights and other demanding and society-shaping realities, as well as to assure post-1994 benefits to the White minority and to safeguard their exclusive and permanent interests. Its incompleteness is well reflected by its inability to institute a balanced and just landownership.1,3,7,31,125,130-132

To say the 1994 Dispensation within South Africa’s Bill of Rights is functioning par excellence in the service of all citizens, especially the poor Blacks, is a misrepresenation and a farce.

3.2.21. The altering of Section 25 will cause a negative effect for South Africa’s local and foreign economics

South Africa can still develop immensely without foreign investment. Even in its most extreme land reform mode, the country’s economy will not necessarily be devastated as predicted. In this context, it must be noted that the intended land expropriation is not going to be radical in line with nationalisation and there is no intention to block foreigners from the ownership of land either. These foreigners’ opportunities will be left untouched. The present decline of radical political parties propagating land grabbing and the nationalision of public and private assets during the May 2019 election, such as Black First Land First, confirms the excellent prospects for a continuing democracy and individuals rights in future south Africa.117-129,137-142

On the availability of capital for development, is it important to note that there is more than enough South African capital internally available to help a start-up of large-scale Black farming without the so-called saviour’s help from foreigners.117-129,137-142

The argument that Section 25’s alteration would block the country’s so-called “flourishing economy” and that foreign investors for instance will not risk to have their land confiscated when they can pick any number of other nations that will protect their investments, is fake news par excellence. It is just not true.

The changing of Section 25 will not bring a negative effect for South Africa’s local and foreign economics.

3.2.22. Unnecessary to restructure South Africa’s colonial financial-political-structure and landownership in 2019

The political, social and economic — basically bankrupt — setup that the ANC regime unwillingly inherited from the NP regime is unfortunately part of a colonial financial structure and landownership that dates back to the White colonial years. It reflects the same centuries-old colonial-political “White privilege”, including their domination of the Black population, White landlordships and the benefits of an exclusive White farming economy, as well as the in-depth practice of exclusive capitalism by a few White rich who manipulate the country’s economics and politics in the background. Any change to the colonial financial-political structure and landownership structure means the end of their White empowerment.4,6,22,23,93,143-145

This present-day one-sided colonial financial-political structure and landownership structure make it possible that the country can still be governed by a self-serving White minority, who is mostly well-established in the White business and financial sectors, and includes a strong foreign component. Notwithstanding their so-called “awarded” political liberty in 1994, the majority of Blacks are still disenfranchised economically, socially and to be honest, even politically. This is essentially because of the faulty 1994 colonial Constitution in which the land matter was never clearly spelled out and truly addressed. This situation makes the comprehensive decolonisation of South Africa an absolute necessity. Prominent in this respect is the much-needed modernisation of the agricultural economy, in which the implementation of a comprehensive program of land reform and landownership is central. Included in this modernisation of the agricultural economy is the need to establish a large community of Black farmers that may compete with the present-day monopolised White colonial farming system and its models. On the other hand, there is the absolute need that they must take over the functions of the diminishing White farmers and White population to assure that South Africa stays economically effective.4,6,22,23,93,143-145

The ANC is in the process of addressing the exploitation inherent to the present-day one-sided wantonly-colonial financial-political structure and landownership system, such as the imbalance and injustice of landownership which is today still mostly located in White hands. The only solution is through the direct restructuring of these structures. This process, as activated by the ANC, is democratic and free from colonial autocracy; it is characterised by a politics that eschews the pre-1994 as well as the present financial and political structures. Their intention is to intertwine exclusive and inclusive capitalism.4,6,22,23,93,143-145

It is an utmost necessity to restructure South Africa’s colonial financial-political structure and the form of landownership that goes with it.

3.2.23. Land reform’s short and long-term upheavals will bring serious consequences

The truth is that land reform always brings some upheavals in which there is bad for some inhabitants and good for others. The key to doing this division is primarily to consider the numbers of the people to suffer versus the numbers to benefit. Secondly, the way in which the victims of the proposed land reform had come into possession of their wealth needs to be considered during this reform.11,15,55,86,91,96,101,103,106,111,146-165

Derby’s150 guideline in this context is more than clear when he writes150:2:

But of course, as part of land reform, some farmers will find themselves having to carve up their lands; one can’t ignore our shared history. Land reform comes with great upheaval as it involves taking land from those who have it and giving it to those who don’t. To unleash it, title deeds are necessary. Landowners, white farmers, the government and our chiefs and kings need to buy in so South Africa can reap the economic rewards.

Whites are the minority of inhabitants, benefiting immensely from landownership and wealth accumulated over many centuries, clearly at the cost of the majority of Blacks. The Blacks’ immense suffering before 1994 was not much of a concern to most of the Whites. There is undoubtedly a price to pay by the Whites in the land-transformation process.

Land reform and expropriation, where applicable, are needed to uplift the poor and landless Blacks and to make South Africa an effective and happy country for the majority of its people.

The good of the proposed land expropriation absolutely overshadows the bad of it.

The intended land reform does not hold serious short and long-term consequences and upheavals in broad terms for the country.

4. Conclusions

It is clear from studying the above subdivision “3.1. Myth and lies busting: a short retrospective, in this article (Part 2: Article 8)” as well as the previous article (Part1: Article 7), that myths and lies have so far played an enormous role in misleading and misinforming South Africans on the intended land expropriation and the amendment of Section 25 of the Constitution. It is clear that only a limited number of the arguments, opinions and viewpoints as reflected in the previous four published Articles (Articles 3 to 6) on the land matter, can be trusted as true.166,167 Or, better, as Harari166 describes this mass of untrue information, hanging on in the mindsets of many South Africans: they are mindsets deluged by the posting of grossly irrelevant information by political opportunists to get exclusive political and economical empowerment and are in fact falsities.

In this article the antagonists’ and the propagandists’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints against or for the changing of Section 25(2) of the South African Constitution to enable land expropriation without compensation or not, were brought directly into comparison with the exclusively used King-Solomon’s-wisdom approach to differentiate between the few truths/facts and the mass of lies/myths. This brings us to the existing few facts and truths, guiding us clearly to the truism that land expropriation is unavoidable in post-2019 South Africa.

There is clearly large-scale resistance to land reform, specifically among the White farmers. This resistance, which is turning more and more into hostility, has over time spread extensively to the general White population. This issue was wantonly generalised and politicised in the past by the various so-called saviours and rescuers of the Whites. Most of these persons and groups are purely driven by their own selfish and opportunistic interests, while many of them reflect political remnants of the old Apartheid ideology of the NP and the Broederbond. The hard fact is here that the majority of people in the country cannot be held back by false sentiment and the exclusive interests of an increasingly diminutive group, who were in the past the unjustified beneficiaries of the discriminatory political system from 1652 onwards. The overwhelming interests of the mass of Black poor and landless people can no longer be ignored. The present status of landownership and economic empowerment is a recipe for revolution.11

Land expropriation with reasonable compensation is a must that needs immediate activation. But, where applicable, land expropriation without compensation should also be part of the tools to rearrange the South African scene as to land ownership. In this respect, state property stands out prominently as the first stage in activating land expropriation. The mass of poverty, landlessness, indignity and inequality, which had became a lifestyle for nearly 30 million Blacks — people isolated socially, economically and politically from their rights as South Africans and exposed to delinquencies equal to crimes against humanity — creates the potential for country-wide anarchy and revolution, to flame up from the end of 2019, if not fully addressed. This makes land expropriation an absolute priority.168

The prominent question at this stage is: are there South African political parties to rapidly steer the initiative of land expropriation with success into the future? This is a very complex question to answer, given that popularity at the ballot box does not guarantee that a government of quality and ability is put into power. The political analyst, Mamokgethi Molopyane169, writes that for all 48 of the parties that had taken part in the May 2019 election, there is the sign of a kind of “adapt or die” in the political outcomes of the past election. Indeed, seen from a critical focus, most of the 48 parties had already died silently on May 8, without pain or a being missed by the population. Even the three main contenders, the ANC, DA and EFF, are at a crossroads. There are immense weaknesses in their political bodies borne out by the election. Prominent among these is their disconnection from the people they assumed supported their ideologies and actions. Pertinent here, in their confusion, is to be found the issue of land expropriation without compensation and the negative racial context created by land grabbing and the nationalisation of Whites’ assets.169

Molopyane169 gives good insight into the three main political parties’ failure to live up to the standards required of a ruler of quality and their present political constitution. He writes as follows on them169:21:

“The coinciding decline of the ANC and the Democratic Alliance (DA), contrasted with the below-expectations growth of the Economic Freedom Fighters EFF), are unsurprising developments with far-reaching, unique consequences for each.”

Undoubtedly this puts my question, “…are there South African political parties to rapidly steer the initiative of land expropriation with success into the future?” directly in the foreground. In the context of doubt on the future abilities of the ANC, DA and EFF Molopyane posits169:21:

“The ANC’s support is waning. It’s proving to be devoid of freshness, with leaders who have been in politics for so long they may be reluctant to envision change. The party must undergo a makeover of its leaders and change the perceptions they’ve created. If a credible, attractive opposition emerged, its hold on power would fail. Its biggest hurdle is itself.”

On the DA he writes169:21:

“These elections have shown that having a black man in charge doesn’t translate into resonance with black voters. The DA’s crisis may not be as apparent as that of the ANC, but it’s similarly struggling to contemplate change. Worse, it’s riddled with the fear that it might alienate its white supporters.”

With reference to the EFF, he postulates169:21:

“We tend to forget the enthusiasm and political cult of youth doesn’t offer value for voters. Populism in the age of social media doesn’t mean the same in real life. The election showed the red party will have to come up with a new approach. Its change in direction must reflect the challenges faced by a society in an ever-changing globalised economy. Although appearing to make the right noises, voters denied the EFF that 15%. Was it a case of dislike, distrust or low turnout?”

The land expropriation issue, together with the question of the trustworthiness and the integrity of the three parties, not only to govern the country but also to successfully execute a comprehensive and justly balanced land expropriation programme, is important here. Where the DA successfully resists radical politics, its ultra-conservative land-reform policy is a loser for the mass of poor and landless Blacks. In contradistinction, both the EFF and the ANC show revolutionary thinking on the assets of the White population, while the ANC in its 25 years of rule has displayed an absolute lack of integrity and trustworthiness.

The ANC won with a national majority of 57,7% for a sixth term the right to be the country’s ruling party until 2024, and thus seems as if it is going to be the sole executor in terms of its promises on land expropriation (which seemingly includes expropriation without compensation in certain appropriate cases) in its political manifesto (its so-called “political CV”) for the May 8, 2019 election. However, there is also an absolute prerequisite for it to reflect on the strongest opposition parties’ political manifestos for the May 8, 2019, election regarding their promises and abilities to execute land expropriation successfully. It is necessary to see how these opposition parties in theory could be evaluated as good versus bad regimes should they have win the ruler’s throne in May 2019. (This approach would give also a preview of their potential as good versus bad opposition parties on the land matter, specificallly for the period up to 2024).170,171

Closely linked to these political manifestos in the description of the three parties’ “characters”, are also the public viewpoints as a further descriptive guide on the three parties’ “characters” up to May 8, 2019. These public viewpoints are best reflected by the reporting on them by investigative journalists (their so-called “political letters of reference”). These mentioned letters of reference are seen by many political commentators, strategists and analysts as the most (and only) decisive guide for the true description of a political party and its leaders’ quality and integrity; far more trustworthy than the so-called “trust for the party” brought out by the voters at the ballot box.

Land grabbing is an age-old custom in South Africa. It was practised by Blacks on Blacks as well as Whites on Blacks for more than three hundred years. It is thus of utmost importance that this custom is not restarted again in 2019 and that a perfect solution to the present imbalance between White landownership and Black landownership is rapidly found, without falling back into the past’s vicious circle of revenge and counter-revenge to erase the manifold injustices done before 1994.

South Africa’s political history is far from completion. Also, there is an immense political history that needs to be retraced and to be rewritten, or at least to be corrected. It does not matter if we liked it or not: it is a must. Angelo Fick172, the director of research at the Auwal Socio-economic Research Institute, guides us here par excellence when he writes172:29:

We have unfinished business from the distant past — questions of land dispossession unaddressed, issues of colonial and apartheid spatial dynamics in our towns and cities that affect the life chances of the majority, the poor, in the most unequal society in the world.

We have urgent business from the more recent past, the fetid pollution of corruption, maladministration, theft of state resources and non-delivery of services.

At this stage the most demanding question, in terms of Kgosana’s168, Molopyane’s169 and Fick’s172 pinpointing of the wrongs of our politics and the immediate demand to fix our past and our future, is: can land expropriation (with compensation or without compensation) be executed after more than three hundreds of years of failure — correctly and with justice?

In the next three successive articles (Articles 9 to 11) the political manifestos of the DA, EFF and the ANC for the May 8, 2019 election, together with the reporting of investigative journalists on these three parties’ political thinking, planning and actions, will be put into perspective in an effort to reflect on how the expected land expropriation will or may turn out.

5. References

  1. Chomsky N. Occupy. Parktown: Penguin; 2012.
  2. Barron C. Now’s the time for business to open its wallet. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 29; p. 9.
  3. Boon M. The African way: The power of interactive leadership. Sandton: Zebra Press; 1996.
  4. Booysen V. Ramaphosa se plan: Briljante idée, maar… Beeld (Sake). 2018 Apr. 18; p. 18.
  5. Haffajee F. State capture – it isn’t over. And you’re still paying. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 8; p. 2.
  6. Haffajee F. Gordhan’s Gornado shakes up public enterprises. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 2.
  7. Giliomee H. Afrikaner Nationalism, 1870-2001. In: A Fisher, M Albeldas (eds). A Question of Survival Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
  8. Jonas M. We need to act on a systematic and practical basis to generate inclusive economic growth. Only then will South Africa emerge from poverty. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 17.
  9. Jonas M. The future state of the nation. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 Dec. 2; pp. 15-16.
  10. Light is being shone in dark, festering places all over the country. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 16.
  11. Louw GP. The crisis of the Afrikaners. Beau Bassin, Mauritius: Lambert; 2018.
  12. Mkhondo R. We need to tell our kids about racism, the heroes and its perpetrators – right back to Adam. Sunday Times. 2018 Sep. 2; p. 25.
  13. Maimane M. The DA’s 2019 promise is to bring change that builds one SA for all. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Oct. 14; p. 22.
  14. Mokone T, Makinana A & Deklerk A. Cyril takes over North West. Sunday Times (News). 2018 May 13; p. 2.
  15. Opperheimer M. Six myths about land reform that show the folly of meddling with Bill of Rights. Sunday Times. 2018 May 13; p.18.
  16. Prince L. ‘CR moet wys hy is álmal se president’. Beeld (Nuus). 2019 Jan. 11; p. 4.
  17. Roodt D. Wat gedoen kan word aan ongelykheid in SA. Rapport. 2018 Apr. 29; p. 4.
  18. Rantete J. The African National Congress and the Negotiated Settlement in South Africa. Pretoria: Van Schaik; 1998.
  19. Steyn P. Zim-boere dink nuut oor grond. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 12.
  20. South Africa. Unie van Suid-Afrika. Samevatting van die verslag van die Kommissie vir die Sosio-Ekonomiese Ontwikkeling van die Bantoegebiede binne die Unie van Suid-Afrika. Pretoria: Government Press; 1955.
  21. Stremlau JJ. Obama’s Mandela lecture comes at an auspicious time for democracy. The Star (Inside). 2018 July 16; p. 11.
  22. Tsotetsi PB. With our country in ferment, let’s stir in some youthful idealism. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 22; p. 21.
  23. Umraw A. Same old same old likely from ANC manifesto. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2019 Jan. 6; p. 8.
  24. Van Rensburgh RJ. Só bereik Kriel, Buys en Van Zyl niks nie. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 10.
  25. Wa Afrika M. State airline’s R2.4bn fuel con. Sunday Times. 2018 May 27; p. 1.
  26. Wyngaard H. Grondkwessie bied die land ‘n tweede kans. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 19; p. 6.
  27. Bruce P. Careful moves as the endgame begins. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Dec. 31; p. 12.
  28. De Groot S. The politics of perspective and the power of dissent. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Apr. 15; p. 16.
  29. Eisenberg G. A parallel, shadow regime has hijacked control of SA’s borders. Sunday Times. 2018 May 20; p. 17.
  30. Geen MS. The Making of the Union of South Africa. London: Longman and Green; 1945.
  31. Louw GP. Who are colonists and who are indigenous people in South Africa? Ensovoort, 2018; 38: 7(3): 1-59.
  32. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of South Africa: 1652 to 2018. Part 2: The entities in government and society that executive political leaders used to aid their political behaviour. Ensovoort, 2018; 8: 6(2): 1-44.
  33. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of the South Africa: 1652 to 2018. Part 3: Factors that influence the development of executive political leaders. Ensovoort, 2018; 38 (2018): 7(1): 1-54.
  34. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of South Africa: 1652 to 2018. Part 4: A basic checklist for the appraisal of executive political leaders and regimes. Ensovoort, 2018; 38 (2018): 7(2): 1-36.
  35. Maimane reasserting his leadership to steer his party on a new course. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 June 3; p. 16.
  36. Morudu P. Wie dra die meeste skuld? Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 May 22; pp. 4-5.
  37. Mthombothi B. Gupta heist was an inside job, but the insiders are about to get away with it. Sunday Times. 2018 May 20; p. 17.
  38. Olof Palme. Prime minister of Sweden assassination 1986. [Internet]. [Cited 2019 Jan. 3]. Available from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/europe/sweden-olof-palme-killing.html
  39. Powell J. Talking to terrorists. London: Penguin; 2014.
  40. Retief H. ‘n Halfeeu oue seer brand nog. Rapport (Nuus). 2016 Mar. 15; p. 11.
  41. Sampson A. Mandela. The authorised biography. London: Harper Collins; 2000.
  42. Smith T. Timol inquest breakthrough is an important step in exorcising ghost of BJ Vorster. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Oct. 15; p. 18.
  43. Spence J E. Republic under Pressure. A study of South African Foreign Policy. London: Oxford University Press; 1965.
  44. Tshabalala M. Beware, the snake might be dead but these who share its secrets can still bite. Sunday Times. 2018 Jan. 7; p. 13.
  45. Scholtz GD. Suid-Afrika en die Wéreldpolitiek: 1652-1952. Pretoria: Voortrekkerpers; 1964.
  46. Van der Merwe PJ. Van Verversingspos tot Landbou-Kolonie: 1662 – 1707. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA Wiid, AL Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: Nasou; Annon.
  47. Van der Walt AJH. Die Eeu van die Veeboer-pionier: 1707-1779. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA Wiid, AL Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: NASOU; Annon.
  48. Bruce P. Genocide on the farms? Show us the facts. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Mar. 25; p. 20.
  49. Halt descent to law of jungle. The Star (Opinion). 2018 Sept. 12; p.12.
  50. Kok A. Lys: AfriForum het volste reg. Beeld (Kommentaar). 2018 Aug. 16; p.16.
  51. Mamphele R. Set aside these myths about land reform and let the healing begin. 2018 Mar. 11; p. 21.
  52. Monama T. AfriForum slams farm murders stats. The Star. 2018 Sept. 12; p. 2.
  53. Monama D, Mashaba S. We are a country under crime siege. The Star. 2018 Sept. 12; pp.1-2.
  54. Monama T. Murder spree leaves SA reeling. The Star. 2018 Sept. 12; p. 3.
  55. Mtongana L. Black miners fear charter will fall short. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Mar. 25; p. 6.
  56. Mthombothi B. Now that Zuma’s gone, if not forgotten, the red berets reveal their true colours. Sunday Times. 2018 July 29; p. 19.
  57. Ncube J. Editor’ Note. The Star. 2018 Sept. 12; p. 2.
  58. Ndlovu R. Harare scraps contentious ‘indigenisation’. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Mar. 25; p. 8.
  59. Ndlovu R. It won’t be easy to clean up Bob’s mess. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 July 15; p. 3.
  60. Buys E. Tien redes waarom wit mense moeg is vir verskoning vra. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Apr. 23; p. 11.
  61. Cronjé F. Etniese verskille kan SA pad van Brexit laat loop. Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 July 3; p. 6.
  62. Chigumadzi P. Helen Zille and the myth of the White Saviour. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Mar. 19; p. 21.
  63. Croucamp P. So, wat gaan in jou kop aan? Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Mar. 12; pp. 4-5.
  64. De Wet C, Hattingh L, Visagie J. Die VOC aan die Kaap: 1652 – 1795. Pretoria: Protea Boekhuis; 2017.
  65. Friedman B.Smuts: A reappraisal. Johannesburg: Hugh Cartland Publishers; 1975.
  66. Hancke H, Sejake E. Coligny-drama se pyn en puin. Rapport (Nuus). 2017 May 14; p. 7.
  67. Hancke H, Sejake E. Die pot kook oor in Coligny. Rapport (Nuus), 2017 Apr. 30; p. 3.
  68. Joubert JJ. Advice in many shades from Helen Zille. Sunday Times (Politics). 2017 Apr. 22; p.4.
  69. Khumalo A. Transformation not pacification. Sunday Times (Business Times). 2017 Mar. 19; p. 10.
  70. Muofhe MS. Xenophobia. This violence is not SA way. Sunday Times. 2017 Mar. 5; p. 18.
  71. Norman K. Into the Laager. Cape Town: Jonathan Ball; 2016.
  72. Pirow O. James Barry Munnik Hertzog. Cape Town: Howard Timmins; 1958.
  73. Retief H. ‘Mense moet onthou dis Afrika dié.’ Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 May 19; p. 3.
  74. Schlemmer L. South Africa’s National Party Government. In: L Berger, B Godsell. (eds.). A Future South Africa: Visions, Strategies, and Realities. Cape Town: Human & Rousseau, Tafelberg; 1988.
  75. Shattuck J. I loved my granny…but she was a Nazi. Saturday Star. 2017 Apr. 1; p. 16.
  76. Steyn R. Jan Smuts: Afrikaner sonder grense. Cape Town: Jonathan Ball; 2017.
  77. Swanepoel E. ‘Party skole wil nie praat oor die verlede.’ Rapport (Nuus). 2017 May 14; p. 6.
  78. Van den Heever CM. Generaal J. B. M. Hertzog. Johannesburg: A.P. Boekhandel; 1944.
  79. Vilakazi HW. The probability of revolution in South Africa. In: M Albeldas, A Fisher. (eds.). A Question of Survival. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
  80. Wa Afrika M. ‘Stop xenophobia or students warn.’ Sunday Times (News). 2017 Feb. 26; p. 4.
  81. Zille H. White-bashing cancer destroys SA from within. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Apr. 30; p. 18.
  82. Buthelezi M. I never committed violence or sought amnesty – and it wasn’t an impi. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Sept.16; p. 18.
  83. Fuzile B. Soweto bomb threat to US over Trump tweet. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Sept. 2; p. 6.
  84. Mthombothi B. Failure to crack down on the wave of anarchy will let it swell to a flood that destroys democracy. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 29; p. 17.
  85. Shoba S. Honour the aged by all means, but let’s be frank about Buthelezi’s past. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 9; p. 21.
  86. Albright M. Fascism: A Warning. New York: Harper Collins; 2018.
  87. Bernstein A. Jobs crisis needs new approach. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 30; p. 21.
  88. Bruce P. Free from theft, we get to make good choices at last. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 20.
  89. Corrigan T. There’s madness in the land debate, but not in pointing out the risks. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 22.
  90. Davies M. Taking the terrifying path paved by Brazil. Sunday Times (Business). 2017 Aug. 20; p. 3.
  91. Derby R. It’s jobs, not polls, says Cyril. Sunday Times (Business Times), 2018 Sept. 23, p. 1.
  92. Derby R. Sober address should set the tone for ministerial introspection. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 23, p. 2.
  93. Derby R. Land reform is a necessary fix for the faultiness in our economy. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 22; p. 2.
  94. Derby R. Beware the traps of populism in dealing with land reform. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 2.
  95. Fourie J. Herverdeling neem ons oog van die bal af. Rapport (Sake). 2017 Mar. 12; p. 4.
  96. Haffajee F. Who owns the land? It’s not all black and white, audits reveal. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 6.
  97. Joffe H. Boldness needed to boost economy. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 9.
  98. Joffe H. Set out the right bait and business will bite. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 2.
  99. Khumalo A. Unions must adapt to the new world. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 13.
  100. Khumalo A. Cyril’s tough truth is better than fantasy. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 30; p. 10.
  101. Khumalo A. A persistent beggar that needs to learn to fly by itself. Sunday Times. 2018 Apr. 29; p. 10.
  102. Khumalo A. Policy consistency is crucial to economic stimulus. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 10.
  103. Mthombothi B. It’s criminal the way we are unable to deal with our crime. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 16; p. 17.
  104. O’Connor T. Whatever Moody’s says, the economy is in dire straits. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 2.
  105. Pilling D. African cities growing fastest. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept 16; p. 20.
  106. Saunderson-Meyer W. A lifetime tussling with tyranny. Sunday Times (Lifestyle). 2018 Oct. 21, p. 11.
  107. Speckman A. Corruption ‘limits SOE contribution’. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 8.
  108. Skenjana S. Rising poverty brings urgency to universal basic income debate. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 30; p. 9.
  109. Quinn D. Land: get it over with now. Sunday Times (Readers’ View). 2018 Mar. 25; p. 2.
  110. Vegter I. ‘Hulle het ons hier gevind…’. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 5; pp. 4-5.
  111. Brun B. Africans must be first in line for empowerment. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 22.
  112. Ditshego S. Decadent ruling class in SA remains undaunted. The Star (Opinion). 2018 Sept.12; p. 12.
  113. Du Plessis T. Anti-kamp kry sójuis teendeel vermag. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Apr. 29; p. 6.
  114. Khumalo A. Capitalism needs to find its conscience. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 July 22; p. 10.
  115. Khumalo A. In the downfall of two business leaders lies a lesson. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 22; p. 10.
  116. Barber M. How to run a government. London: Penguin; 2015.
  117. Biko H. Socioeconomic trust is key to uplifting the poor and eliminating white privilege. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 July 22: p. 4.
  118. Bruce P. A better way to reach for the promised land. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Mar. 4; p.14.
  119. Bruce P. Make no mistake, we’re in survival mode. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 July 22; p. 2.
  120. Bruce P. If we have to fiddle with the constitution, how about… Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Mar. 11; p. 20.
  121. De Klerk FW. Hof versaak minderhede. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Jan. 21; p. 7.
  122. Du Plessis C. Woman in the Wings: Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma and the race for the presidency. Johannesburg: Penguin; 2017.
  123. February J. Our constitution offers all the guidance we will need. Sunday Times (Insight). 2017 Aug. 17; p. 25.
  124. Fuzile B. Not yet the promised land for MK vets. Sunday Times (News). 2018 July 8: p. 6.
  125. Gerber J. Land expropriation: DA vows to go to court if Parliament adopts report [Internet]. [Cited 2019 Jan. 3]. Available from https://www.new24com/SouthAfricaNews/land-expropriation-da-vows-to-go-to-court-if-parliament-adopts-report-20181204/
  126. Jordan B. Harvest of happiness for Cape farm workers. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Sept. 2; p. 10.
  127. Kriel K. ‘Afrikaners is moeg vir skurk-etiket’. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 3.
  128. Kriel K. Repliek: Minderhede sal ander uitweg moet soek. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Nov. 14; p. 11.
  129. Kriel K. Treat violent incidents between races equally. Sunday Times; (Opinion). 2017 Aug. 27, p. 24.
  130. Louw GP. Perspectives on the background to the land ownership dispute (2). Ensovoort, 2019; 39: 1(1): 1-61.
  131. Mkhwanazi S. Parliament adopts land expropriation report [Internet]. [Cited 2019 Jan. 3]. Available from https://www.lolco.za/news/politics/parliament-adopts-land-expropriation-report-18380096/
  132. Makinana A. Parliament gives go-ahead for land expropriation without compensation. [Internet]. [Cited 2019 Feb. 3]. Available from https://www.timeslive.co.za/2018-12-04-parliament-gives-go-ahead-for-land-expropriation-without-compensation/ >>>>>>
  133. Malema J. Land restoration began five years ago with the birth of the EFF. Sunday Times. 2018 July 22; p. 3.
  134. Munusamy R. Cyril plays nice while Julius seizes moment to change game. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Mar. 4; p. 16.
  135. Mthombothi B. ANC fawns over Malema and takes SA down the road of Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. Sunday Times. 2018 Mar. 4; p. 15.
  136. Mthombothi B. The ANC is drunk from the alcohol of corruption, and its growing support is bad news for South Africa. Sunday Times. 2018 July 22; p. 3.
  137. Matiwane Z. ‘Zuma is not in any way involved in affairs of province’. Sunday Times (News). 2018 July 29; p. 4.
  138. Mkhize Z. To reverse ANC’s decline, look to its past heroes. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Sept. 3; p. 22.
  139. Matiwane Z, Deklerk A, Mvumu Z, Umraw A. Putting loyalty first: ‘presumed innocent’ is ticket to election. Sunday Times (News), 2018 July 29: p. 4.
  140. Mthombothi B. With Zuma on the way out, EFF thugs are seeking new targets for their perpetual rage. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Jan. 21; p. 17.
  141. Umraw A. Grandfather seeks return of his grandfather’s land. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 July 22; p. 22.
  142. Venter T. ANC volg NP se pad. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 7.
  143. ANC finally wakes up to the fact its grip on power is slipping. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 May 13; p.16.
  144. Hafffajee F. Judging the ‘Cyril effect’ after 100 days. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 May 27; p. 8.
  145. Koornhof N. Gematigdes moet lei. Beeld (Middelblad). 2018 Apr. 18; p. 17.
  146. Barron C. Standing firm amid ill wind of populism. Sunday Times (Business). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 10.
  147. Barron C. WEF paints ’too bleak’ a labour picture. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 May 13; p. 8.
  148. Bruce P. Business is still willing to help a responsible state. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 16.
  149. Bruce P. Debt leaves no room for ANC dithering. Sunday Times (Opinion) 2018 July 8, p. 22.
  150. Derby R. Populism is still ad tantalising and easy an option as in Zuma years. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Oct. 21; p. 2.
  151. De Lange L. Onsekerheid is toksies en laat mense op hul geld sit. Rapport (Sake). 2018 Sept. 19; p. 4.
  152. Groenewald Y. Banke oor onteiening: ‘Ons leen nog; ons is net versigtig’. Rapport (Sake). 2018 Sept. 19; p. 1.
  153. Haffajee F. Ramaphoria just can’t keep up with Addo-ration. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 May 6; p. 2.
  154. Kawadra H. Finance sector code will help fund black business. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Apr. 8; p. 10.
  155. Khumalo A. The billions Africa needs are available. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Nov. 11; p. 10.
  156. Kodwa Z. The ANC is not on trail at the commission of inquiry into state capture. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 22.
  157. Mtongana L. ‘Cyril effect’ could restart the stalled mining engine. Sunday Times. (Business). 2018 Feb. 25; p. 7.
  158. Mthombothi B. Zuma’s homage to Biko seeks to fill the abyss left by the ANC’s exhausted ideology. Sunday Times. 2017 Sept. 17; p. 21.
  159. Mthombothi B. Cyril bends over backwards to placate the ANC, but the rest of us long to see him moving forwards. Sunday Times. 2018 Aug. 5; p. 3.
  160. Munusamy R. ANC wanders into uncharted territory with announcements on land but no coherent policy. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 4.
  161. Mvumvu Z. Transnet brass clash over ‘nonexistent’ meeting. Sunday Times. 2018 Aug. 19; p. 1.
  162. Seccombe A. “It’s not too late to turn corruption around”. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 2; p. 5.
  163. Shoba S, Mthetwa B. Ramaphosa bends the knee to Zulu king on tense land issue. Sunday Times (News). 2018 July 2018; p. 4.
  164. Tabane OJJ. Policy – or a rash bid to steal the EFF’s thunder. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 4.
  165. Taljaard J. Dalk is ANC se sebra ‘n donkie. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 5; p.15.
  166. Harari YN. 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. New York: Jonathan Cape; 2018.
  167. Magwood M. Which turn will the 21st Century take? Sunday Times (Review). 2018 Sept. 26; p. 61.
  168. Kgosana R. Unemployment stats improve while Eskom causes irritation. The Citizen. 2019 May 15; p. 4.
  169. Molopyane M. Lessons from the election. The Citizen. 2019 May 15; p. 21.
  170. Marrian N. 2021: ANC, DA could lose metros. Mail & Guardian. 2019 May 17 to 23; p. 5.
  171. Munusamy R, Hunter Q. Cyril rescues ANC. Sunday Times. 2019 May 12; p.1.
  172. Fick, A. SA today is another country. Mail & Guardian. 2019 May 17 to 23; p. 29.

PEER REVIEW
Not commissioned; External peer-reviewed.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author declares that he has no competing interest.

FUNDING
The research was funded by the Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa.

UNSUITABLE TERMS AND INAPPROPRIATE WORDS
Please note that I, the author, am aware that the words Creole, Bantu, Kaffir, Native, Hottentot and Bushman are no longer suitable terms and are inappropriate (even criminal) for use in general speech and writing in South Africa (Even the words non-White and White are becoming controversial in the South African context). The terms do appear in dated documents and are used or translated as such in this article for the sake of historical accuracy. Their use is unavoidable within this context. It is important to retain their use in this article to reflect the racist thought, speech and writings of as recently as sixty years ago. These names form part of a collection of degrading names commonly used in historical writings during the heyday of apartheid and the British imperial time. In reflecting on the leaders and regimes of the past, it is important to foreground the racism, dehumanization and distancing involved by showing the language used to suppress and oppress. It also helps us to place leaders and their sentiments on a continuum of racism. These negative names do not represent my views and I distance myself from the use of such language for speaking and writing. In my other research on the South African populations and political history, I use Blacks, Whites, Xhosa, Zulu, Afrikaners, Coloureds, KhoiSan (Bushmen), KhoiKhoi (Hottentots) and Boers as applicable historically descriptive names.

Perspectives on the background to the land ownership dispute (2)

Gabriel P Louw

iD orcid.org/0000-0002-6190-8093

Research Associate, Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa (Author and Researcher: Health, History and Politics).

Corresponding Author: Prof. Dr. GP Louw; MA (UNISA), PhD (PUCHE), DPhil (PUCHE), PhD (NWU) Email: profgplouw@gmail.com

Keywords: land dispute, expropriate, land-grabbing, land ownership, land reform, realities, political history, radicalism, redistribution, revolution.

Ensovoort, volume 39 (2019), number 1: 1

1. Background

1.1 Introduction

Al-Khalili writes1, pp.7-8: One of the biggest drivers of change today is population growth, which is possible only because of technological change. We could not sustain a planet of 7½ billion without the changes in agriculture and food production that have taken place since the nineteenth century: in particular, the so-called Green Revolution that, in the middle decades of the twentieth century, combined the development of high-yielding crop strains with the availability of artificial fertilizers. Without those advances, billions would probably have starved.

But it is not clear that we can sustain a planet with more than 9 billion people on it, as it is predicted for 2050, without substantial further innovations, particularly in food growth and production and water resources. Most of the population growth will be in Africa and Asia – in countries that lack economics and infrastructural resources to easily accommodate it.

South Africa is one of the unfortunate African countries Al-Khalili refers to where the population is growing rapidly and where the economy has steadily gone down hill since the ANC took over with its orientation towards liberation and revolution. Poverty has begun to cloud the daily lives of especially the majority of the Black population. Infrastructure has deteriorated, leading to substandard education for the masses and an immense shortage in primary, secondary and tertiary training opportunities. South Africa is being overshadowed by growing unemployment; a lack of knowledge on education, economics and the future; poor agriculture management; ineffective use of land; and a national strategy blinded by racism. In this context there is one clear reality we might have to manage as soon as 2019: avoiding the devastating events that occurred in Zimbabwe and Venezuela from happening here. South Africa needs sound and emotionally balanced leaders, supported by an overseeing political leadership that is free from the post-1994 blemishes of corruption. Only leaders of high calibre would be able to plan the financial and economical future of the country.1-6 The warning issued by the CEO of Agri SA, Omri Van Zyl, sets off the alarm bells about the ANC elite’s ideas on ensuring foodsecurity:7: 9

If we say by 2050 there’s 80 million people in South Africa, we really need to protect the production base… rather than erode it.

The emotions around landownership can spell doom for South Africa if there is no rational thinking and economic wisdom to see the possible dangers for food and political stability. Hunger is already prominent globally – one in nine of the world’s population did not have enough food to eat in 2017. It is anticipated that by 2050, food production would have to be double that of today to meet the world’s basic needs. People who suffer hunger total 821 million, reflecting a rise over past three years. A report of the UN, titled8: 13: The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World, shows that the most hunger occurs in those countries where land is not managed wisely and strategically to generate enough food and where there is political radicalism with disrespect to landownership. Various food agencies warn that hunger is on the rise worldwide, especially in Africa8: 13: “Undernourishment and severe food insecurity appear in almost all sub-regions of Africa, as well as South America, whereas the under nourishment situation is stable in most regions of Asia”.

Local statistics released for 2017 to 2018 reflect that over 55% of South Africans live in abject poverty and with food insecurity. Almost 14 million have incomes that put them below the food poverty line (R17.48 a day), 17 million (20% of the total population) depend on state welfare for their daily survival, while 27.2% of the workable labour force is unemployed (a percentage that could be in reality as high as 50% and more). South Africa has been in a constant economic decline since 2008, with a continuously rising GDP debt and throws the country into a recession every now and then. The Western world may go into another recession by about 2021, and South Africa and some of the BRICS partners may be pushed into further poverty and an immense food shortage and job losses. Hopefully the next recession would not be the magnitude of the 2008/9 crisis or the Great Depression of the 1930s.9-13 Mulder14 reflects that more than 80% of farmers in Africa farm on two hectares or less, putting them into the category of subsistence farmers who can only produce for their families’ needs. This means that 35 sub-Saharan African countries lack food security and must import food. In addition, South Africa is set to have a 70% urbanized population soon, putting immense pressure on stable food production. This necessitates an effective commercial farming sector that uses land optimally. Mulder’s question is significant14: 4-5: “Do we want to move back to subsistence farming or instead satisfy the need for land in cities?” [Own translation]. In this context the editor of the City Press, Mondli Makhanya, writes14: 4-5: “We are wasting valuable time and energy trying to restore people to their peasant ways. Ordinary South Africans either do not want land or just do not have the capacity to work it. They want to go to cities and work in modern economy…” As far back as 2010 the Sunday Times reported14: 4-5: “The money and energy that is spent on getting peasants back into subsistence (farming) would be better used to create a strong class of black commercial farmers who actually do farm for commercial rather than sentimental reasons”.

In South Africa the harsh present realities are illustrated by the fact that only 30% of Black small-scale grain farmers out of about 3 800 are really productive. It seems to specifically be the small-scale grain farmers with farms of between 10ha and 50ha who are going nowhere.3: 10 The constant decline in the number of small-scale dairy farmers in the Free State — from 929 in 2009 to only 190 in 2018 (a total decline of 739), with 30 more farms in the process of closing down — is further evidence of the inability of small-scale dairy to be productive and to reach commercial farmer status. It seems that many of these 3 800 small-scale farmers failed even as subsistence farmers.3 The CEO of the national Milk Producers Organisation (MPO), Chris van Dijk15, reflected as follows on the inability of small-scale dairy farmers15: 3: “You cannot expect to make money by milking 100 cows. To break even on a dairy farm you need at least 320 cows, which a lot of Free State and North West farmers don’t have”.

The above indicates that irresponsible land reform can hamper farming with for instance grain and milk to a point where massive imports would be required, which would result in dramatic price increases, putting the poor under even more pressure. This should serve as a warning about the consequences of radical land reform. Overly emotional thinking and political manipulation should not be allowed to enter the mindsets of the poor and landless Black masses of South Africa so that they start seeing land grabbing as a solution to their immediate dire life circumstances, be it poverty, inequality or unemployment.3,15 When the masses become emotional and desperate so that they start viewing land redistribution as an absolute must, it can result in a replay of the far-reaching and tragic Cattle Killing (also described as the National Suicide) of the Xhosas under Kreli in Kaffraria and in the Black territories east of the Kei in 1857. This event caused the death of thousands of Blacks. Today such an event can result in devastating hunger so that millions of South Africans can perish of famine and internal conflicts in a fight for food.16,17 Ngcukaitobi’s18 argues that land redistribution goes further than just handing over White land for emotional reasons. He points out that if18: 23: “…the legacy is to be undone, the return of the land should be restorative of African humanity. Transactions about the ‘return’ of the land are incomplete without restoring the dignity of those whom the land was taken”.

He explains what was lost and pleads for the restoration of African identities, freedom, equality and political autonomy18: 23: “Land is not the only asset that was lost through colonial occupation. Cattle, farming implements, labour and human potential were taken away. African societies were broken up, their cultures ravaged and their identities erased”.

He views a “forward-looking” comprehensive reparative land project as most urgent, seemingly involving the expropriation of more than just land from Whites. For Ngcukaitobi18 land reform is only one facet of the process of radical economic transformation. His18 argument is still an emotional one, but it goes deeper than only the right of the “indigenous” Blacks to get ownership of their birth land and the right to live there. It seems to be based on a desire for Black empowerment to the extent where the South African soil is owned exclusively by Blacks. This is not necessarily an economically responsible system that would benefit society or the country as a whole. It is true that the past is linked to the present by emotion, but the present reality is no longer compatible with all the identities and customs of the past. Some of the Black African ideologies, freedoms and egalitarian practices are no longer reconcilable with the demands of modern life. Ngcukaitobi18 realizes this and he acknowledges the new realities and the fact that ideological thinking may perhaps not offer all the solutions18: 23:

“World Bank studies show an urbanization rate of more than 60% in the past 20 years in South Africa. The message is clear: the pure agrarian society in South Africa has been disrupted irrevocably. Access to rural or farmland will not satisfy land hunger. Urban land must be factored into the frame”.

It is clear that economic realities are becoming more important than political affiliations and emotional yearnings for the past. Economic and educational upliftment has spread to the poorest of South African society, and this changed the thinking of the masses. They live in the city and work at industries or businesses instead of living from the land.18 The extent to which the emotional rhetoric is a danger to the country is clear from Julius Malema’s words. Should these sentiments take hold, it can lead to anarchy19: 3:

We celebrate nothing else, because all other achievements are meaningless without the land being restored to our people. There is no more fear or doubt in their hearts; they know that it must be done, and say it openly.

Malema elaborates further19:3:

There is simply no way parliament can retreat on this question any longer. After all these consultations, one thing is clear: to retreat and betray our people on the demand for land expropriation will be to risk a direct revolution, which they will conduct on their own, wherever they are.

On that day, when our people take the land by force, the EFF will join in because the powers of the day would have refused to co-ordinate a peaceful, democratic and inclusive process that empowers the previously oppressed to have access to the land.

What makes this statement so irresponsible and so dangerous to future food production in South Africa, is the fact that Malema’s party has no clear understanding of democracy, economics, governance, human rights, legal rule or any idea of how to address the country’s problems with food shortages and unemployment. All they know is emotional rhetoric.20-22 What is more is that populists and aggressive activists forget that much of the best land in South Africa is in the hands of the state. The government is sitting on millions of hectares of agricultural land that is not productive because the Black tenants cannot raise capital. The ANC has failed miserably to support these farmers.7 The failure of the ANC to do something productive by helping Black farmers deserves more attention. According to Grain SA3, the country’s biggest organization for grain producers, nearly 70% of the Black grain farmers on small farms in the government’s assistance programme have failed to produce any crops because they have little or no access to financing to manage their enterprises. Jordan3 points out that the vast majority of these grain farmers, about 3 800, farm on government-owned land and therefore have no individual title deeds to offer as collateral to get loans from credit providers. This raises concern about the ability of the ANC government to make anything of land expropriation that could actually mean something to the poor and the landless.3

Grain SA3 shows that about 800 Black small farmers with farms of between 10ha and 50ha are basically dormant because of this finance stalemate. Jannie De Villiers3, the CEO of Grain SA, reports on them as follows3: 10:

“These are all potential commercial farmers but all of their land belongs to government. There is no finance there because they don’t have title deeds”.

This highlights the paradoxes in the land policy of the ANC. They want to establish masses of Black small farmers on repossessed White land, but if they failed to assist them over the last two odd decades since 1994, how on earth will the ANC regime supports them in the future? In this context Grain SA3 says that their own assistance programme for Black grain farmers teaches that when farmers have access to financing, the outcome is phenomenal. In their programme, 150 Black farmers produced more than 250 tons of grain annually. Grain SA’s successful intervention programme for subsistence farmers typically increased farmers’ yields from about one ton to more than four tons.

Proponents of land expropriation, such as Ramphele, Malema and Ramaphosa, seem to overlook the facts described above. There is little probability that the ANC would successfully establish large-scale Black farming.3,16,19,23 De Villiers3 and Grain SA3 have more questions about how the ANC government aims to manage the result their land expropriation plan. Who will be placed where, what will they produce, and with what funding?3: 10:

The issue is whether they will expropriate with or without title deed. If you are without [title deed] then we influence food security.

De Villiers writes further3:10:

In our pool, only about 30% of black farmers are productive, the rest are forced to just sit on the land. This is why we are saying we want a sustainable land reform programme. It must solve the problem, otherwise it will just expand the problem.

The ANC’s emotional responses to any criticism on the land expropriation policy reflect radicalism. South African billionaire Johann Rupert24 in September 2017 in Geneva openly criticized Zuma and the ANC’s “need for change in land ownership” by calling it “a mere cover for theft”. The ANC reacted by calling his criticism “ill-advised” and “Rupert rhetoric” without addressing any of his concerns. Land has clearly become a carrier of a Black-on-White aggression; it is no longer a White-on-Black assault. What is more, the debate on land has been carried by populistic journalism, with investigative journalism being all but gagged.24 The editorial of the Sunday Times of 17 September 2017 shows how even journalists steer towards liberation ideology when evaluating Rupert’s words. It reads25: 20:

Given the country’s history, where skin colour played a major role in whether one became rich or poor, he should have been more sensitive to the restlessness of the majority over the slow pace of change.

While we recognize the fact that Rupert has been on the receiving end of a racist propaganda campaign that has sought to shift the public spotlight from state capture by President Jacob Zuma‘s friends the Guptas by blaming the country’s problems on him, we do not believe that denying the need for a radical shift from current ownership patterns helps his case.

Rupert, and the [White] business community in general, need to accept and embrace the need for change as the status quo – where much of the economy is concentrated in a few hands – is unsustainable.

The editor has no acknowledgement of the part the ANC has played in the slow land reform. The editor has become an equal role player with his clear warning to Rupert that radical land transformation is a finality; A subject on which the White billionaire and every ordinary White citizen should keep quiet. He also fails to mention the millions of poor and landless Blacks, or the Black billionaires like Cyril Ramaphosa, Tokyo Sexwale or Jacob Zuma — all of them landowners. He also says nothing about the sustainability of the resulting farms. The debate is becoming a power play with Black and White positions being reversed.25-28 Land ownership in perspective, is in South Africa a serious matter, and if we look beyond the rhetoric, it is clear that there are a number of problems. The first mistake was that the 1994 Constitution closed down the discussion on land transfer, and the leadership has not addressed it since. Khumalo29 indicates the confusion in people’s mind about this issue and the polarization between the different sides.

Khumalo writes in this regard29: 10:

The first policy debate out of the blocks this year is land. Land policy has gone through various rebranding, having started as land restitution, land redistribution and lately land reform, while the implementation kicked of as “willing buyer, willing seller”, then became “just and equitable”.

Now we are firmly in “land expropriation without compensation”, with a few caveats around food security.

All this should be a warning that ignoring or postponing the wrongs of the past and hoping they would sort themselves out is not sustainable. Hope is not a strategy.

The matter of land has to be settled soon and the solution should be viable and sustainable. It is a legitimate problem that has been ignored for too long. The writing of Ellapen Rapiti30 on the sensitive and explosive matter of land redistribution, with or without compensation, offers a wise warning that can not be ignored:30: 20

One can only hope that the ruling party will handle this delicate situation of land expropriation with prudence and caution before we end up with anarchy and civil war or become a pariah of the international community, something we can ill-afford after years of Jacob Zuma’s terrible leadership.

Land expropriation without compensation is something much more complicated and comprehensive than what the arguments, opinions and viewpoints show. For one thing, it is central to the ANC’s failure to rule effectively since 1994. The taking of White land will not solve Black poverty, inequality and unemployment. The ANC government does not add value to the economic, social and juridical integrity of South Africa. Land grabbing is a desperate attempt to find a short-term solution to the ANC’s crisis. It is also something sinister — farms is just the first in line in a long row of asset categories that can fall like dominoes in future.2,31 The issue of land goes deeper than just ownership. The inculcation of radicalism is one thing that should be discussed. It stems from a long history, and the article now turns to a discussion of the different radical points of view in an effort to sketch the background to the land issue.

1.1.1 The objectors to land grabbing

There is a clear initiative by some individuals and groups to oppose the envisioned change to the Constitution and land expropriation without compensation. It is not a uniform group and their motivations, agendas and aims differ. It will be correct to say there are some instances of opportunism, selfishness and racism; sometimes openly, but mostly hidden. The main adherents are White, of which the Afrikaners are the most.

At the same time, there is strong opposition from the formal business sector, which is capitalistic and democratically orientated. Their concern is the short and long term economic health of the country and its people, as well as the individuals and groups whose financial interests they manage. On the whole, the business sector is free from racial and ethnic interests in this debate.

Among journalists, there is also a strong group of anti-reformers, mostly representing the Afrikaner and White English-speaking media. Prominent is the presence of a strong group of seasoned Black journalists and experienced White English-speaking journalists who have become known for their objective, well-reasoned political arguments, opinions and viewpoints on the land reforming issue. They do not shy away from taking on the political role players of the country, be it the ANC or the Freedom Plus, Mandela or Verwoerd. This group forms a core that offers the public a balanced and constructive view on current politics.2,32-35 On the Afrikaner side, the most prominent organizations are Agri SA, AfriForum, Agbiz, Afri Agric, Solidarity, and the Institute of Race Relations (IRR), as well as Afrikaans newspapers such as Die Burger, Beeld and Rapport. Opposition political parties have an informal alliance to resist changes to the Constitution to allow land expropriation without compensation. This includes Cope, the DA, ACDP, Freedom Plus and IFP. There is also an ad hoc group of 17 organisations consisting of role players such as AfriForum, the Helen Suzman foundation, the Reformed Church, the FW de Klerk foundation, the DA, the FF-Plus, Cope, Agri Limpopo, and various business or cultural bodies like Solidarity and the IRR. These various entities are focused on the ANC’s attack on democracy and the present political discrimination against Whites with the undemocratic capture of White farms and capital. 2,32-39

These Afrikaner organisations, often sold to the public as the saviours of the Afrikaner, mostly address the land matter by means of legal avenues, financial support and public campaigns to request the public to support the resistance to land expropriation. They have also attempted to reach out to political leaders like President Donald Trump and the UN in terms of its Article 17 on human rights.2,32-35 The business sector is mostly represented by prominent institutions like the Minerals Council SA, Business Leadership SA, the Land Bank, Agricultural Business Chamber (Agbiz) and the Reseve Bank. At the moment, all those who oppose expropriation are anxiously waiting for the outcome of the parliamentary hearings and the ANC’s possible actions via the parliament or the country’s courts of law to change the Constitution. Once this happens, these groups intend to use the courts and to approach foreign governments. The outcome of the test case on the interpretation of Section 25 could also affect the process.5,36-39

Ramaphosa’s determination with respect to this issue and his public challenging of Donald Trump has made it clear to the Afrikaner/White farmers that Ramaphosa intends to put them under much more strain in the future. Nair40 reflects this intention of Ramaphosa when he reports40: 4:

Land expropriation without compensation is going to happen whether South Africans, US President Donald Trump and the UN General Assembly like it or not.

President Cyril Ramaphosa made this clear at a business breakfast in Pietermaritzburg, where he told black professionals that he would not be apologetic about the government’s land reform programme.

The reaction of Donald Trump to the South African land reform matter was the direct outcome of AfriForum’s actions. The decision the ANC made at Nasrec has caused the objectors to rethink their efforts to avert land expropriation without compensation.36,41-43 For some Afrikaners the battle against expropriation is a last effort to regain lost power.42 They are aware of the danger they are in at present, as Munusamy11 shows: the country is characterized by a sustained political, economical, moral and societal decline that shows a permanently violent society at war with itself. She writes11: 18:

The rapid degeneration and erosion of values, the restlessness of people stuck in a perpetual cycle of poverty and the lack of leadership can only mean that social upheaval in our country is inevitable”.

I do not know how the descent of our society will be depicted or remembered.

But it is unlikely that the political players who caused the collapse will pay for it.

The most profound suffering will be that of the victims of the fall.

Rumusamy reports further11: 18:

Violent crime, such as armed robbery, rape, carjacking, mugging, and ‘smash-and-grab’ attacks on vehicles, is common. There is a higher risk of violent crime in the central business districts of major cities after dark.

Demonstrations, protests, and strikes occur frequently. These can develop quickly without prior notification, often interrupting traffic, transportation, and other services; such events have the potential to turn violent.

However, there is also conflict among these organizations fighting the ANC’s land expropriation intentions. Agri SA is often seen as not really representing the interests of farmers. Their views differ from those of AfriForum and the IRR. Theo de Jager2 sees this internal conflict among White farmers as a direct result of the ANC’s ability to create discord between farmers’ associations and a political environment where AgriSA stands out because of its direct communication with the ANC.2,37,38,40 White landowners (especially the Afrikaners) see their ability to attract the attention of Donald Trump as confirmation that they are victims of the ANC and Ramaphosa’s political wrongdoings, which has indeed became an international matter. They see the Trump tweet: “I have asked Secretary of State@SecPompeo to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizers and the expropriations and large scale killing of farmers”, as an international warning to the ANC to mind their ways when it comes to human rights and the Afrikaners. The indignant response of proponents of land expropriation on Trump’s tweet perhaps reveals that he had touched a raw nerve. The first touch to this nerve came a few months before when the Australian home affairs minister said he wanted to fast-track the immigration of White farmers to Australia because they are victims of the ANC’s ongoing political wrongdoings.2,11,37,40-48 The journalist Peter Bruce37 writes in this regard37: 20:

There’s no doubt AfriForum has had great success spreading its message of racial victimhood around the world. Last week it was Trump. A few months before it was Peter Dutton, the Australian home affairs minister…

With their role of warmongering in land grabbing, the intentions of political radicals, to make a change to the present ownership of land, go much deeper than radical land reform; it is an attempt to dismantle the 1994 dispensation and the Constitution. They regard the fact that the country has had a working democracy with very little strife or conflict for more than 25 years as something of very little importance. They feel that Whites are still being advantaged and that there has not been enough restitution. This argument is not without merit, but it does reflect a lack of understanding of the events of 1994 and the economic and political conditions the ANC inherited. Had the ANC called for a more aggressive Constitution in 1994, they would have started a war. The NP and its security forces were in a strong position in 1994 and for some time after that. The aim of the Constitution was also to safeguard racial peace and to facilitate the creation of a New South Africa. It put in place a system that was workable for bringing civil rights and capital to the Black majority. However, the ANC did fail the test of statesmanship and they did not improve the economy, but rather managed it into chaos. That being said, the Constitution with its clauses on land saved the country from a war that the radicals now want to restart.49-59 Calls for land reform are not limited to the EFF and the ANC, but also come from some members of the PAC. This political aggression is highly contagious and could have very negative consequences for the poor, unemployed and landless. Populistic rhetoric, bordering on warmongering aimed at White landowners, is prominent. The past is often described as Africans losing their own country to a minority of hostile and armed European colonists. This rhetoric holds great danger for the country’s political and economic stability and the people’s safety.29,49,56 Mthombothi56: 15 describes the risks56: 15:

There are those, of course, who won’t mind an outcome. It is fashionable these days to ridicule the settlement as a sell-out. Like the biblical Samson, they want to pull the house down. War is not a picnic. But if this lot were in charge of the negotiations in 1994, the country would probably have been plunged into a civil war worse than Rwanda.

Mthombothi’s56 warning is amplified by the various civil wars, like the war in Syria that has thus far left more than 12 million Syrians homeless and at least another 500 000 dead. It will take decades for Syria to recover to the point of being a functioning state. In Rwanda, East Africa, tribal massacres led to the death of 800 000 people in just 100 days (8 000 a day) in 1994.56,60 Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma’s inciting remarks about Whites give us an idea of the gravity of the situation. She is a respected member of the present ANC government and an ex-wife of Jacob Zuma. She uses radical myths bordering on hate speech to fuel the hate for Whites as landowners. Politicians like Dlamini-Zuma and Malema are prepared to sacrifice South African political stability to push their ideologies. Radicals have long painted Whites as criminals to gain support to strengthen their own political careers.50-59 Unsworth61 for instance quotes Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma as saying61:1:

They [Whites] have been stealing ever since their arrival in this country. They stole our land.

Professor Ruth Hall63 of the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), Western Cape University, emphasizes the recent parliamentary decision to accept the transfer of landownership without compensation from Whites, reflects official approval that it is “morally correct”. As result of the ANC government’s failure as a regime, the general populace is dissatisfied with the slow progress on urban land (plots and homes), work opportunities, affordable transport and service delivery.62,63 The recent land invasions, especially urban land, speak to more than just opportunistic and politically driven radicals. It is a kind of civil action on behalf of the poor. The ANC does not address this because it draws the attention away from the party’s inefficiency.62,63 The ANC regime needs a new, easy socioeconomic intervention to satisfy the revolting and impoverished Blacks.

1.1.2 The thorns you scatter can prick your feet one day

Many nationalist Afrikaners saw Apartheid as unbreakable and they believed in the integrity of NP leaders such as DF Malan, JG Strydom, HF Verwoerd and JB Vorster. The Afrikaner Broederbond (AB) was their trusted think tank, promising all nationalist Afrikaners a great future. In 1994, they thought that the Constitution buried the injustices in the past. But, in terms of the Herodotus Curse, injustice always returns in the form of revenge. In their political naivety, the nationalist Afrikaners never thought that the Blacks would act exactly like they themselves acted in the heyday of Apartheid. The envisioned land redistribution seems to be a bitter lesson for the Afrikaners/Whites that the thorns they scattered would come to prick their bare feet. The intended changes to Section 25 of the Constitution should be viewed within the context of the country’s past.42 Apartheid and its land grabbing was not an accidental phenomenon. It artificially protected the interest of the Whites. Their political thinking was short-sighted, opportunistic and selfish.42

However, the same can be said of the Blacks. During the Mfecane migrating tribes seized land and completely wiped out several tribes. Never did these early Black conquerors of South Africa think their reign would come to an absurd end. History and the vicious circle of conqueror–conquered are inseparable. The South African political history shows this well.42 History shows that any social class without capital of its own that is in conflict with an economically powerful class, tends to use state capital once it has gained power in an effort to initiate its own economic growth. It is therefore normal that the ANC did not hesitate to make the state an entrepreneur in the economic sphere to uplift the economically disadvantaged non-Whites. However, the land issue also involves retribution.42 Very few Black politicians are honest enough to acknowledge the bad governance of the recent years and the Black-on-Black exploitation in the history before the 1840s. Even the Apartheid Museum in Johannesburg offers visitors the false history that portrays all Blacks as native and innocent. A professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University in New York, Bryan Massingale65, was mesmerized by the portrayals of history after visiting the museum. He professes in his writing65: 6:

One of my most moving experiences was an afternoon spent at the Apartheid Museum in Johannesburg. Yet I discovered that many South Africans are only dimly aware of the history narrated there, and many were never taught it at all. I believe that there is an urgent need for a truthful account of the nation’s history, including the realities of colonialism and apartheid and the struggles to overturn them.

What Bryan Massingale65 fails to see is that there are earlier political histories in South Africa than White colonialism and apartheid. Very few are willing to acknowledge or discuss the earlier Black history. The seasoned top journalist Barney Mthombothi56 and the writer and researcher Hlumelo Biko64 (the son of the late Steve Biko and Mamphela Ramphele), are willing to do so. Biko writes64:4:

In South Africa’s history, different historical periods have handed socioeconomic privilege to different groups. As many apartheid apologists like to hint, this predates European invasion of our beautiful country.

It is true that for some period in our history Bantu tribes dominated Khoi and San tribes. It is also true that the Mfecane further reallocated privilege across Southern Africa between vanquished and victorious tribes. Nguni/Bantu people should admit that this has led to inherent socioeconomic privilege in favour of multiple generations of our people.

However, Mthombothi56 and Biko64 still do not admit that the South African Blacks are, like the Whites, migrants to South Africa. This fact sheds light on the constant historical power play between Blacks and Whites and the conflict on ownership. The claim that Blacks have more right to the land is in actual fact a lie.42 Both Blacks and Whites have had turns to be in power. There seems no in-between, no compromise. The KhoiSan, KhoiKhoi, Indians and the Coloureds have never been fortunate enough to taste this power. These racial minorities are waiting for their turn to be in charge of the country, so the Blacks should take care in what they do.42,56,64

The question White landowners have is: What must I do now regarding my further landownership and the intentions of the Black regime? The final outcome of the matter will influence the future of their citizenship. This makes the question on land redistribution more comprehensive: What was done in the past, what is being done now and what can be done in the future around South Africa’s explosive issue of landownership to reach the best outcome?

1.1.2. The winner writes the history

Considering the current events in South Africa in light of its history may be correct, but then only with great caution. History can be abused and misinterpreted to suit the agendas of policy makers or activists, often with dire consequences.

De Groot66: 16 quotes John Berger’s words to illustrate this anomaly:

History is rewritten because new information emerges all the time. Fresh accounts of experiences, sometimes from unexpected sources, can alter the way we look at the past and change our minds about what we thought we knew.

De Groot66 elaborates further66: 16:

The relation between what we see and what we know is never settled. What we see is not only interpreted through a filter of context and knowledge; our perceptions are also shaped by what we want and moulded by what we need.

The current discourse on land is an excellent example of the mechanism described above. Part 1 of this series shows that colonialism, internal war and displacement and nativism are all intertwined in the making of all the various peoples of South Africa and they are joint heirs to the soil. For further insight the literature, political writings and histories on which all the arguments, counter-arguments and threats with respect to land reform are based, must be studied. There are two sides to the coin of land ownership and land grabbing: the haves and have-nots, the legitimates and illegitimates, the thieves and the nobles. It is sometimes unclear who is who is often very, very unclear. This project of seven articles aims to unravel this.

1.1.3 Research overview

The background to the current land debate must be put into perspective to understand the roles of the various role players, processes and procedures on land expropriation without compensation and the intended change to Section 25(2)(b) of the Constitution. Only then can the different points of view be evaluated. The intention of this article (number 2 in the series) is to put the background into perspective and to describe and evaluate the determinants and role players involved in the process. The following articles of the series (Numbers 3 to 6) subsequently evaluate the arguments, opinions and viewpoints.
The different parties to the land debate in South Africa have started to form a kind of informal public court with the formulation of arguments, opinions and viewpoints and counter-arguments, opinions and viewpoints. The different parties offer evidence in the form of documents, journalistic writings or speeches.

The findings of the parliamentary commission who is investigation the nation’s views on changing the Constitution could kick-start a formal process to change the law. This will be followed undoubtedly by formal litigation in courts of law to counter or to support this change and to start land expropriation. The ANC’s intent to fight the current formulation of the Constitution is centre to this dynamic.

The process described above does not really reflect the general population’s view and preferences on the matter. A more in-depth look at the nation’s position on the change to Section 25 and expropriation without compensation is crucial. The only way to do this is to look at what the media reports on the matter. The project of which this article forms part, presents the arguments offered outside the walls of a formal court of law. It is only after such a presentation that an objective political and moral verdict can be made. It is clear that the histories of both groups are saturated by land grabbing. Labelling the two opposing groups in this dispute as the accused or transgressors versus victims or martyrs, would be incorrect, misleading and subjective. The ANC government in a sense functions as the defenders of the move to change the Constitution while those opposed function as the complainants who claims that their citizen’s rights and property rights are in danger. Articles number 3 and 4 examine the views of the complainants (mostly in this project refer to as antagonists), while articles number 5 and 6 examine the views of the defendants (mostly refer to as propagandists).

The present land debacle must not be seen as a duel of two fighters with one devastating intention: to kill the other one and the winner to grab the bait. Far from it: it must be seen as a civilised dialogue between two opposing blood-brothers, arguing the just dividing of the land they inherited from their late father. A solution to this troubled land matter must be found and for that they need an impartial conciliator to listen to both sides’ arguments, opinions and viewpoints to make sense, to come to a conclusion and to offer constructive suggestions, bringing a holding solution. This conciliator can be a judge, an objective member of the public or it can be you, the reader. Therefore I like to invite you to read in-depth further this project. I am looking forward to hear your anonymous pacification at the end (Please see my e-mail address above). It can be the ultimate solution the country is looking for.

1.1.4. Research aim and objectives

The aim of this article is to do justice to John Berger’s words in an effort to present new information that may alter the way in which both Blacks and Whites look at their communal South African past. The goal is to help all South Africans understand their past and present better so that they can make South Africa a better place in future.66 The information that emerges from the available literature on the matter of land redistribution brings us to two research objectives, namely: To examine the arguments in favour of keeping Section 25 of the Constitution as it is and continuing on the path of land redistribution with full compensation as from 1994 (Part 3); and: To examine the arguments in favour of a change to Section 25 of the Constitution for the implementation of a land redistribution policy without compensation (Part 4).

The first view would mean that land redistribution must be done in line with land expropriation in Singapore where the owner of the expropriated property is fully compensated based on market prices.

The second view would mean that although a change to Section 25 does not necessarily mean that land would always be expropriated without compensation, it would be possible. The ANC at this stage argues that it would only happen in extraordinary cases.

The main aim of this article (Number 2) is to describe the background to all of this as a foundation to reflect the arguments, opinions and viewpoints respectively of the antagonists (articles numbered 3 and 4) and the propagandist (articles numbered 5 and 6) later on.

2. Method

The research was done by means of a literature review. This method has the aim of building a viewpoint from the available evidence as the research develops. This approach is used in modern political-historical research where there is a lack of an established body of research on the ownership of South African land for the period 1652 to 2018 in South Africa. The sources included articles published in 2018, books for the period 1956 to 2018 and newspapers for the period 2017 to 2018. These sources were consulted to offer a perspective on the background to the dispute around landownership and contextualize the thoughts, views and opinions on today’s land grabbing as an age-old custom in South Africa.

The research findings are presented in narrative format.

3. Results

3.1. South African historical-political sinkholes

As said previously, history is often written by the winner. As such, history can change as circumstances change and as new unique demands and people become involved.

The current debate serves as proof of this dynamic. The depiction of Whites as aggressors and Blacks as victims is a simplification of history. State president Cyril Ramaphosa for instance owns large and valuable pieces of land. Thirty per cent of the province of KwaZulu-Natal (± 3-million hectares) is owned by the contentious Zulu Ingonyama Trust. These riches have kept the Zulu king, Goodwill Zwelithini, in place since 1994.67,68 The matter of Black land ownership by large trusts and scores of people living on tribal land should receive some attention to clarify some of the arguments from both sides.

3.1.1 The untouchable Black property trusts

The Zulu King Zwelithini’s concern that the Ingonyama Trust will also fall prey to the intended land reform policy, led to his call on Zulus to defend their Zulu land as locked into the trust. He makes his threat to defend his monarchy’s land in Zulu: Uzolimala mawungalaleli (If you don’t obey, you will get hurt). Zwelithini’s went even further, pushing for KwaZulu-Natal to secede, forgetting that his kingdom makes up only 30% of the province. After Zwelithini’s hostile response to possible land grabbing, Ramaphosa immediately travelled to Richard Bay, bending the knee of the mighty Zulu king and assuring him that the government has no intention to seize their land. Some Zulus see Ramaphosa’s humble act of kneeling before their king as a gesture of emotional maturity, avoid a Khuzeka-scenario where someone gets hurt.67-72 This was a revelation, especially for the White landowners under attack. Ramaphosa’s assurance and promises to the king reveal how the whole process is about, namely taking land from Whites. Ramaphosa said to the King68: 4:

I said to the king as the ANC we have no intention whatsoever to ever touch the land under the Ingonyama Trust. The recommendation by the high-level panel [remains] a recommendation of the panel…we are not going to dissolve the trust.

I said, with respect, as the ANC government we have no such intention…the expropriation of land without compensation is not targeting the 13% of land under the control of traditional leaders.

Communal land is going to continue be under the control of traditional leaders because they hold that land on behalf of our people. The land we are going to target for expropriation is the 87% of land.

Ramaphosa’s promise on 6 July 2018 must be read together with the recommendations of the the High-level Panel on the Assessment of Key Legislation and the Acceleration of Fundamental Change (from here onwards High-level Panel). Ex-president Motlanthe was appointed by the speaker of the National Assembly in 2016 to chair the panel that had to review hundreds of pieces of legislation on a cross-section of issues. This panel specifically recommended that the Ingonyama Trust must be repealed or substantially amended. Ramaphosa’s guarantee to Zwelithini overrules the Motlanthe panel’s recommendations and the report of the South African parliament. It demonized Motlanthe as if he alone made the recommendations and targeted Zwelithini. More important though, Ramaphosa prepared the path for a policy of not touching any established Black interests (including his own). The Ramaphosa decision is clearly based on the sentiments of the ANC party, dictated from Luthuli House and the ANC’s national executive committee (NEC). Zuma has elevated the ANC NEC to the unofficial parliament of the country, showing that state capture is not limited to money, but can also involve the legal system.67-71 The Motlanthe report was handed to Parliament in November 2017. It was only in May 2018 that ANC radicals and the various Black kings began to object after Motlanthe said that the majority of traditional leaders act like “village tin-pot dictators” and as independent rulers within the greater South African political system. He is in fact correct. There are a total of 840 traditional councils, a significant tribal influence on the ANC and in parliament. After Ramaphosa effectively exempted the Zulu king, the ANC-dominated parliament started to ignore its own report’s findings.71: 22 Ramaphosa’s view on the Motlanthe recommendation is described well by Shoba and Mthethwa68: 4: “He also assured the king that the high-level report is not the position of government and has not been adopted as government policy”. The ANC government does not see itself as subject to parliament. Apparently has Ramaphosa assured the rest of the king’s men, like the honourable Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi, that this is a final decision. With this Ramaphosa put KwaZulu-Natal back in the final days of Apartheid. The province is once more ruled again by laws passed at the behest of the IFP and Buthelezi, forcing down the structures of traditional rule. Ramaphosa, as was done in 1994, confirmed Zwelithini’s power – political, social and economical – but it undermines democracy and prevents land reform free from racism and ethnicity. The ANC is siding with the powerful capitalists (but now Black), ignoring of the ordinary Black people, especially the poor.67,68

Who is Zwelithini and why is the trust so important? What is the Ingonyama Trust and what is Zwelithini’s position in it? How does the politics of KwaZulu-Natal fit into the South African land redistribution issue? Who is Zwelithini and why does he have such a hero status? In some way the talks occurred between a redundant tribal king and an insecure president from Venda (viewed as a lesser people than the Zulus) who represents a divided party. The excerpt of Mthobothi70 is very informative. It reads as follows70: 23:

The [Ingonyama] Trust is meant to exist and function subject to existing land rights under customary law and not act in ways that undermine and abrogate such customary and other underlying land rights. However, the Trust in some instances regards itself as the outright owner of land and therefore not subject to any duty to consult or to obtain community consent in dealing with the land. This has given rise to instances where the Trust has leased land to external third parties (for example the shopping centres) without having first consulted and obtained the consent of those whose informal or customary land rights were subsumed by the shopping centre.

The trust has introduced draconian rules, including 10% yearly rent increases, compelling lessees to fence the land within three months and the cancelling of leases for failure to pat rent. Moreover, structures on the land remain the king’s property.

Significant revenue is generated for the Ingonyama Trust by such lease agreements. In the 2015-16 period, rental income was R96 130 563. There is little evidence that the revenue generated by leases is used for the benefit of communities or their material wellbeing.

By 2020, the trust will earning over R100 million a year.71 The legitimacy of Zwelithini as the king of the Zulus has always been controversial. This includes his family’s inheritance of the Zulu throne the Ingonyama Trust. The ruling that made him the only monarch in KwaZulu-Natal is especially debatable. Mnguni’s69 research proposes that the Hhlapo Commission traces the establishment of the Zulu monarchy back to Shaka (a leader known for his murderous inclinations) after he took power over the Zulus in 1816. The present kingship comes from that line. The Nhlapo Commission indicated that the Zulus composed of several communities before 1816, a kind of loose federation. The Ingonyama Trust is a trust that was hurriedly created a mere three days before the 1994 general election as a direct outcome of the political events of that time. It has nothing to do with the traditions and customs of the Zulu people or the Zulu monarchy. There is no similar trust in the country. It is a land administration tool, subject to being repealed or to change. This is in line with the Motlanthe finding and contradicts Ramaphosa’s interpretation.69,71

Many South Africans do not know the difference between the Zulu monarchy and the Ingonyama Trust, something that suits the king. The trust is in reality land that belongs to the Zulu people and not to the monarchy, although Zwelithini has great influence. The monarchy owns only the Osuthu palace in Nongoma. Without the trust, there really is no great Zwelithini monarchy. The Motlanthe panel found that the Ingonyama Trust Act (3-million hectare of KZ of 1994) is an imperfect piece of legislation. The intent was that the land (now for all practical intents and purposes used as the land of the monarchy) would be measured out into specific properties and then transferred to the tribes and communities who live on the specific piece of land as stipulated in the Bantu Authorities Act (68 of 1951). In reality, the trust land has been divided (but never transferred) among clans under the leadership of traditional leaders, who are responsible to the king in terms of customary law. The Ingonyama Trust is headed by the sole trustee, King Goodwill Zwelithini.69,71,73

Mnguni69 writes on the many contradictions of the Ingonyama Trust69: 24:

This [transfer] has never happened. The king is benefiting from having smartly navigated the country’s vulnerability before the 1994 elections. He wishes to continue benefiting from such an imperfect deal. The king, as the Motlanthe panel found, exercises far greater influence than the national minister does in similar areas elsewhere in the country. This means people in KwaZulu-Natal suffer a more precarious state of land tenure than do rural folks elsewhere.

The ANC government has failed to transfer the land to communities and individuals as required by the Bill of Rights. Mthombothi70 describes Zwelithini and his empire as follows70:23:

It’s become a state within a state: he controls the land and people pay taxes to him. No wonder he feels threatened by attempts at land reform.70

Mthombothi’s70 view is echoed by Ngcukaitobi18 and Cousins71 who emphasise that in these cases the land ownership indirectly lies with the state. The land is under the custodianship of traditional leaders countrywide. The state has the power to redistribute the land to enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis. The trusts and custodianships have been subject to much abuse. Tribes act like mini-states. This is evident from the numerous deals chiefs and mining companies in North West, Limpopo, Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal. It is not only the Ingonyama Trust that could be affected by the intended land reform.

Ngcukaitobi18 writes as follows on the dissolution of these trusts18:25:

The [present] constitution was intended to reverse this [White colonial state] by recasting the relationship between African communities, their chiefs and the land.

Thus, for redistribution to succeed, it should uproot the colonial state and its surviving tentacles: the people, not the chiefs, should control the land.

There are also instances where Black communal land has been seized to please homeland regimes like that of Buthelezi and Zwelithini. One example is the 345 hectares of farmland that makes up the farm Blinkklippen in the North West province. It was legally sold to the family Moeletsi/Mogale for ₤511 in 1913. The family Moeletsi/Mogale’s ownership rights were transferred to the Bakgatla Ba Kgafela tribe in 1936 without any choice or compensation by the native government and then to the government of Bophuthatswana in terms of the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act (21 of 1971), leaving the family landless to this day.74

Notwithstanding clear constitutional guidelines (including Section 25) president Ramaphosa seems to wants to maintain the powerful tribal Black leaders, to the detriment of the poor masses. He bases seemingly his views on the ANC’s document Ready to Govern, published in 1992, which referred to the acquisition of land through expropriation.18 Greed and self-enrichment is undoubtedly a motive of the Ingonyama Trust. The trust has built up very substantial financial reserves. It is an excellent money-making scheme for Zwelithini. These riches support his political power. He influences the ANC, as he could call for war in KwaZulu-Natal. The National Party of the 1990s similarly feared Buthelezi and his IFP. The ANC-run KwaZulu-Natal province contributed R65.8 million to the trust in 2018 and paid the king an annual salary of R1 million. The ANC leaders have always been running to please him. Zuma, before his exit as president, visited him; Ramaphosa and the top six of the ANC paid homage to him after their election at Nasrec in December 2017; even Mmusi Maimane and Julius Malema went to Nongoma to honour him.67-71,75

Mthombothi70 provides insight into these tribal chiefs with whom Ramaphosa now sided to recreate the old Bantustan system that the Constitution and the ANC (especially their leaders Mandela and Mbeki) themselves sought to demolish in 1994.70 He writes70: 23:

Why have the tribal chiefs who were apartheid’s handmaidens not so long ago and on the run from comrades during the turbulent 1980s suddenly become assertive and even bellicose in the era of democracy? They lived large under apartheid and they’re still, as it were, lords of the manor in the new dispensation.

Mthombothi70 shows that chieftainship is the very antithesis of a democratic system because of its autocratic and suppressing inclinations, stripping the voters of their rights and interests. With Ramaphosa’s re-empowerment of chiefs and their trusts, he shamelessly re-establishes dictatorial enclaves within the democratic South Africa. Mthombothi70 reflects70: 23:

…they don’t want people to own land, or have title deeds. They want all land to be owned by the government and for people to lease. That’s not freedom; that’s slavery. It takes us back to the 99-year leasehold that used to be offered to black people under apartheid.

The ANC’s submission to traditional leaders led to them dropping the crucial clause in the Traditional Courts Draft Bill that gave citizens the right to refuse to be subject to traditional courts. This was done despite opposition from civil right activists and the parliamentary warning that this would render the bill unconstitutional. The government argues foolishly that the opt-out clause would nullify the existence of traditional courts and the power of traditional institutions like the National House of Traditional Leaders and the Congress of Traditional Leaders of SA (Contralesa). The Bill empowers the traditional courts to rule on monetary matters involving up to R15 000 and bars those aggrieved by the decisions of traditional courts from challenging these in the magistrate’s or high courts. This implies that appeals could be filed with only the traditional high courts (the headman’s court, the chief’s court and from there to the king or queen’s courts). The chair of the justice portfolio committee, senior ANC MP Mathole Motshekga, supports the creation of another independent Bantustan model with a discriminative independent traditional court system. In his view there is a clear need because76: 4: “…some magistrates and judges know nothing about indigenous law”.

The present courting of the old Bantustans is in conflict with former president Zuma’s announcement in 2010 that six of the 13 kingships in place then would be ended when the incumbents died. The focus on White land reflects racism. This is a tragic reality that White landowners must face. Land redistribution can be radical and could end in destruction. Sections 9 and 195 of the Constitution, which Ramaphosa himself helped draft, describe the equality of every citizen, White and Black, landowner and landless, rich and poor. Subservience to tribal leaders and political Black radicals is incompatible with equality. Equality, for Ramaphosa, lies in his understanding of “his people”, which seems to be elite Blacks. Ramaphosa is bringing disaster to land reform by not implementing the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act (31 of 1996) to stop abuses of trust land by crooked chiefs; not only through by stealing the income generated from these trusts, but also by losing large areas of arable and grazing land and to mines and allowing the pollution of the water sources of communities and individuals.69

It has become an open question how the ANC government hopes to make a success of their intended land reform. They could not make a success of their own plans to reform Black trusts to benefit Black individuals and communities. Cousins71 gives a simple, but clear declaration71: 22:

In addition, there has been mounting evidence of corruption in relation to land, including the notorious Mala Mala land claim and many cases involving South African Fruit Exporters and Bono, their BEE partner.

Debates about expropriation are raising the temperature for the middle classes, capital and the urban elite. Sadly, few seem concerned about continuing processes of dispossession of ordinary black South Africans.

Cousins71 also describes the hand of the ANC government and its elite in these crooked set-ups Cousins71:22:

The ANC government has colluded with both chiefs and mining companies in these forms of exportation without compensation.

Nkwinti [previous minister of rural development and land reform], as trustee of state land, failed to require elites to consult people, or to ensure that his department implemented the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act, and sided with traditional councils against community members.71

The planned land redistribution is said to be aimed at uplifting the poor and landless Blacks at the cost of the beneficiaries of apartheid. The question is, will the intended land redistribution be another failure? Will only the ANC elite benefit? The response of a Mister Rubosweni Mmelene74 at the North West hearing at Rustenburg in July 2018 says it all when he said he wanted to support the constitutional amendment but feared the effects of rampant corruption in the North West will make the exercise fruitless74: 22:

I understand 87% of land belongs to whites. I want to agree with the amendment but because of the corruption in this province, it is difficult.

Ramaphosa has thus far failed to address the corruption, what will change now? He initially warned against land grabbing, but he has become either silent or more extreme.56: 15 It seems the ANC wants to erase South Africa’s past. There have even been efforts to erase the Whites’ past by efforts to forbid the sale of any Afrikaner of White memorabilia, even an old chair from the Nederlandsche Zuid-Afrikaansche Spoorwegmaatskappij (NZASM) dating from the old Kruger republic.42 Haji Mohamed Dawjee wrote in the Sunday Times as recently as the 7th July 201877: 18:

Why is this [selling of Afrikaner-memorabilia] allowed? The sale and auction of Nazi memorabilia, for example, is banned in several European countries, including Germany and France. Why? Well, firstly, because they are reminders of monstrous crimes against humanity. Another reason is that preventing their sale means preventing (to an extent) anti-Semitic [seemingly here anti-Black] behaviour.

People in many countries who want to glorify Nazi Germany and all that it stood for by collecting relics and creating shrines in their own homes will find it very, very hard to do so because it is illegal to purchase or sell any material that is a manifestation of that fascism.

In South Africa, it is the opposite.

When will we draw this line?

Grey60 describes the above racial cold-bloodedness and irrational thinking of political radicals as follows60: 144:

“Human beings had incredible ways of inventing rational excuses for what they did or were going to do”; and: “Persuasion came through habit as much as logic, and human beings were indeed incredibly suggestible”.

Rwanda’s 800 000 deaths in 100 days of civil war, and Hitler and Stalin’s murdering of millions and millions of opponents in the eight years of World War II, confirms the tragic outcomes of these invented rationales, driven by habits, logic and suggestibility.42,60 Readers who are concerned about their property and their citizenship are advised to read Thabo Mbeki’s South African Reconciliation Act and his views on humanity and citizen’s rights. It reveals the intentions of some Black political radicals to eliminate Whites as citizens in South Africa and to end their land ownership.77-79 Thankfully the trust land issue can cause the intended grabbing of White land to boomerang under the watchfully eye of the courts. Bruce posits80: 20:

The ANC will have to take on traditional leadership. And it cannot make laws that distinguish between white and black. The courts would tie it up forever.

3.1.2. The Royal Bafokeng Nation

The events surrounding the Ingonyama trust begs the question of what waits the Royal Bafokeng Nation’s land trust and its riches. Will this land trust and its king, King Leruo Molotlegi, be treated the same as King Zwelethini and its Ingonuyama Trust?67-72 The context of the Royal Bafokeng should be considered here because it is very important to see if Ramaphosa will recognize their trust land as part of the 13% of Black land exempted from expropriation or if the platinum-rich Bafokeng land will be attractive to the ANC. The Bafokeng are fewer in number and they have less political power than the Zulus. This section compares the Bafokeng, the Zulus and the ANC with regard to leadership. Noor-Mahomed73 comments on the important role of effective and honourable leadership in the correct and honest management of land to improve the socioeconomic conditions of communities and to ensure political stability. Land grabbing is not part of such a scenario. Noor-Mahomed writes73: 9: “…we must…examine the equality of our leaders and study their narratives to see whether their interests align with the rostrums of democracy on which they so proudly stand”.

The successes of King Leruo Molotlegi and his traditional leadership structures and elected village and regional representatives stand out in this regard. They directly consult with the people at several levels to foster an economically and socially strong Bafokeng community, totally in contrast to King Goodwill Zwelinthini and the elites of the ANC.

Since coming to the throne, Molotlegi, with visionary and democratic leadership, has improved the socioeconomic status of his Bafokeng community of 150 000. They live in 29 villages on 1 200km2 of land in the North West province. Molotlegi unselfishly focused on relevant development and fresh and creative thinking. Their land holds the world’s richest platinum reserves, bringing unprecedented wealth for the community. Molotlegi turned these reserves into businesses. They have a 13% share in Impala Platinum; they are the majority shareholder in their own mining and refining company; and they hold interests in companies in the financial services, telecommunications, property and transport services sectors, writes Noor-Mahomed73. What is important is that all the resources are held in trust on behalf of the Bafokeng people, while the investments are managed by a company, Royal Bafokeng Holdings. Although Moltlegi leads as king, he does not make decisions alone when it comes to how the collective resources of the Royal Bafokeng Nation are used. The traditional leaders and village and regional representatives all participate. The income generated is used to better the living conditions of the people, creating employment for 4 000 people and spending more than $700 million (R9.3 billion) on improving infrastructure like roads, utilities, schools and clinics in their area. The group’s visionary leadership is evident from their strategic planning for further socioeconomic growth. Three branches have been established to develop, benefit and support the entire community.73 The ANC can learn a lot from the Royal Bafokeng Nation.

3.2. Testing the ideas around land reform and expropriation without compensation

3.2.1. Is there a need for an Afrikaner/White farming sector?

It is important to examine the current land ownership. The total Afrikaner population stands at about ± 2.7 million (total White population: ± 5-million). The ratio between the ±35 000 commercial farmers to the rest of the Afrikaner population is 13:1000 or 1.3%. If all 35 000 farmers are Whites, which they are not, the ratio would be 7:1 000 or 0.7%. There is an almost insignificant correlation between the broader Afrikaner/White population and the Afrikaner/White farming population in terms of financial interest, like ownership or income from farming. The direct impact of lost farmland on most Afrikaners/Whites outside the farming sector would be minimal.42 Louw42 shows that many Afrikaners have started to cut the cord with the “Afrikaner-volk”, especially the younger generations. What these neo-Afrikaners want is political stability and a good living standard with affordable food on the table — it does not matter if the food is from Zambia, Argentina, produced by a White or Creole or Black Brazilian or South African. These Afrikaners do not really mind who rules the country, as long as it is a stable and responsible regime. Many of the emotive rhetoric on land grabbing does not come from the broad Afrikaner/White population, but a small band of Afrikaners/Whites individuals and groups with direct financial interests in agriculture, like Agri SA, AfriForum, Solidarity, some Afrikaner media and the FFP, who Louw42 calls the Afrikaner/White’s self-appointed rescuers and saviours. These groups represent at most 15% of Afrikaners/Whites based on their membership.2-5,16,19,23,42

Some of their rhetoric is as dangerous, inapplicable and inappropriate as that of Julius Malema and Cyril Ramaphosa. Much of this rhetoric reflects the old ideology of hard-core Apartheid. Rhetoric from the English media (which includes Black and White voices) is mostly focused on land for housing and the financial loss that expropriation without compensation can bring for present landowners. The English media is also more focused on the effect that land grabbing can have on future local and foreign investments. One can safely say that the Whites and neo-Afrikaners outside the farming sector have accepted that a new generation of South African farmers has to be born as quickly as possible to ensure food security. These new generations of farmers can be, and must be to a certain extent, Blacks.2-5,16,19,23,42

Part of the irrational thinking and often false presentation of land as a matter of great concern to all members of the “Afrikaner volk” and White society, are the false argument on the absolute need for an Afrikaner/White farming sector because only they can ensure food security. It is plain nonsense. Any race can contribute constructively as farmers if their circumstances are optimal. This is actually how the Afrikaners/Whites established themselves. There are American, Asian, British, Nigerian, Palestinian, Jewish, Algerian and many other farmers who are not only successful commercial farmers in their own countries, but also contribute to global markets. In South Africa there are established commercial Black farmers already contribute to food security. The evidence shows that when Black farmers receive the necessary financial and technical assistance, they become excellent farmers. Why would Blacks not be able to become successful farmers in South Africa?3,16,19,23

The fact that Afrikaner numbers are declining while the Black population shows a constant growth also means that a new generation of farmers would have to replace the current generation of farmers. Why must these replacements only be Afrikaners? In this regard Mthombothi asks81: 25:

There is also the question of whether white farmers are a special breed who requires special protection.

The over-estimation of Afrikaner/White farmers as a special, untouchable group in South Africa is also contradicted by Dr Theo de Jager2, the president of the World Agricultural Union and Galileo Capital. He mentions that even if all White farmers voted for one political party, these votes will not be enough to assure one parliamentary seat. He remarks2: 3:

On a count-group basis the white farmers are irrelevant. The ANC does not need to take notice of farmers [Own translation].

In systems where the majority gains control of the politics and economy, the best balance between the interests of the majority and the minority is attained by way of a natural process and sometimes statutory prescription. Land ownership and farming are such prominent issues. Sometimes land transformation happens in a very orderly fashion and sometimes they are chaotic. South Africa is now in the middle of this normal process of economic, political and statutory balancing. Land reform should not be an emotional issue, but a rational issue.

South Africa currently has about 5 million Whites versus ± 55 million Blacks, or a statistical ratio of less than 1:10 or 10%. The ratio of White farmers to Black farmers looks significantly different. There is definitely a need for able Black farmers with financial backing. To answer Mhtombothi’s81 question: White farmers are not a special breed and do not require special protection to ensure food security.81

Does the ANC favour Black Africans over Coloured, Indian and White Africans? The same mechanism at play between Blacks and Whites on land ownership is developing between Blacks and Indians and Coloureds. It was only in 1969 that the ANC at last admitted all races as members. Jacob Zuma’s said at the World Economic Forum in 2017 that when South Africa talks about radical economic transformation (RET), it means a change that leads to inclusive growth, which includes forced land redistribution, Black ownership and management of companies, and the hiring and training of Black people. The focus is undoubtedly on Africans and not on all non-White races. Brun82 explains the focus on Black empowerment as follows82:22:

There has to be an acknowledgement that during Apartheid Black South Africans were treated unfairly at different levels, with Africans being discriminated against the most. The current transformation legislation now treats all Blacks equally.

To get to this outcome, legislation must be adjusted, as intended with the change to Section 25(2)(b), to aim RET specifically at Africans. They view Coloureds and Indians as “merit Blacks”, not as deserving of empowerment.

The ANC has allowed anti-Indian sentiment into its political and racial ideology from 2002. Mbongeni Ngema’s anti-Indian song AmaiNiya; Fikile Mbabula’s comment in 2007 that “transformation had turned the University of KwaZulu-Natal into nothing but Bombay”; Mzwanele Manyi’s suggestion “that there were too many Indians in KwaZulu-Natal”; the claim of an “over-concentration of Coloureds in the Western Cape”; and Julius Malema’s derogatory reference in to Indians as amakula in 2010 as ANC Youth League leader, serve as examples. Professor Milton Shain84:22, an emeritus academic at UCT, shows how this is a departure from the 1969 decision to regard these races as fellow victims of apartheid. Shain posits that the Freedom Charter and the social contract of the ANC with the people to guarantee equality in 1969, started unravelling in the days of Thabo Mbeki.84 Ramaphosa, Zuma and Malema have also pointed to the Whites as the only land grabbers in history. Shain writes84: 22:

…more recently, he has described whites as central to South Africa’s problems. He even added the qualification ‘at least not now’ after claiming that blacks were not calling for the slaughter of whites.

No white person, he says, is a rightful owner of land in South Africa and the whole African continent. As far as he is concerned, whites unhappy with expropriation of land without compensation ‘can go to hell’.

Onkgopotse JJ Tabane,85 a radio and TV talk show host, an author and a former member of Cope (Congress of the People), takes the degrading of the Whites further in reaction to Mosiuoa Lekota’s remark that it will be safer and more manageable for the government to place Black refugees in need of care in refugee camps. Lekota, in response to the ANC’s claims that Whites are not indigenous South Africans, dared to ask the question: Who are our people? Tabane immediately classified these refugees as “fellow Africans and comrades”, while going on to attack the Whites (and Lekota) as follows85: 26:

According to your bizarre logic, white people who stole land from our people must be left alone to own that land because when the ANC argues that land must be returned to our people your retort is: ‘Who is our people?’ So whites are our people and African refugees are not. Wow, Ntate Lekota, you are no different from Helen Zille, who called black people refugees in the Western Cape and glorified colonialism by seeing a silver lining in it.

However senseless and absurd Tabane’s85 remark is, it reflects the views of a large contingent of radicals in the Black political community. This view is now expanding to include Coloureds and Indians.84,85 Shain’s84 reflection on Malema’s views, which is similar to that of the radicals at Luthuli house and in the Zuma inner circle in KwaZulu-Natal, should serve as a dire warning and wake-up call for Whites, Indians and Coloureds84: 22:

Malema’s discourse reflects wider intellectual currents. But his oeuvre is not classically fascist. He shares none of the innovative thinking associated with serious fascist thinkers. On the other hand, as was the case with many European fascists, Malema’s political instincts are impressive. He shares with them an ability to build alliances and co-operate with elites. Political space is, after all, necessary for success. His populism and hostility towards whites find fertile grounds in a society with glaring racial inequality and poverty.

Today Malema holds a sword over whites. Will he abandon respect for democratic liberties in a violent search for redemption and internal cleansing? We do not know.

What we do know is that historically the trajectory of each fascist movement has been related to the national context, cultural traditions and contingent circumstances. Malema knows and understands this well.

Revolutions can be born slowly over years, as under Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe. At other times, like with the Russian Revolution of 1917, it begins quickly. When looking at the ANC government from 1994, one sees a slow-developing political revolution. All that is needed is to steer the views of Malema and Ramaphosa towards the fertile soils of disillusionment, inequality and poverty-stricken Blacks and to paint the White society as the evil and the primary reason for all the problems Blacks and the country is experiencing.24,42,86 Can exclusive capitalism ever be replaced by inclusive capitalism to solve South Africa’s poverty, inequality and unemployment?

South African land reform is needed. Comprehensive upliftment and orderly capital redistribution is needed, something in the line of Barack Obama’s focus on inclusive capitalism. This is a very fluid concept, but there should be a focus on social capital that benefits the whole society as the primary beneficiary, not on individual, exclusive capital. The Obama economic ideology is far removed from the views of the radicals within the ANC. The ANC has a “grab and run” approach to the riches of Whites, but it has failed to improve the lives of Blacks since 1994. Comprehensive and orderly socioeconomic and personal development is central to inclusive capitalism.87-90 An excellent example of what inclusive capitalism is not and how the ideology can be hijacked and abused by the radicals of the ANC, is the writing of Oscar Mabuyane90, the ANC’s Eastern Cape provincial chairman90: 18:

At the heart of the priorities of the ANC is to grow South Africa’s economy so that we can radically transform our socioeconomic fabric by eradicating the poverty, unemployment and inequality ravaging our communities.

In the January 8 statement read by Comrade President Cyril Ramaphosa, we committed to fundamentally renew the ANC, restore its credibility and bring it closer to the masses of the people it was formed to serve so that we can unite South Africans around a shared vision of transformation.

We believe this will be the foundation on which we will be able to mobilize social partners and other patriots behind the economic recovery plan to grow the economy beyond the levels that existed when Comrade Thabo Mbeki was president.

We agree that to be able to drive the recover of our economy, we must confront corruption and all forms of state capture. We need to cleanse the ANC and the government. Equally, the private sector and society must be cleansed of corruption.
We are committed to achieving the vision of free higher education for the poor. When working-class children receive education, skills and training, they will have opportunities to start their own businesses through the support of government agencies, benefit from the public and private-sector procurement, and get jobs.

The private sector must commit to large-scale transformation so that together we may train young people and give them contracts to supply goods and services to all sectors of the economy.

In line with the resolution to expropriate land without compensation, we will accelerate land redistribution and agricultural development so that those who receive land through land reform programmes will use that land productively by engaging in commercial agriculture.

The outdated Marxist terms of “we” and “comrades” are prominent in Mabuyane’s writing90, even though the ANC is at the moment estranged from the hard-core communists in the SACP and Cosatu. The whole “declaration” is based on things the ANC has acknowledged in public that it has failed the public since 1994. The question is how can they do better from 2018 onwards, especially in the light of their declining political power? Where does Mabuyane90 get his strange ideas on the South African economy? Mabuyane’s90 views do include expropriation without compensation. This idea of stealing from the rich to empower the poor has occurred in communist Russia, China, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. It has never worked, and what will happen to the poor after all the wealth of the White rich has been taken, redistributed and wasted? The simple answer is just more poverty and inequality for the Black masses.

We do have to move away from exclusive capitalism, which sometimes maintains exclusive political empowerment. However, we should also move away from a vague inclusive capitalism promoted by liberals who at the same time underwrite and practice exclusive capitalism. We should move to a new capitalism that is responsible, humane and truly democratic, but without disturbing the economy of South Africa.

3.2.1.1. The ANC’s plans are reminiscent of Zimbabwe’s land grabbing

The collapse of Zimbabwe’s economy, for many years run successfully, is an excellent example of what could happen to South Africa. The similarities between the two countries are clear. There was a slow build-up of hostility towards Whites, culminating in the vilifying of Whites to distract the attention away from the failures of the government. It seems now as if the Cyril Ramaphosa-era is going to be a true Mugabe-culture of land-grab. Should South Africa end up in the same position, it would take generations to find a clear roadmap again.97,98 It is important to reflect in short on the political history of Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe to understand the fears of those in South Africa who feel that the current conditions in the country are just too similar for comfort.97 One prominent point of reference is Zimbabwe’s Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act, dated 2008.97,98 In this context the reporting of journalist Ray Ndlovu is very informative. He writes that in March 2008 Robert Mugabe signed this act into law to give Black Zimbabweans a 51% stake in all foreign-owned companies in the country. This followed Mugabe’s earlier policy in 2000 to start the forceful takeover of White-owned commercial farms, mostly by way of violent farm seizures. However, the ownership of most of these White farms did not pass to the poor and landless Zimbabweans, but to the Mugabe elites. The 2008 law targeted foreign companies, such as mining houses, banks, insurance firms and retailers. In time, the 2008 law became more aggressive towards foreigners, especially Whites. It later reserved certain sectors for Zimbabweans. Mugabe, as quoted by Ndlovu, even arrogantly declared that97:8:

Forty-nine percent is a hell of a lot of equity; it is only the foolish ones who will say no. Wise ones will take it up.

South African firms like Zimplats and Stanbic were rattled by the persistent threats by the Mugabe government to cancel their operating licences. The direct outcome was that investment in Zimbabwe stopped. By the time of Mugabe’s fall in November 2017 the country could only attract about $300 million (R3.5 billion) in investments compared with Mozambique’s $3 billion in investments. Agricultural production has plummeted, erasing Zimbabwe’s status as the breadbasket of the Southern African Development Community, making it a net importer of agricultural products like grain on a broad base. Zimbabwe has also failed to uplift the majority of Blacks. Poverty and the suppression of political and human rights followed, leading to an outflow of thousands of Black Zimbabweans to South Africa and other African countries just to make a basic living.97,98 The new president now has to clean up the mess in Zimbabwe. His first move was to recall the 2008 act, opening Zimbabwe to investment. Twelve sectors are reserved for Zimbabwean citizens. Investors from outside the country can thus own 100% of their investment once more and is no longer required to have a Zimbabwean partner save for above prescribed exclusions. In terms of the amendments brought by the Finance Act of 2018, business ownership is also no longer organised along racial lines.99,100 Ndlovu posits97: 8:

The Zimbabwean rebirth will be a long and painful one. For many years to come, Zimbabweans will have to work much harder than their neighbours to gain the trust of investors.

One should remember that the new President Mnanagwa was close to Mugabe in his cabinet, making him guilty of the same atrocities as Mugabe. This is similar to Ramaphosa and Zuma. Mnangagwa was Mugabe’s vice-president, as was the case with Ramaphosa and Zuma. Thankfully, for South Africa, Ramaphosa does have political and personal integrity. His closeness to Zuma was not contaminated by corruption. Mnanagwa was Mugabe’s minister of state security and was directly involved in the massacre of an estimated 20 000 people during ethnic cleansing in Matabeleland from 1983 to 1987 by the Fifth Brigade, a Zimbabwean army unit trained by the North Koreans.99,100 President Mnanagwa’s new racial and economic policies have already resulted in a first deal in of $4.2-billion with the Cypriot investor Loucas Pouroulis March 2018 to develop a platinum mine and refinery. There are promises of more investments from China and previously estranged countries. However, it remains to be seen if the markets will ever truly trust Mnanagwa. The signs are not good. It reminds us of Ramaphosa’s past as a revolutionary within the ANC. The concern of political analysts and strategists is that there has thus far not been any political, economic and democratic improvement under Ramaphosa as president. Another correlation between Mnanagwa and Ramaphosa is that Mnanagwa only gained a 50.8% majority with 44.3% of votes, in line with Ramaphosa’s weak support within the ANC NEC.97 South Africa is already in need of a rebirth after the failure of the ANC regime since 1994. If the country goes down the path of land grabbing by changing the Constitution, a rebirth may be impossible. As with Zimbabwe’s violent land seizures, many White lives can be at risk. Not a single antagonist will ever forget Malema’s warning:

We will kill you, but not for now.

As said, inclusive capitalism cannot replace exclusive capitalism to solve South Africa’s poverty, inequality and unemployment. Exclusive capital, driving business development and the creation of work opportunities can indeed bring inclusive capital to the poor and unemployed in time, but only outside the failed business, economic and political principles of the ANC and their model.

3.2.2 Ramaphosa’s view that approximately 87% of South Africa’s land belongs to Whites

Ramaphosa is completely out of touch with his statement that more or less 87% of the country’s land belongs mostly to Whites.103 He deliberately ignores the fact that the land owned by municipalities and the government itself is substantial. Unsubstantiated claims about the true facts around land ownership make up a large part of the rhetoric on the expropriation of land without compensation by the ANC. The ANC, after 24 years of rule, still fails to understand the ramifications of its vision of land ownership and that the manipulation of facts since 1994 are not going to help them in the coming 2019 election.104 Regarding the anomaly of who owes what percentage of land to whom in South Africa, Haffajee writes105: 6:

After 24 years, neither the private sector nor the government has been able to give a substantive figure on who owns the land, suggesting that even the ownership of the 139 the ANC says are in its crosshairs is unclear.

But, if you put together the industry’s Agri SA audit of land and the state’s land audit last year, a picture of such complexity emerges that it’s clear it will take years before expropriation without compensation can take place because the ANC has committed itself to first passing a proper record of deeds before passing the constitutional amendment to enable more muscular land expropriation without compensation.

Neither the audit of Agri SA nor that of the state is usefull. Agri SA finds that agriculture land makes up 76.3% (about 93.3 million hectares in 2016) of the total land area. Of this, the Agricultural Business Chamber finds that 26.7% is Black-owned and 70% of the total agricultural land is White owned. From 1994 to 2016, 8.9 million hectares were bought by Blacks and the government (to the value of R90.3 billion) and Agri SA confirms an ongoing transfer of White land to Blacks.105 The state’s audit identifies 24% of farms and smallholdings as Black-owned compared to 72% that is White-owned. These numbers are complicated by the fact that vast land is owned by trusts, companies and community-based bodies. This category can form as much as 60% of all private landownership, making the state’s finding untrustworthy with respect to the precise ownerships of the 60% of all the private land. From other data available, it reflects the ownerships of land as follows: trusts 31%, companies 25%, community organizations 4%, cooperations 4% and individuals 39%.105

The state’s audit focused only on land that is registered at the deeds office, which records the private ownership of farms, agricultural holdings, stand-alone houses, and sectional title units. In the Limpopo and Eastern Cape provinces there is as much as 7.7 million hectares of unregistered state land. The race, gender and nationality of the landowners are not recorded in the deeds register.105There is indeed a racial parity in who owns houses. Forty-nine per cent of the land classed as erven are owned by Whites, and 46% by Blacks.105Ramaphosa is clearly mistaken when he claims that 83% of land is owned by mostly White individuals. It seems to be far less, as low as 60%. Secondly, is it very difficult to classify people as landowners or non-landowners. Thirdly, the difference between rural and urban land is not specified, nor land for farming versus land for houses (erven and small non-agricultural urban plots). If the ANC governments proceeds with land expropriation without compensation, it would first struggle to determine true ownership, making land redistribution to the poor and landless such an enormous task that it would take years.105 When it comes to land used exclusively for commercial farming by White farmers, the picture becomes even more confusing. It is important to mention that the land that municipalities and the government owns is substantial, while the farms owned by Whites, which provide food security and earn valuable foreign currency and offer employment, only account for about 10% of the country’s total land area. This means that Ramaphosa and Malema’s dreams to give land to masses of poor and landless Blacks and that they would all be able to make a decent living as commercial farmers unrealistic.104,105

3.3 The testimonies of South Africans at the country-wide parliamentary hearings on a change to Section 25 and land expropriation without compensation

It is insightful to reflect on some of the presentations by South Africans at the various parliamentary land expropriation hearings held country-wide. It gives us a look at the lack of understanding of the complexity of the Constitution’s function to uphold of rule of law. People are also confused of who are indigenous and who not. It is clear why Mkhondo106 warns that the parliamentary hearings to hear so-called “testimonies” cannot be used to give a “true opinion” on the land reform matter and that the chances are good that the whole exercise will fail. The process cannot provide statistically trustworthy information.106 Nonetheless, a look at these testimonies may provide some insight of how the general population thinks about the issue.

The Gauteng hearing on land exportation, for instance, shows significant naivety on the political history of land grabbing in South Africa. At the Gauteng hearing Solly Mkhize107 stated that the ANC government can not shy away from the redistribution and the transfer of land, firstly because of107: 6: “…all the wars that were fought for the land by the Blacks”, and secondly because of: “…the 1913 discriminative legislation which had unjustified forced Blacks out of their own land”. Mkhize reaches only one conclusion107: 6:

How can we give whites compensation for land that was stolen?

For many others like Mkhize107, the Gauteng hearing became an excellent platform for a racial onslaught, far removed from reason. In many instances, “Whiteness” was used as the measure of guilt. Critics of the hearings and the expropriation process see the hearings as a failed exercise since it involved politically influenced masses commenting on a process they do not understand. It reminds of the English proverb: A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. The Gauteng hearing descended into chaos after Phumla Boloshi107 , allegedly from the DA, warned107: 6:

We don’t need to change the Constitution. We need government action. Our young fellow Africans are lazy. What are they going to do with the land anyway? They cannot till the land.

She saw the ANC government since 1994 as a failure, specifically with regard to using the existing Section 25 of the Constitution to manage landownership. Filipe Macuacua107 testified at the Gauteng hearing that he had been fighting since 2004 with the different [ANC] government institutions, including more intense efforts in 2009 and 2014 with professional assistance, for a piece of land. His conclusion was that the present government is of no help, forcing him, as result of their failure to allocate land, to live in a squatter camp.107 At the Vryheid hearing in KwaZulu-Natal, some attendees claimed to be acting on behalf of God. Who of us can argue with God? Ntombela108 said108: 22:

The land is people’s birthright and this is what God would have wanted. If you read Genesis, God created heaven and Earth and said we must multiply, which means that no one can own the land alone. All the land belongs to the people.

Mr. Buthelezi108 claimed that God had intended for Blacks to own the land because they are the rightful indigenous owners of the land108: 22:

There is one thing I want to say, that God gave us the land to work it and benefit from it. Our land was taken from us without compensation.

Another claimant, Mthethwa108, after telling of his constant suffering at the hands of a White farmer since 1952, said108: 22:

This committee is asking about something for which they already know the answer. They know that the land is ours and should be returned.

Even King Zwelithini has claimed divine purpose. His daughter Nandi publically remarked109: 3:

We [Zwelithini-royals] did not bring ourselves here. God put us where we are.

His son, Phumuza Zulu, stated109: 3:

I want to tell you that big things are coming about this family. He [the king] said everyone who wronged him must come and apologise because God is moving. All people who are against this kingdom, I am telling you right now, this is a prophecy, you are all going to be in trouble because God is in control, he is taking everything, so you must come to the king and apologise.

A White farmer from Paulpietersburg also got onto the divine bandwagon at the KwaZulu-Natal hearings. Mr. Engelbrecht108, who is opposed to both changing Section 25 and maintaining the present landownership balance, declared108: 22:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s servants, animals, or anything else. We must make sure that everybody has a piece of land and a title deed and is able to build a house they can leave for their children. We all want our kraals to be full of livestock, to plant maize and reap and be happy.

Engelbrecht’s108 emotional-religious argument mirrors that of Julius Malema. It is also interesting to note some of the rhetoric of Whites at the hearings. Much of it is as emotional and inapplicable as the arguments of the Blacks. A representative of the Melmoth Farmers Association in Vryheid, KwaZulu-Natal, Mr. Harris108, reflected at the hearing that the group was strongly opposed to the change the Constitution and to land redistribution without compensation, basically because they believe that land grabbing would destroy the lives of millions of South Africans. He said108: 22:

Apart from the injustices that it will cause to millions of loyal citizens of this country who have for generations worked the land and have built it up to become viable commercial farming enterprises, such as an amendment of the constitution will also destroy one of the most important corner-stones upon which our democracy is built.

However, he fails to mention which millions of citizens they support and on whose behalf they act.108 In this context is it important to note that there are more and less 35 000 commercial farmers, who are mostly Afrikaners/Whites, and the total Afrikaner population is only 2.7 million in number. To speak confidently on behalf of 2.7 million Afrikaners, of which fewer than 2% are commercial farmers and own farmland, is misleading.42 Julius Malema19 also fires at the argument of Mr. Harris19:3:

Many Africans have asked their white fellow residents a simple question: ‘When your white ancestors disposed black people of their lands, did they offer consolation? Was there a dialogue and democratic chance to hear everyone’s views?

A remark during the hearings at the Oudshoorn by a representative of the Khoi people, Julia le Roux111, the morning after Ramaphosa’s sudden and surprising announcement that the ANC supports the motion to change the Constitution, brings a new dimension to debate. She pointed out that Ramaphosa’s announcement was in reality an insult to the South African people and that it is unacceptable to make such a “government decision” before the hearings had been completed. She asked what they were all doing at the hearing at Oudtshoorn, seeing that the ANC government had already made a final decision on the matter.111 Another Khoi-San representative, named Marius111, addressed the commission as follows111: 4-5:

The land for which we are all washing out their mouths here belongs to no other than the Khoi-San. We are not going to deal with the parliament [Own translation].

Jacob Theron111, a Khoi-Khoi headman in Oudsthoorn, took the argument in favour of their right to South African soil back to Jan van Riebeeck and argues that the cut-off date for land redistribution must be changed from 1913 to 1652. He could not offer sound reasons, as reflected by the following opinion111: 4-5:

Jan van Riebeeck arrived on three ships, the Reijger, the Goede Hoop and the Drommedaris. How much land was on those ships? [Own translation].

Amil Umraw, a journalist who attended the various hearings, is of the opinion that it was doomed to failure from day one. He starts by reflecting on the unsuccessful efforts of a 91-year-old man, Isaac Mogale112 of Rustenburg, to reclaim his ownership of 345 ha of farmland that was dispossessed during Apartheid. Umraw writes112: 18:

But like many others who attended parliament’s hearings on the amendment of Section 25 of the Constitution, Mogale’s views were drowned out by politically affiliated hordes who crammed the hearings venues across the country.

In every province, the hearings were marked by people in red, yellow or blue regalia streaming out of buses and lining up to address the committee. It seemed to be a strategy based on quantity over quality: the more heads in attendance, the better the chance of the party’s stance being expressed. And it was perfectly executed, especially by the EFF.

In an almost choral rendition of party policy, supporters mimicked their leaders’ rhetoric and, in some cases, like in Mahikeng, berated any speaker with an opposing view.

Umraw112 asks whether Cyril Ramaphosa’s comment that it is112: 18: “…patently clear that our people want the Constitution to be more explicit about expropriation of land without compensation, as demonstrated in the public hearings”, has been based on the views of the majority of South Africans or on those of the interest groups whose voices were the loudest at the hearings? Umraw112 takes his question further112: 18: “And how would he [Ramaphosa] unequivocally know what ‘our people want’ when parliament is yet to complete its consultative process?”

One positive outcome of the hearings is that it offered the different groups an opportunity to hear the views of the others. The public hearings meant that the ball had at least started roll in some way to somewhere.42,49,108,112

4. Discussion

4.1 The process of the public hearings on the change to Section 25

The parliamentary committee responsible for the public hearings to hear the public’s inputs on changes to Section 25(2)(b) and on land redistribution without compensation, completed its sessions in August 2018. After this the committee consulted further with various stakeholders, including academics, non-governmental organizations and private companies dealing with land and buildings. They used these evidence to present a final report for consideration by parliament.33,74,107,113

In retrospect it clear the task of the committee was just too comprehensive: to obtain valid and reliable evidence to guide the parliament on the decision to change Section 25 to allow land expropriation without compensation. The opinions and views of the public were often incoherent and unspecific. The hearings had also become contaminated by testimonies of unrelated past political and socioeconomic wrongdoings, historical and political myths that became truths in the minds of a great portion of the population, a lack of an understanding of the effect of contaminated economics on a stable food chain, a lack of knowledge on international and national laws on land grabbing, and a lack of an understanding about who counts as indigenous South African people.

The data were often conflicting and of no value. The masses of data collected were reworked by a private company, Isilumko Staffing, to offer some opinion to the parliament on the people’s needs, opinions, and demands on land expropriation with or without compensation. Reworking qualitative data to present it as quantitative data is a complex process that requires expertise in statistics, research design and the social sciences around politics. Outsourcing this analysis is highly questionable.

The final report divided the qualitative information into various categories: presentations on agricultural land, urban land, etc., and listing the arguments for or against change to Section 25. The whole process of analysing and classifying the data was subjective. It could be contaminated by bias and manipulation. The categorizing of the final data was executed according to the research company’s own guidelines. There were too many uncontrollable determinants that could have contaminated the whole process of the analysis. Various researches expressed doubt as to the applicability and correctness of the process.114-117

Political research is complicated and needs a clear-cut research design before the start of the research to find clear answers in response to clear questions to them. Starbird’s117 doubts are clear when he says117: 66:

The most fundamental idea of democracy is that the government responds to the will of the people. Usually, the will of the people is ascertained through voting. An election takes the individual opinions of each voter and assembles those many opinions into one societal decision, the election winner – the will of the people.

Starbird117 warns that there is an unfortunate and counter-intuitive reality to the election process117: 66:

An election’s outcome may have less to do with the voters’ preferences about candidates [political matters] than with the voting [research] method employed. A method by which the voters’ preferences are combined to determine the winner [political matter] is a means of making a statistical summary of data. We will see that such summaries are fraught with peril.

The final decision of the voters [presenters] on a change to Section 25 offered in parliament is intrinsically problematic. The presenters made up 1% of the population. The research cannot serve as a valid and trustworthy guideline for parliament. The whole exercise was nothing other than political window-dressing.23,117,118

The best way to understand this is with Starbird’s117 lecture titled “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”. He said117: 92:

In this lecture, we will learn some effective ways to lie with statistics. Lying with statistics means one of several things. We might, of course, simply present false data. But more interesting methods involve taking perfectly valid data and distorting their meaning by using misleading presentations or by drawing improper inferences.

The vote on the change to Section 25 in parliament will be done in terms of party membership. This in reality means the outcome will depend on party policy.23,117,118

The best way to settle the matter would be three questions on a ballot. These three questions should be: 1) Are you in favour of keeping Section 25 as it is and the continuation of the land redistribution policy in place since 1994? or 2) Are you in favour of a change to Section 25 for the implementation of a land redistribution policy with compensation? or 3) Are you in favour of a change to Section 25 for the implementation of a land redistribution policy without any compensation?

The whole process could also be completed at much less cost with a referendum. It is further alleged that the ANC’s top six, after it became clear that the majority of the presenters at the parliamentary hearings were against amending the Constitution (and thus land expropriation without compensation), decided to ignore the outcome of the hearings.23,106

An overview of the hearings shows that the general public holds far less extreme views than the ANC and the EFF. The report of Isilumko Staffing shows that there were 630 609 written submissions, of which 176 780 were duplicates, with 3 602 empty and a further 592 non-applicable. The result was 449 522 presentations, reflecting a 34.2% in favour of the change and 64.7% against it. The parliamentary committee acknowledged that it would be impossible for them to consider every one of the presentations in detail.2,23 The drafted amendment must first be accepted by National Assembly, which can happen at the earliest in March 2019. After that the concept amendment must also be considered by the National Council for Provinces. The National Council of Provinces is forced by law to allow six weeks for consideration for its members to take part in a public discussion. This means that the Constitution can be amended by middle May 2019 at the earliest. 2,23

If the ANC’s majority decreases after the 2019 election, their opportunities to amend the Constitution also decrease. The ANC will need the help of the EFF and other smaller parties to get enough votes. The election has to be before August, but Ramaphosa has hinted that it may be earlier.23,119

Referendums are seldom used in South Africa. Mkhondo106:18 warns that they are not fool proof. After FW de Klerk used a referendum to ask permission to continue negotiations with the ANC, some felt that he interpreted the results as giving him permission to hand the power to the majority, while they only meant to give him permission to negotiate.42,106 However, referendums could be a good option in a situation like this. Mkhondo106: 18 states that such a referendum will counter citizens’ cynicism, inter-party fighting and political manipulation and end the mandate of political leaders who speak falsely on behalve of the individual. It is time to acknowledge the demands of masses in South Africa.

In Switzerland more than 900 such plebiscites have been held since the 17th century, while more recently Italy and New Zealand used referendums to force radical changes to voting systems and drastic changes to of some of their political institutions.106 Mkhondo106: 18 provides a clear guideline for politicians to follow when using referendums to solve political matters. Firstly, the referendum questions must be neutral, clear and concise, preferably requiring a simple yes/no answer to avoid invalidity and incredibility. Referendums should also supplement rather than supplant political decision-making. It is undoubtedly time to look critically at the legal processes, the foundation and subjects on which battles are being fought106. Mkhondo106 states a clear constitutional dilemma that has to be addressed when he posits106: 18:

For nearly 25 years, our constitution has enshrined our values and given legal expression to our vision as a country and has been a fundamental source of guidance for elected officials. But our constitution is showing signs of wear and tear: Our democracy is becoming irrelevant.

Is the Constitution still valid for our circumstances? Mkhondo106: 18 writes precisely and clearly about our lack of sophistication with respect to the complexity of public policies on the Constitution and on human and property rights. He sees five prominent shortcomings that result from an autocratic-democratic constitution that suited Nelson Mandela at the time. It gave him the ability to place political allies in critical positions. South Africa has not really had a true democratic Constitution since 1994. Saying that Jacob Zuma misused the Constitution is false: South Africans created the faulty Constitution themselves, giving Zuma immense presidential power.106 Mkhondo106 pens down five very simply, straightforward yes-no questions for the voter on the Constitution106: 18:

  • Do you prefer the president of the country to be elected to office directly by voters?
  • Do you prefer that the president of the country be elected by their political party?
  • Should mayors and premiers be elected directly by voters?
  • Should all MPs, or a proportion of them, be elected through the mechanism of a party list?
  • Should South Africa continue to have nine provinces, or fewer?

Mkhondo106 takes the issue of land much deeper that the parliamentary committee’s superficial hearings. The current process is simple patchwork to a sick constitution, and its other shortcomings will resurface in the future on various constitutional matters and can become untreatable. Mkhondo106 writes in this regard106: 18:

We need a referendum, for example, on whether it is time to amend the constitution, and the electoral system it outlines. Is our proportional representation system still relevant? A referendum would test whether our constitution still embodied the bedrock values of our democracy, including effective participation, transparency, responsiveness, inclusiveness and accountability.

Cyril Ramaphosa120 claims that the land debate almost ended in a referendum in 1993, but instead the property clause was crafted to acknowledge the rights of property owners as well as those without land. Embedded in this clause …was the ability to speed up land reform, but this had not been used to good effect.

However, there was never any serious intent in 1993 to have a referendum on land expropriation without compensation, primarily because it would have ended in war at that time.42,108,120-122

4.2. Questions around the ANC attack on the 1994 Constitution and Section 25 to allow expropriation

4.2.1. Are Section 25 and the Constitution unchangeable?

Central to future dramatic land reform stands the South African Constitution and Section 25(2)(b) of its Bill of Rights. Anti-reformers argue that Section 25 already provides a clear roadmap for further land reform. Since 1994 a total of 76 000 land claims have been filed, 95% dealt with unsuccessfully. More than 1.8 million individuals have received compensation, either monetary or in the form of land.123 They also argue that Section 25 does give the state the ability to expropriate property in the public interest. The government has all it needs according to this line of argumentation. 124 Opperheimer explains Section 25(2)(b) when he postulates124:18:

It empowers the state to expropriate property in the public interest, which includes land reform. A classic case would be the construction of the Gautrain project, which needed to run through privately owned land, or the acquisition of land to build RDP homes. The constitution recognizes that in such cases private owners deserve compensation, which is worked out according to relevant circumstances.

In August 2018 the government indeed served papers of expropriation on four farm owners in Limpopo without court intervention, seemingly after the transfer of the ownership of the farms stalled because the state and the owners could not reach an understanding on the selling price and the owners contest the land claim in court. These expropriations were founded on Art 42(e) of the Act on the Restoration of Land Rights, which refers to recourse in the case of a deadlock.

AfriForum and Institute of Racial Relations (IRR) as made the claim that there is a list of 139 farms that the government intends to expropriate with compensation. Rendani Sadiki125, the acting director-general in the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, categorically denies the existence of such a list. Sadiki125 says it is a list of 139 farms (sometimes in media reported to be 194 farms) identified by the ANC NEC at their lekgotla as cases where no consensus could be reached on the selling prices that have to be put on the register for arbitration by the court. They are test cases for the expropriation of farms in terms of the valuation-general’s register of disputed farms (selling prices versus the land court’s pricing) to finalize the cases on the register.125,126 They are therefore not classified as expropriation without compensation, although the owners may not receive market value. The officials refuse for some sinister reasons to name these 139 properties, although are already on the register for disputed land. Rendani Sadiki125 and Maite Nkoane-Mashabane125 have acknowledged that this secrecy is a specific step by the government to prevent farmers from taking legal steps to defend their property.

The opinion of legal experts is that in certain extraordinary cases the government can expropriate land without compensation in terms of Art 42(e), but courts of law have thus far not given a decisive answer on the matter. Aggrieved land owners can thus still challenge the unacceptable compensations offered for their farms in the court in terms of the legality of the expropriation. Linda Page, spokesperson of the Department of Land Reform, emphasises that the minister can take steps to buy, to obtain or to expropriate with compensation (not necessarily at market prices) farms for land reform in terms of Art 42(e) and that there have been 23 such cases since 2007.

An attorney, Bertus van der Merwe, an expert on land expropriation, also indicates that there has thus far not been a single successful case of direct land expropriation by the government without some form of compensation. Maite Nkoane-Mashabane seemingly wants to create a legal precedent that favours the state in case of future cases of land expropriation without compensation, thereby overcoming the need to change Section 25(2)(b). Evidence suggests that the state in most instances pay semi-full /semi-half compensation (± 60% of market price), meaning that it would be difficult to force a pay-out above 60% in court.48,125,127 This testing of how compensation must be calculated indicates the failure of the ANC regime, because they did not use the courts as a final decision-maker and guide on the compensation process from the start. They instead followed a political process. If the court of law was used it would have resulted in a clear guideline on the correct calculation of compensation, preventing the current conflicting principles of willing seller-willing buyer.

In defence of their initial legal passivity, now replaced by an active process in court to force down expropriation in terms of the state’s pricing guideline, the ANC government argues that the market prices in time caused the buying process to slowed down because the prices were driven up unrealistically and artificially.34,48,125,129,130 Umraw128:4 reports that the expropriation of the 139 listed farms is expected to be carried out before the end of December 2018. An ANC NEC member, Ronald Lamola, revealed the truth that the ANC at its lekgotla in December 2017 adopted a plan to speed up land expropriation, including the alleged 139 farms selected for expropriation, because the ANC wanted to test the principles of the Constitution. Lamola reports128:4:

We said we will take a multipronged approach to land. We don’t know when the process for amendment will be finalized.

And it’s not a given that when we put the amendment to parliament, we will get a two thirds majority vote. We will continue to expropriate land this way, and the parliamentary process for a constitutional amendment for expropriation without compensation will run parallel.

Kodwa125:2 pointed out that even if this test run with the 139 farms is successful, the ANC would still seek an amendment of the Constitution to help them avoid future legal conflict in the process of land expropriation without compensation. Weighted compensation is only a short-term solution. Full-scale land grabbing is still the goal.125 Umraw128:4 reports that according to insider information on the ANC legotka, ANC members of the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights (CRLR) conceded that as the Constitution presently stands, “the state was already able to expropriate land without compensation if it wished”, but did not do so because of certain blocks in the country’s political set-up. The political power of the ANC has now reached the point where there is more radical thinking on the economic and social empowerment of the Black population. In this context, the members of the CRLR felt that the matter must be addressed by means of direct land grabbing. Affected landowners could be referred to the courts, from there the ANC’s eagerness to take test cases to court.128
Umraw128 writes128:4:

Party [ANC] insiders who attended the two-day lekgotla of the party’s national executive committee (NEC) this week, the ANC’s highest decision-making body between conferences, gave details of the legislative plans and the expropriation “guinea pig” scheme.

In addition to pushing for an amendment to section 25 of the constitution to allow for expropriation without compensation, the ANC’s plans include: Drafting a land records bill aimed at documented all landowners, both formal and informal, and ensuring security of tenure; Drafting a redistribution bill that would provide a framework for the deciding who gets priority access to land once the reform programme rolls out; and Amending the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act to recognize those who have lived on the property for three years or more as the de facto owners who cannot be dispossessed without consent.

Party members at the lekgotla are said to have wanted the process of passing and implementing the Expropriation Bill expedited. Once Section 25 of the constitution has been amended, the bill can be changed to allow for expropriation without compensation, effectively doing away with the willing buyer–willing seller principle.

Hunter131:4 says that the ministry of rural development had received specific instructions from its minister to pursue the matter right up to the Constitutional Court as test cases. The intention is not to relent if the White farmers take the department to court to object to the valuer-general’s valuation, but to obtain a pronunciation and guideline from the Constitutional Court on what Section 25 of the Constitution really means. The ANC wants the farmers to go to court. Although the head of the ministry of rural development, Mashile Mokono131, said that131:4: “…the department had set aside funds for the farms’ paying and if there were no disagreement, the department would have gone ahead and bought them”, he did a sudden turn-about on pay-outs when he said131:4:

The department believes the current provisions of the constitution may allow for farms to be expropriated with the value of the farm set at zero rands.

When land is evaluated, we take different things into consideration. If we consider the fact that maybe that land was given to the farmer by the apartheid government, then that farmer got soft loans, and when there was drought, he further got more…so the valuation might be that the farmer doesn’t get anything. Zero.

Mokono131:4 also posits that the government does not expect the present parliamentary process to amend the constitution to be concluded by the end of this administration, making a Constitutional Court order on the matter of crucial importance to the ANC. Hunter131:4 reports further that a member of the ANC’s executive said that it’s likely that once the Constitutional Court proclaims on any of the 139 cases, Section 25 may not need to be overhauled, because the Constitution is then functioning correctly in terms of the ANC’s concept of justice. This is in line with what Ramaphosa said to the Zulu King in July 2018, namely that the land targeted for expropriation is limited to the land of mostly White South Africans.68 On the 21st September 2018, Ramaphosa132:1 in an interview with Business Times elaborated further on his previous utterances. Derby132 reports132:1:

He and his party have backed changes to the constitution in order to ensure that land expropriation without compensation takes place to speed up transformation with regard to landownership.

Derby further reflects132:1:

Ramaphosa said the state would target land from state-owned enterprises and private sector businesses that have large tracts of unused land — such as forestry giants Sappi and Mondi.

The packaging and paper manufacturer Mondi Group and the pulp and paper company Sappi already accepted the unavoidable realities of landownership and publicly indicated they are not interested in owning land in future, but instead wants permission to use state or communal land to produce wood-products. Although the research of the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agricultural Studies (PLAAS) shows that as much as 40% of the large plantations are subject to land claims. They look at these claims in terms of their business models. Their priority is future access to wood resources instead of land ownership, making the transfer of land to communities less complicated and demanding.132,133 Above statements by various ANC elites on land reform and the contradictions, the ANC’s biggest problem is that it does not have a lucid policy on land134:4. They have only a series of decisions taken at various meetings sold as empowerment to the radical elements in the voter corps.

Munusamy writes134:4:

The land question could turn out to be SA’s Brexit if the ANC continues to chase votes without a coherent policy position and game plan.

Tabane135 postulates as follows135:4:

The elevation of the land question to a central election issue has made the ANC act in a desperate fashion, exposing policy schizophrenia,

and:

This must be one of the most disorganized policy approaches to befall the ruling party since 1994.

Professor Ben Cousins136:1 of the Department of Science and the Technology and National Research Foundation and a chair in Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies at the University of Western Cape, warns about the lack of a policy on land. He agrees that land redistribution is a core issue that must be addressed136:1:

We’ve got to change the racial ownership of land, but as a long-term project.

4.2.1.1. Does the ANC have a clear redistribution plan?

Cousins136, Haffajee138 and Derby137 emphasizes that a properly described official redistribution programme is crucial. The ANC simply lacks expertise.136-138 Cousins136 reflects as follows136:1:

We’ve got a massive problem with the restitution programme, which is now massively dysfunctional. We’ve got to fix those problems and resolve the restitution claims, possibly through lots of cash pay-outs. We’ve got to resolve the issue of the insecure land rights of people in informal settlements, in backyards shacks, in cities, communal areas and on farms. We need that tenure-reform component.

A new Land Records Act, which records, registers and secures people’s land rights, whether these are private title deeds or whether they are given tenure rights – a proper way of securing those rights against arbitrary eviction – is a third key element of a proper land reform programme.

The “cash payouts” Cousins136 refers to has become a problem. It seems to have dried up, forcing the ANC to take desperate measures. Another troubling idea is the prominent remark by Ronald Lamola128 that the ANC considered at the December 2017 lekgotla to introduce a land tax or a kind of levy on land for so-called absent landowners as a way to force the full use of land or to open up such land to the poor and landless. To add to the confusion, Enoch Godongwana125, chair of the ANC’s sub-committee of economic transformation, said the ANC had no intention to expropriate productive land without compensation distanced the ANC from the EFF125:2:

We strive to different kinds of landownership, including private land, state-land, communal land, etc.

What he omits is what percentage of land ownership the ANC would allow. If the models of Zimbabwe, Zambia or Mozambique are anything to go by, the percentage of White ownership will be very low, mostly limited to tenure by means of long lease.125 When considering the current situation where the ANC is in a hurry to push through land expropriation without compensation and Ramaphosa is attempting to clinch his position as president of the ANC of the country, chances are good that the ANC will strike a deal with the EFF and other radical parties in parliament before the 2019 election to withdraw the Expropriation Bill and to amend it to make explicit those categories of land (as a first step) likely to be expropriated without compensation and the conditions in which this may happen.138 Haffajee138:2 describes these properties as follows: “…possible abandoned buildings, unused land, unproductive commercial property held for speculative purposes, underutilized state property, and land farmed by labour tenants with an absentee titleholder”.

The earmarked properties clearly also include those farms with disputed prices and the so-called “soft Apartheid farms” (described by Mashile Mokono131:4 as farms obtain by nationalist Afrikaners because Apartheid favoured them).138 Derby137 is concerned about the consequences of land expropriation without compensation. He asks137: 2: “Just how will the state handle indebted land, even if a farmer is not compensated? Would there be compensation to the banks, and if not, just where it does it leave a bank like Absa, one of the largest lenders to the agricultural sector?”

This is just one risk of an untidy resolution to what is a structural fault line in the South African economy – access to land. If banks are susceptible and face a real prospect of some of their loans being wiped off their books, a crisis will follow. How will they be able to provide loans to new Black farmers?

This is admittedly alarmist, as there is much uncertainty about exactly what and how the changes to the Constitution will unfold. What will it mean for private property and house prices? There are just so many different objectives to the land debate. Apart from historical redress, there’s the promotion of land ownership of rural land. This calls into question the role of our traditional leaders such as the Zulu king. In these areas, just how we deal with the question of land tenure for women will be a minefield to navigate.

Plaintiffs have two prominent misconceptions about the ANC and its land reform. In contrast with the Westernized, capitalistic and democratic thinking of landowners, the ANC leaders have a revolutionary mindset based on the theory of chaos. Secondly, is the belief of some plaintiffs that the statutory change to the Constitution will stop with the change to Section 25. However, Section 25 seems to be only the first step of a low-level change to the Constitution to fit the ANC’s present needs, paving the way for more comprehensive and complicated changes to follow.42 To understand the ability of the ANC leadership to manipulate the facts is reflected in the ease with which they side-stepped the matter after President Donald Trump tweeted that he has instructed his minister of Foreign Affairs, Mike Pompeo, to investigated the ANC’s land grabbing and the murder of White farmers. After the ANC-leadership took Pompeo’s chargé ď affaires at the American Embassy in Pretoria under their hand about the “arrogant” Trump-tweet, Pompeo only wants from the ANC-regime “to explain its land reform policy better”. The report of journalist Llewellyn Prince139 on how easily Pomeo’s enquiry with the South African minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Lindiwe Sisulu, was laid to rest, is striking139:2:

South Africa must explain its land transforming policy better.

This was in New York the message of Mike Pompeo, the American minister of Foreign Affairs to Lindiwe Sisulu, the minister International Relations and Cooperation.

Sisulu yesterday, on her monthly information session, said to journalists Pompeo had said to her he and the American government understands what South Africa likes to reach, but that there are people which do not understand it. “After we called in the American Embassy’s chargé ď affaires after the tweet (of pres. Donald Trump), the American department issued a balanced elucidation”.

She [Sisulu] said the government will use every opportunity to explain.

The chances are good that the ANC will introduce comprehensive changes to the Constitution to implement RET from 2019 if the ANC stays in power after the 2019 election. They indeed do have a clear and guiding redistribution plan in place.

4.2.1.2. The legal foundation of the process of land expropriation with or without compensation

For a change to the Constitution, a two-thirds majority is needed in parliament and an approval from six of the nine provinces, while the ordinary Bill on Expropriation that is serving before parliament at the moment only needs an approval vote of 50% by the parliament.125,138,140 Two sections of the Constitution will have to be amended — 25 and 31. Section 25 is applicable to the property clause that allows for expropriation, and 31 is the limitations clause that outlines when rights, to, for example, property, can be limited.125,138,139 The ANC at moment has 62% of the seats and the EFF 6% of the seats of parliament, meaning an alliance can give 68%.125,138,140

Advocate Paul Hoffman of Accountability Now postulates that although a two-thirds parliamentarian majority is needed to Section 25 (Article 25) of the Constitution, it ultimately depends on a 75% parliamentarian majority vote as guided by Article 74(1) of the Constitution.125,138,140 To change the Constitution the amendment must be approved and accepted by the National Assembly, after which the concept amendment must also be considered and accepted by the National Council for Provinces.23 Laws aimed at streamlining the expropriation process without constitutional changes are the Employment Equity Act, the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act and Codes, the Skills Development Act, the Levies Act and the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act. These legislations are supported by for instance the National Development Plan and the Black Industrialist Programme. Land expropriation in terms of democratic principles and African empowerment, is clearly described by Section 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, while the redistribution of agricultural land is further partially covered in the Agri BEE codes. This begs the question of why the sudden intended changes to the Constitution for land redistribution are needed?82

It is becoming more and more clear that the ANC is also setting their sights on various other traditional financial, legal and statutory institutions. The intention is undoubtedly to increase the ANC’s power over these traditional financial, legal and statutory institutions. Not even the South African courts will necessarily escape trespassing and disempowerment in the near future.

One direct outcome of the expropriation initiative is the abuse of the various legal vehicles to manipulate the prices of land. Plaintiffs criticise the calculation of the value of land when sold in terms of Art 42(e) of the Act on Property Valuation. They argue that the valuation-general uses an illegal formula to do the calculation for compensation, which should be based on six criteria, namely the 1) present market value of the property, 2) improvements, 3) present use and income-generation component, 4) the way the property was acquired, 5) the amount of financial state support the owner received over the years, and 6) the primary aim of the expropriation, like land-transformation, etc. The plaintiffs indicate that the open market value and the valuation of the valuation-general often differ as much as 50% and more, making the forced sale of the property a loss to the affected owner. Ms. Annelize Crosby48 of AgriSA puts it at more or less 60%, while Dr. Theo de Jager110, chair of the World Agricultural Organisation, puts it on an average of 40%. The valuation-general sometimes contracts private valuation groups to estimate the value of farms to ratify this low evaluation as the final expropriation offer.

The plaintiffs see this whole process with all its cancerous roots as nothing less than land expropriation without compensation.48,110,127,128-130 De Jager110: 4-5 says in this regard that the fact that the Land Claim Commission has been offering only 60% of the market value since September 2007 means that some farmers could not pay their outstanding bonds to banks when expropriation took place. This is nothing other than land expropriation without compensation for the White farmer.110 The banks in most cases get back the full amount of their bonds, which is seldom above 60% of the market value of farms. This assures that the banking sector’s involvement and their lending to farmers is not affected negatively in anyway. It means that farmers carry the financial losses alone as individual (White) citizens, while the shareholders/investors in banks are not affected. Bankruptcy is unavoidable for the White farmers who land in this situation. De Jager110: 4-5 reports that when the first pay-out of only 60% occurred, the banks lowered land bonds and informed farmers with bonds that they would still be responsible for shortfalls when land is expropriated by the government at 60% of the market value.

Another way in which the ANC is trying to limit White land ownership is with the concept legislation on the regulation of landownership issued in March 2017. It will probably be put to Parliament for approval in March 2021. This legislation suggests that land ownership be limited to 12 000 hectares, but that the ceiling of 12 000 hectares must not be absolute. The final size will depend on various factors, such as the location of the farm (for instance semi-dessert which needs large areas to make a living versus wetter areas where intensive farming is practiced on a small area), the quality of the land, the availability of water, distance from markets, capital requirements for farming and the number of the people already living and working on the farm. Gwede Mantashe (previously the secretary-general of the ANC and now minister of mineral resources) tried on 15 August 2018 to side-step the legal process with a further demand that the change to Section 25 should include limiting White land ownership to 12 000 hectares. However, in reality only 0.22% of farms are affected. The idea is that the land above the limit must be confiscated without compensation. This hostile behaviour on the one hand shows the lack of knowledge on the part of the ANC and on the other the growing hostility towards White landowners31,34.48,141-143.

This legislation will give the government the power to limit the right to own 12 000 hectares even further in some instances, depending on climate and the quality of the soil, etc.34 Another limitation on land ownership was suggested by Zuma in 2015, namely foreign landownership.34 Official statements on land expropriation is ever more conflicting, inciting the poor and landless to grab land. They have been waiting in the background, eagerly anticipating their promised free land. Munusamy144 expresses the popular expectations well144:22:

Following the ANC’s decision to amend the constitution to allow for land expropriation, there are all manner of expectations: Some people think title deeds for land will be handed out like free chilli sauce with a takeaway meal…

Since the Whites have been labelled the transgressors of the past, the question is if Whites will be allowed any land ownership whatsoever.142 The current fight against land grabbing will not turn around the ANC in the long run, only the voters can bring change. Arguments like that of Opperheimer124 ultimately only offer emotional support. Opperheimer writes124:18:

Almost all victims of land dispossession have been compensated. Home ownership matches racial demographics. Barring a few opportunistic politicians, almost no one view land reform as a burning issue. The transfer of functioning farms to ill-equipped beneficiaries has been a spectacular failure. Expropriate without compensation has been tried in communist regimes, where it has harvested riches for a few and devastation for everyone else.

We have an internationally lauded constitution premised on freedom, dignity, and equality. We have never altered our Bill of Rights and the evidence shows that there is no reason to do so now.

You can’t remove property rights and have a flourishing economy. Foreign investors won’t risk having their land confiscated when they can pick any number of other nations that will protect their investments.

4.3. The future of White farmers in South Africa

However much Whites are protesting, land reform is a reality. Those who do not fight it, but react with wisdom and calmness are often regarded as traitors when they consult with the authorities..31,97,98,101,102,112,125 This category of land owners sees the land issue as a valid concern that should have been addressed already, while many farmers still yearn for their apartheid rights.31,97,98,101,102,112,125,145 Those farmers who have adjusted are aggrieved by the rigid thinking of White farmers in general. They see the current efforts of the leaders of many of the pro-farmer groups like AfriForum, Solidarity and the FFP Plus as opportunistic and more focused on conflict than constructive discourse that could improve the relationship between the White farmers and ANC radicals. Van Rensburg145: 10 focuses our attention on this conflict with a comparison between the 1994 Constitution and the useless agreement the British Premier Neville Chamberlain made with Adolf Hitler in an effort to avoid the Second World War. He writes145:10:

After his return from Munich he cast around a note with the message: “I believe this is peace in our time”. Within a year Europe was plunged into war.

The 1994 Constitution has many short-comings. It is not absolute and will not protect White rights forever.110,145 Theo de Jager110: 4-5, chair of the World Agricultural Association, warns that Whites will not escape dramatic changes. They are naïve to think the Constitution will guard them. The ANC is losing power, and as in Zimbabwe where the Mugabe regime latched onto the rhetoric of punishing Whites for the past when they started losing power, the ANC wants to disempower Whites to regain power. De Jager110 shows that Section 25 of the Constitution does not guarantee market-related compensation for expropriation at all. What is more, the Land Claims Commission also has the power to decide on the specific value of farms under expropriation as is evident from the many pending disputes between farmers and the government. Only 10% of farms have been transferred up to 2018. De Jager110 makes it clear that the conflict with respect to land is not only the fault of the ANC government. He writes110: 4-5:

Our farmers have known for more than two decades that landownership and land transformation can become political dynamite. We saw what happened in Zimbabwe, but learned very little from it. The ANC asked in 2008 for suggestions for a land reform plan and we did not suggest one. Even the partnership model of the National Development Plan was shot down aggressively until the expropriation-without-compensation-scenario brought the established agricultural organisations to other insights.

To reject every new land reform plan as unconstitutional, ANC-friendly or as interference in the free market (as if it was not interference in the free market that plunged us in the present landownership dilemma), creates the impression that we speak left but is running right. History is going to judge us harshly for our inability to devise a workable plan [Own translation].

De Jager110 is clear and robust on the only choice available110: 4-5:

It is this or losing everything. It is not business as usual. We can certainly not sit down and believe that the problem will disappear [Own translation].

The White farmers should urgently change their attitude of obstruction, conflict and hostility and start to cooperate with ANC regime. They stand to be the only losers.110,146 The research of Pieter Steyn146, a South Africa journalist who recently toured Zimbabwe to do comprehensive interviews with Black and White farmers, officials and politicians, takes De Jager’s110 urgent warning of “adapt or die” even further. He reflects on the absolute right to land ownership and compares it with the situation of the Zimbabwean farmers. Steyn writes146: 12:

You do not need to own land to farm successfully and profitably. This fact is seldom acknowledged in the angry talks on land which are heard today in South Africa, this sentiment is seldom raised [Own translation].

For Steyn146 it is clear that Zimbabwean Black and White commercial farmers have started to think differently about land ownership and farming as a lifestyle and as a source of income. In Zimbabwe, as in Zambia and Mozambique, land is now more often owned by the state and rented out in terms of tenures of long lease (99 years) to farmers. A White Zimbabwean farmer, Ken Drummond146: 12, reflects that South Africans — from the farmers to the government — must look carefully at the events in countries like Kenya and Zambia. They had bloody revolutions about land, while in Zimbabwe White farmers lost their lives. He regards hanging on to land as foolish, and many of the White farmers in Zimbabwe who selfishly and rigidly clung to their land in the Mugabe period, lost it in the end.146 Basil Nyabadza146: 12, chair of the Agricultural and Rural Development Council of Zimbabwe and a high profile member of Zanu-PF, confirms that the only solution in Zimbabwe for all the parties involved was to transfer land ownership to the state. White farmers re-entered the agricultural sector by renting land for 99 years. For him is it important that South Africans look at all the unnecessary mistakes made in Zimbabwe since the 1960s. He emphasizes that it resulted in food shortages, murder and plundering, racism, and the South African situation has the potential to turn out the same. Drummond’s146: 12 advice to South African White farmers, in line with what De Jager110: 4-5 is advising, is to begin constructive talks with the ANC regime and to work towards something creative, even if it means selling farms under expropriation at lower than the market prices. One possibility is expecting of all persons who want to farm to be licensed as a farmer.146 The direct advice of Scott Masala146, a businessman and cattle farmer of Bulawayo, to White South African farmers is that they should take a look at the real amount of land they need to be productive and profitable146: 12:

If you own 30 000 hectares but uses only 1 000 hectares or only need 1 000 hectares to be productive, give away the rest [Own translation].

Drummond146: 12 agrees whole-heartedly and says that if a constructive thinking process was followed from day one in Zimbabwe, the end result would have been different.146 Both Masala146 and Drummond146 see the use of the courts as needless and ineffective in the end. It only delays the process. Masala146 and Drummond146 point out that this route has never worked and will not work here.

It is important for the business and farming sectors to get involved in the land transformation issue and that they must not allow themselves to be steered by politics. These sectors are currently passive, and this has led to the process being taken over by politicians.146,147 The various self-appointed bodies should also be replaced by a single body that represents all farmers at all levels, Black and White. For instance, the threats of Agri SA to use its influence with Business South Africa (BUSA) and the International Business Chamber and its interaction with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and other entities that lend money to the South African government, to fight expropriation, can have more disadvantages than benefits.31

The Afrikaner farming community is also playing a diminishing role in South Africa. Their current resistance to even a balanced land expropriation process is leading to unreasonable farm prices. Some of the organizations that speak for them are actually hindering the success of land reform and the cause the banking sector to be reluctant to support options such as a 99-year tenure system. Resistance is largely also why early reasonable efforts in Zimbabwe failed.42,130,146-149 The farmers who have embraced the process supports the viewpoint of the Zimbabwean farmers based on their lessons, namely that the ANC’s idea to look for farms/land that are not in full use and to redistribute these farms.

Barack Obama pointed to the greed to “own more than you need or you can utilize” in his recent Nelson Mandela annual lecture on 17 July 2018 in Johannesburg. White South African landowners must make a change from exclusive capital and move towards inclusive capital ownership. If the process of land expropriation is supported by the White farmers, it could be a moderated process.146 Although some of these White farmers feel that White farmers are ultimately unwelcome, they feel that cooperation could go far in ameliorating the current conflicts.146,149

4.4. Who will rule South Africa after 2019?

The change of Section 25(2)(b) and the implementation of land expropriation with or without compensation greatly depend on the outcome of the 2019 election. If the ANC or an ANC-EFF alliance wins more than 67% of the votes, radical land reform will be a given. A cursory look at the numbers of the three main parties could perhaps shed light on the current situation.

The ANC is currently popular with a certain segment of the population. The fact that it equalling the EFF in terms of radical ideas on land reform means that the EFF is losing ground. Present estimates reflect a rise in the popularity of the ANC attributable to the land debate from 50% to 60%. Despite this, there are several indications that this will not hold.19,57,112,152.153-155

Firstly, the parliamentary hearings revealed that only about 34.2% of the population really supports radical land reform. This means that the new-found radicalism of the ANC may not translate into votes. A recent Victoria Research report shows that the greatest worries of South Africans (Black and White) are unemployment (47%), drugs (23%), crime (20%) and corruption (18%). The ANC has failed to address any of these. The issue of land reached only 6%. What is more, this 6% represents an average. Only 4% of Blacks have an issue with land, while 11% of Whites express concern. Racism featured in only 7% of the answers, so the race care may not work either. Black groups indicated a 16% dislike for Black illegal immigrants, indicating that this is more of an issue.19,57,112,152-157

Since Ramaphosa has come into power, the ANC has attracted fewer votes in 33 out of 47 by-elections. Further is the Ramamania fast making place for Ramaconfusion, -depression and -failure. A large segment of the Black middle class prefers the DA as the favoured party. This is very important, seeing that the growing Black middle class makes up 40% of the labour force, 30% to 35% of the employment revenue generated and nearly 10% of the country’s wealth.19,57,112,152-157

Another blow to the ANC is the ever widening gap between the party and the SACP and Cosatu since the 54th ANC conference in October 2017. Ramaphosa could thus far not heal the rift. His election as president of the ANC came with the exclusion of the SACP’s senior leaders and Cosatu’s top unionists from the ANC’s 80-member national executive committee (NEC). The SACP has also recently started to criticize Zuma and the ANC openly.158,159

A further factor that can deter voters is the continued corruption.160,161 Onkgopotse Tabane161, a well-known journalist, the author of Let’s Talk Frankly and the host of Power Perspective on Power 987, writes161: 14:

The NEC’s continuation of a culture of a missing backbone will turn off voters in big numbers, as they will be convinced that the Ramaphosa-led ANC is still being remotely controlled by Zuma, who is a wrecking ball across the economy. This is the singular threat to the ANC’s electoral fortunes…

The ANC itself is aware of its decline as the favoured party. This is evident from the Boksburg document that was compiled by the ANC during their April 2018 Boksburg conference. The following quotation dated the 13 May 2018, comes from the April 2018 conference. It reads162:4:

If we want to make a significant impact on voter mood we need to use the next 15 months to demonstrate political will, concrete actions, and the capacity to deal with these issues.

This includes concrete and drastic action (not just statements) against corruption, especially among our leaders, and [to] strengthen the capacity of the state to investigate and prosecute offenders.

We also have to provide clear action and proof that we are prioritising job creation and economic development and our efforts are bearing fruit.

The election of 2019 is a threat to the ANC. They are already doing fancy political footwork to stay in power. The internal document of April 2018 after the Boksburg conference reflects a sombre mood within. They have real concerns about losing Gauteng, North West, Free State, Mpumalanga and Limpopo. The ANC’s own admission in this document that they “have squandered the goodwill they enjoyed from voters for the past 24 years” and that they intend “to rectify their bad actions immediately in the less than 15 months before the election” is telling. Land redistribution is a desperate attempt to show goodwill towards the voters. Ramaphosa is vulnerable at the moment, and as already indicated, his decision-making could be affected by the up-coming election.91,112,124,163,164 The ANC is trying everything to stay in power. Consider the rhetoric of Zizi Kodwa45, the ANC’s head of the presidency at Luthuli house, in his address to the nation, dated 26h August 201845: 22:

As we celebrate the centenary of Nelson Mandela and Albertina Sisulu, we must rededicate ourselves to the ANC’s founding values.

We are under no illusion that the path we have yet to traverse as a Nation towards the realisation of a truly emancipated society free of corruption and all forms of discrimination is a long one. This [Zondo] commission presents us with an opportunity not only to learn from our mistakes, but to also build resilient institutions that can withstand scrutiny and enjoy the confidence of all South Africans.

Ranjeni Munusamy165 brings some much-needed rationality to the table165: 22:

Next year, the ANC will swamp us with election campaign messages about how it will serve our interests. It will beg us to return it to power. Judging by how it failed our nation and let down those who showed courage under fire, why should we believe it?

Munusamy165 shows that there is tremendous distrust in the integrity of the ANC. Poor service delivery, unemployment and the immense dishonesty within the ANC elite have turned the tide against them. The ANC’s intended land grabbing is the final straw for the Black middle class.165 The ANC’s promises have become unconvincing. They fact that the ANC is asking China for help also sends off a red light.166,167 Bruce indicates80:20:

Left to the ANC alone, there is no prospect of any of this getting better. The party simply doesn’t have the will to manage our vast social and mechanical complexity on the ground.

Land expropriation can cost the ANC its rule. Bruce80 describes this possibility poignantly:80: 20
Rich or poor, you will probably, in your heart, have already decided these people [ANC] can’t help you. The land issue will take years to resolve, if it ever is.

I’m not scared, just disappointed. My house isn’t going to be expropriated. Neither would my farm be, if I had one. Even if it wanted to the ANC simply doesn’t have the ability to make land reform happen. It should hand the entire process over to AgriSA, tell it to find x-million hectares and partner with and take responsibility for the new farmers it puts on the land.

That’s easy. The hard part is recasting our politics into something that represents the structure of the economy instead of merely the race of people in it. That will take decades but, mercifully, it’ll end in the demise of the ANC – which, right now, seems to me to be a dream worth work shopping.

Tabane’s12 short “obituary” of the ANC reflects a party that has failed the Black people: a phenomenon he calls the death of Black humanity, where the12:18: “…disappearance of norms and values, leading to dysfunctional families, unstable communities and a society whose sense of outrage have become an optional extra, while the concept of ubuntu has all but disappeared”.

The ANC’s mismanagement of the economy and failure to address service delivery, work, healthcare and education, spells disaster for the party. Tabane12 sees the ANC as the cause of a new Black opposition and the loss of unity. Munusamy11 emphasizes that the world, including ANC supporters, are now aware that the country was run by a shadow state for ten years and that its crooked leadership has not been taken to book. She writes11: 18:

The ANC is instead plotting against itself, ready to place the country in peril again in another reckless battle for power. It is alarming how much ANC leaders distrust one another and how their primary motivation is self-preservation rather than the national interest.

One of the biggest blemishes on the ANC is the Marikana massacre six years ago. The government has yet to take responsibility. Tabane calls it the lowest point in the new South Africa, white-washed by the Farlam commission. The question is, can Blacks lives be entrusted to the ANC regime after 2019?144,168,169 Ramaphosa’s failure to get everyone linked to the Zuma-Gupta scandal out of his cabinet has caused concern. It leaves us thinking that the AND elite is just too untrustworthy, unpredictable and self-centred to be the government of the day.170-172 Eric Naki writes160: 3:

…Ramaphosa, then deputy president, was informed by a major shareholder at VSB early last year that money was being stolen. He allegedly promised to do something about the matter but did nothing.

The political analyst Professor Lesia Teffo takes it to the door of the man who is now supposed to run South Africa with integrity. He writes160: 3:

Ramaphosa kept mum because he was looking after his own interests.

The ANC’s support dropped to an estimated 52% after Ramaphosa’s land expropriation programme was announced.12,75,111,173-176 The present indication is that the ANC will not be able to turn around the distrust before the election. Some analysts project 60%, others as low as 50% (2004: 69.69%, 2009: 65.9%; 2014: 62.1%). The Ipsos poll shows 60%, while the DA’s research reflects less than 50%. The ANC’s own poll by its Luthuli house research team came to 48%.156,157,177

However, the DA cannot take this as a victory yet. The party still has a “Whitish image”. They are not able to attract any of the populistic votes as they do not embrace radical land reform. The DA is also accused of not being open to new ideas, but in practice this criticism is insignificant compared to the emptiness of the ANC and EFF. Another criticism is that their policies are of reminiscent of a party struggling with the dual ambitions of being a national and a regional power. However, this is equally true for the ANC and especially the EFF, which is mainly established in the Venda region and lacks a basic presence in Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal.177-183 There also seems to be a negative political culture in the DA. The editor of the Sunday Times wrote as follows in this regard on 12 August 2018:184: 16

The DA is desperate, and worried. The possibility of losing support in next year’s election is real. A recent poll by Ipsos’ predicts that the DA, which received 22% in 2014, could lose as much as 9%. The research says the infighting in the Western Cape could even lead to the DA losing its grip on the province. This would be disastrous, and the DA knows this. Losing the Western Cape, the only province it governs, would render the DA irrelevant.

Initially the thought was that the DA may lose votes to the ANC once Cyril Ramaphose takes over, but this seems doubtful given his plans of radical land reform. The electoral analyst Dawie Scholtz points out that the DA has managed to strengthen their position in the 12 by-elections held since Ramaphosa became president.150,185-187 Some of the most well-known political commentators and journalists are very positive about the DA’s chances in the coming election, pointing out that the DA’s politics is relevant for concerned voters whose politics are based on democracy and capitalism and a Western orientation. These analysts project a possible increased voter turn-out, placing the DA in a stronger position. The findings of the Victory Research project shows that the support of Black voters for the DA has grown between 6% and 10%. This strong Black contingent of followers was evident at the official launch of the DA’s 2019 election campaign at Mary Fitzgerald Square in Newtown, Johannesburg on 22 September 2018. The DA also shows no traces of the scandals that have marked the ANC and EFF.157 Their honesty about South Africa’s immense challenges and their clear guidelines that steer clear from empty promises has made them an attractive party. Their opposition to the growing racial nationalism (Black) not only attracts White votes, but also middle and upper class Black votes. It is worthwhile to quote the words of the DA-leader, Mmusi Maimane188. He writes188: 22:

There is no doubt we lost our way as a country. The SA of today bears no resemblance to the country we envisaged for ourselves at the start of our democracy in 1994. Corruption and mismanagement have become endemic to the government, and the result is a country that lags behind its peers on just every measure you can image. Our country still has deep divisions of colour, of gender and religion. But the biggest division in our society is between those on the inside – people with jobs, good education and access to opportunity – and the millions still locked out of our economy.

The Victory Research estimates 23% for the DA in the 2019 election. The steady path of the DA shows that it has a qualified leadership with integrity. They party has grown steadily since 1994.157,189

The EFF in turn is a radical political party, openly and unapologetically hateful of Whites. Land grabbing is central to their policy. They call for the nationalisation of property. Most researchers agree that the party is propelled by extremism, but that they have limited impact. This is not surprising given the general citizenry’s lack of interest in land reform and their deep-seated worry about factors such as unemployment and crime. Even their racist rhetoric does not seem to attract the crowds.19,57,112,152-157 The political scandals in which the party has been involved has also detracted from their support. There is the alleged transfer of R16.1 million to Brian Shivambu, the organizer of the EFF recruiting parties on campuses, and a brother of Floyd Shivambu, deputy-leader of the EFF. It is alleged that R10-million ended up in Floyd Shivambu’s pockets, while only R1.3 million was paid into the EFF’s bank account. It is also alleged that Floyd Shivambu acted as a facilitator of PIC deals and receiving large payments for his time.170,190-192 In reaction to Malema’s denial of the allegations, Munusamy192 reflects:192: 22

Strangely, even when the EFF has been implicated in corruption, its leaders still have the space and ability to manipulate public opinion.

The EFF went on the offensive, attacking people in the National Treasury, commentators and journalists for suggesting these allegations should be investigated and that Shivambu should subject himself to a lifestyle audit.

Malema claimed that these calls emanated from a ‘mob’ of racists and paid ‘Stratcom’ agents.

Malema tweeted this week that his members should remain vigilant and focused as ‘the enemy is attacking’.

Because of the dearth of leadership, many people will take his cue and chase after whomever he defines as the enemy. Even though the EFF’ hypocrisy is exposed, Malema will continue to dictate the national agenda for as long as nobody else does.

Munusamy continues:194: 18

“If it is not invective from the EFF’s leaders that journalists and commentators have to endure, it is the online onslaught from the party’s supporters, including race baiting and death threats”.

Bruce shows that things can go wrong for the EFF in the run-up to the election. He writes:195:16

“By the time we go to the polls, the SARS inquiry will be done and Moyane gone. There’ll be a new head at the National Prosecuting Authority. Arrests will have been made and charges laid”.

The SAPD is also looking around to make arrests, as Bruce193 confirms:193: 20

“If Julius cannot get the EFF out of the corner it is in and goes into the 2019 election visibly damaged, those wavering white voters might relax and stick with the DA”.

In middle October the EFF, after a good run in student council elections on minor campuses, was thumped by the ANC at Wits in Johannesburg.195 Victory Research estimates an outcome of 13%, doubling the votes the party got in its first attempt in 2014 (6.34%). Victory Research also indicates that 25% of ANC voters are interested in voting for the EFF in 2019).19,57,112,153-157

Despite this, it seems the party’s inputs will remain dependent on alliances and focused on controversies. The broader population is just not comfortable with the EFF’s ideology of land grabbing and political instability. Derby178:2 shows that even though some proclaim the EFF as the “centre of a new politics”, the party’s roots represent the thinking and interests of a faction of the ANC, while its economic policies are outdated and framed by those of the ANC, the SACP and the PAC. This limits their growth.178,185 Bruce185 estimates that they will struggle to get 10% of the votes next year.

4.4.1. Overview: South African politics 2018–2019

Despite all the polls and projections, a completely different picture may appear. If the DA gets between 35% and 40%, a different political model can emerge from the present one where the ANC targets the Whites as a racial group thrives on corruption, theft, state capture and a foolish and outdated economic and political communist orientation. A new anti-radicalism can also mean the end of the EFF, as happened with the PAC and the AWB.

An alliance between the EFF and the ANC is unlikely. The EFF has virtually no policy. Their main aim is to disturb the ANC. Their alliance with the DA proved unsuccessful due to their unruliness. The ANC and EFF together could have changed the Constitution already since they share their radical views on land reform, yet the EFF elected to partner with the DA. They promptly proceeded to stab the DA in the back by ousting Athol Trollip as the mayor of Nelson Mandela Bay. This means that sudden game-changing alliances seem unlikely.111,150,151

It is a political-historical fact in South Africa that voters rarely change their national government, writes Leon.150:22 The NP won 11 consecutive general elections, and since 1994 the ANC has won five general elections successfully.12,150,179,186,196 However, surprise is a political-historical fact. Not even the strongest regimes last forever.150:22 The Indian Congress Party, the Israeli Labour Party and the Mexican Institutional Revolutionary Party are excellent examples of such diminishing regimes, although it took between thirty to seventy years to play out.150 Louw42 is supportive of Leon’s150 finding and shows that multi-ethnic mini-empires of multi-nations mostly collapse in a short amount of time. Louw42 writes that their shelf-life is indeed limited, as confirmed by the various empire states of the 20th century: the duration of the Bolsheviks’ Social Union lasted from 1922 to 1991 (69 years); Bismarck’s German Reich 1871 to 1918 (47 years); Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich 1938 to 1944 (12 years); Japan’s Colonial Empire 1905 to 1945 (40 years). The average duration for reigning were 42 years.42 In a South African context, the NP and its nationalist Afrikaner style mini-empire of multi-nations (or the unofficial managed “NP Union”) only lasted from 1948 to 1961 (13 years), and its mini-empire for multi-states (Republic) only from 1961 to 1994 (33 years), while the Union of South Africa under strong British influence lasted from 1910 to 1948 (38 years). This reflects an average of 24 years for the three regimes. In terms of the average of 24 years, the ANC will reach the end of its shelf-life at the end of this year.42 If all the above is true it means the ANC would not have the power to change the Constitution.

5. Conclusions

South Africans don’t know each other across the racial divide, despite the fact that there are more similarities than differences between the various South African groups.24,41,86 Since 1994 the Whites have been reminded of the sins of apartheid in every single speech, and the recent developments on land has brought them to the point where they doubt they will ever be treated equally.2,7,42

South Africa has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the world and has one of the most unequal societies. Although the roots of these scourges go back to 1671, it is also true that very little has changed since 1994. The improvement will not come from taking from Whites to give to Blacks. What will happen to the poor when nothing is left but very inefficient state machinery? Inequality can only be erased by large-scale permanent employment, affordable housing, better training and education, and the establishment of a stable political environment. We are far from that given the current climate.1-7,14,15

The recent writings of the Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, Thabo Makgoba,198 summarize very honestly the South African issue of land expropriation without compensation. This article aimed to join the discussion by showing the complexity of the matter. The current political environment is marked by old myths, misconceptions of our own history, and fear to address crucial issues.198 As Magoba198 highlights, going back into history means going back to the time before the 1600s when Black tribes colonised the KhoiSan and the KhoiKhoi. Viewing the Blacks as indigenous people deprived of their land is inaccurate. However, the beginning of apartheid stretches back to 1671 at the Cape. It was a slow process of social engineering to benefit Whites.198

Redistributing land without compensation will not solve this. It can only aggravate the matter, as Makgoba198 shows. Although the inequality in the country means that redistribution should occur, it should not be offered as a panacea for poverty or be based on arguments about who is indigenous and who is not.

The fact is that redistribution is a symbolic act for emotional relief; it is not going to change the lives of the poor. Makgoba198 highlights the fact that the radicals in the ANC don’t really know what they want to do with the expropriated land. There is no sound plan. It’s all about revenge and Whites can rightfully be worried about it.

The relationship between Blacks and Whites is in reality much better than what the radicals in the ANC and EFF want to make it. Threats of war are far-fetched,42,84,157,189 but enormous economic distress is not, and this could be the fuel that ignites racial hate. Venezuela has seen more than three million of its people flee the country as they grow desperate for basic food and medicines.42,199 We must solve these problems constructively, now.199 Archbishop Makgoba’s argument on the land issue is a fitting conclusion to this discussion:198:21

Although I don’t want to turn the current fight over land reform into a free-for-all, we cannot afford to ignore the seizure of land before the current cut-off date of 1913. Expropriation going back to colonial times has sentenced many generations to utter poverty and shame. Laws and practices were maintained by force of arms, leading to a system of landownership and economic development disproportionately based on race.

However, we must recognize that going back to the colonial era raises difficult questions. What happens to white families who have long since sold the land originally seized by their forebears and invested the proceeds? And what about those who bought land for the first time more recently, using big loans from banks? If the banks lose their money, what damage does that do to the economy?

What about the land given in the 19th century to those of our ancestors who helped the colonizers defeat other groups of African people? Who adjudicates those disputes?

While our history gives us no choice but to redistribute land, I am not happy with the way politicians are playing on people’s hunger for redress and their yearning for better lives. In people’s minds, the unjust distribution of land has become a proxy for economic disadvantage, and “expropriation without compensation” is being sold as an instant solution to all our problems, from failed land reform to unemployment. Expropriation does not automatically improve the lives of our people.

I have not heard anyone spell out an overarching vision which takes all the complex practical and emotional factors into account. Nor have I heard a satisfactory answer to the fundamental question: expropriation to do what?

What South Africa needs is a wise man. At the moment the ANC leadership is paralysed. Mthombothi writes:171: 21

They don’t know where to start. And so they tarry or push them aside, hoping they will go away.

The current problems are just too enormous for the current political leadership to solve. When they do attend to the matter, they do it on an explosive and conflict-ridden way, creating more complex problems and crises.171 Mthombothi171: 21 points out that the “normal human reaction when disaster strikes, is to cower”, instead of being ardent, challenged, opportunistic and motivated. South Africa needs a Winston Churchill, who said:171: 21

“Never let a good crisis go to waste”.

We need an executive leader who also knows it’s a time to be bold, to act decisively and think out of the box. It seems that we do not have such a leader at present, neither Black, nor Coloured, Indian or White.200-204

6. References

  1. Al-Khalili J (Ed). What’s next? London: Profile Books; 2017.
  2. De Jager T. ’n Mening: Met onteiening is meer as plase op die spel. Rapport (Sake). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 3.
  3. Jordan B. Land: first fix state’s own tenant crisis. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept.23; p. 10.
  4. Nortjè B. Lessons from our close neighbour’s house fire. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 10.
  5. Skenjana S. SA must make most of investor interest. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 10.
  6. Venezuela sinks deeper in mire. Sunday Times (Offshore). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 24.
  7. Barron C. Land plans would cost SA on ground. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Feb. 25; p. 9.
  8. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World. The Star (World), 2018 Sept 12; p.13.
  9. Khumalo A. Policy consistency is crucial to economic stimulus. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 10.
  10. Die vyfjarige EFF druk die ANC en DA. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 7.
  11. Munusamy R. If a picture could be taken of our country, it would be an image of horror. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Sept. 16; p. 18.
  12. Tabane OJJ. We have failed to make Steve Biko’s dream a reality. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Sept. 16; p. 18.
  13. Schmieding H. Learning tough lessons from crisis of 2008. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 16; p. 9.
  14. Mulder P. ‘n Slegter lewe vir almal. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 19. pp. 4-5.
  15. Hosken G. Small dairy farmers squeezed out of business. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 3.
  16. Ramphele M. Set aside these myths about land reform and let the healing begins. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Mar. 11; p. 21.
  17. Geen MS. The Making of the Union of South Africa. London: Longman and Green; 1945.
  18. Ngcukaitobi T. Land could right so many wrongs. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 July 8; p. 23.
  19. Malema J. Land restoration began five years ago with the birth of the EFF. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 July 22; p. 3.
  20. February J. Spektakelpolitici haal streke uit. Beeld (Kommentaar).2018 Apr. 18; p. 16.
  21. Leon T. TV expropriation debate enters realm of Neverland. ST (Opinion). 2018 July 29; p. 20.
  22. Tabane OJJ. Calling the ANC’s dangerous bluff on land reform. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 June 3; p. 18.
  23. De Lange J. Grondwet kan op vroegste middel Mei 2019 verander. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 4.
  24. Bulger P. A melting pot in which the flavours refuse to mingle. Sunday Times (Opinion) 2018 June 10; p. 20.
  25. Rupert rhetoric on radical transformation ill-advised. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 20.26
  26. Horn K. Studying the past the right way builds the skills for a better future. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 June 10; p. 22.
  27. Munusamy R. There’s something behind Shivambu’s claims against Momoniat, but whether it’s corruption or subterfuge, time will tell. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 June 10; p. 22.
  28. Buccus I. When racial chauvinism masquerades as radicalism. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 June 10; p. 22.
  29. Khumalo A. Land debate the first of many we need to save SA. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Mar. 11; p. 10.
  30. Rapiti E. The problem is inequity, and land is not the solution. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Mar. 11; p. 20.
  31. Van der Walt S. ‘Gwede se perk is nie rasioneel’. Beeld. 2018 Aug. 16; p. 1.
  32. De Lange J. ‘Boere ly al skade; kopers stap weg’. Rapport (Nuus). Aug. 19; p. 4.
  33. De Lange J. Kleiner partye wil saamstaan oor grond. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Aug 19; p. 4.
  34. De Lange J. Nou swaai Gwede om. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 19; p. 4.
  35. Mchunu S. Agriculture bodies slam ANC’s land expropriation resolution. The Star (Business Report). 2017 Dec. 22; p. 1.
  36. Barron C. Tread carefully on new land reform. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 9.
  37. Bruce P. Gary Player, your country needs you. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 20.
  38. Fuzile B. Soweto bomb threat to US over Trump tweet. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Sept. 2; p. 6.
  39. Seccombe A. ‘It’s not too late to turn corruption around’. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Sept. 2; p. 5.
  40. Nair N. Take us or leave us – Cyril on land reform. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Sept. 9; p. 4.
  41. Barnard M. Boere sal moet veg vir regte’. Beeld. 2017 Dec. 22; p. 1.
  42. Louw GP. The crisis of the Afrikaners. Beau Bassin, Mauritius: Lambert; 2018.
  43. Van Zyl O. Grondhervorming in SA moet geprivatiseer word. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Dec. 24; pp. 8-9.
  44. Corrigan T. There’s madness in the land debate, but not in pointing out the risks. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 22.
  45. Munusamy R. Gordhan gives ex-ministers cause to quake. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Oct. 7; p. 2.
  46. Mthombothi B. It’s criminal the way we are unable to deal with our crime. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 16; p. 17.
  47. Munusamy R. The state capture commission reveals the passion of Mcebisi Jonas and the betrayal of the ANC. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 22.
  48. Retief H. Grondproses: Dis laat in die dag. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 19; p. 11.
  49. Bruce P. A better way to reach for the promised land. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Mar. 4; p. 14.
  50. De Klerk FW. Hof versaak minderhede. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Jan. 21; p. 7.
  51. Du Plessis C. Woman in the Wings: Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma and the race for the presidency. Cape Town: Penguin; 2017.
  52. February J. Our constitution offers all the guidance we will need. Sunday Times (Insight). 2017 Aug. 17; p. 25.
  53. Kriel K. ‘Afrikaners is moeg vir skurk-etiket’. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 3.
  54. Kriel K. Treat violent incidents between races equally. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Aug. 27; p. 24.
  55. Mkhize Z. To reverse ANC’s decline, look to its past heroes. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Sept. 3; p. 22.
  56. Mthombothi B. ANC fawns over Malema and takes SA down the road of Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. Sunday Times. 2018 Mar. 4; p. 15.
  57. Mthombothi B. With Zuma on the way out, EFF thugs are seeking new targets for their perpetual rage. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Jan. 21; p. 17.
  58. Venter T. ANC volg NP se pad. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 7.
  59. Kriel K. Repliek: Minderhede sal ander uitweg moet soek. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Nov. 14; p. 11.
  60. Grey S. The New Spymaster. South Africa: Penguin; 2015.
  61. Unsworth A. What they said in 2017. Sunday Times (Insight). 2017 Dec. 3; p. 1.
  62. Nair N. MK veterans arrested for South Coast house grab. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Apr. 1; p. 4.
  63. Nombembe P. Cyril’s word seen as land grab go-ahead. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Apr. 1; p. 4.
  64. Biko H. ‘Socioeconomic trust is the key to…’ Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 July 22; p. 4.
  65. Massingale B. Real integration means curing a sickness of soul. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 July 22; p. 6.
  66. De Groot S. The politics of perspective and the power of dissent. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Apr 15; p. 16.
  67. Is Ramaphosa willing to sacrifice our rights to the Zulu king’s blackmail? Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 July 8; p. 22.
  68. Mthethwa B. Ramapphosa bends the knee to Zulu king on tense land issue. Sunday Times (News). 2018 July 8; p. 4.
  69. Mnguni L. King will stop at nothing to protect his cookie jar. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 July 8; p. 24.
  70. Mthombothi B. Why does the ANC kowtow to the very tribal chiefs it had on the run under apartheid? Sunday Times. 2018 July 8; p. 23.
  71. Cousins B. Your land rights may be trampled every day if you’re an ordinary black South African. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Mar. 11; p. 22.
  72. My people never overtly threaten violence. Sunday Times (Life Style). 2018 July 15; p. 5.
  73. Noor-Mahomed N. Rich and poor: a tale of kings and two outcomes. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 July 22; p. 9.
  74. Umraw A. Grandfather seeks return of his grandfather’s land. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 July 22; p. 6.
  75. Shoba S. Honour the aged by all means, but let’s be frank about Buthelezi’s past. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 9; p. 21.
  76. Makina A. ANC caves on induna courts’ opt-out clause. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 4.
  77. Dawjee HM. Apartheid for sale. Sunday Times (Life-Style). 2018 July 22; p. 18.
  78. Robert McBride Police Officer [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Apr. 10]. Available from https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Robert_McBride_(police_officer)
  79. The Citizen 1978 (PTY) Ltd and Others v McBride (CCT 23/11) [2011] ZACC.11; 2011 (4); 2011 (8); BCLR 816 (CC) (8 April 2011). [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Apr. 10]. Available from http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ ZACC2011/11.html //
  80. Bruce P. Workshop this: the ANC isn’t up to the job. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Sept. 9; p. 20.
  81. Mthombothi B. This week’s protests had faults, but flying the apartheid flag was the least of them. Sunday Times. 2017 Nov. 5; p. 25.
  82. Brun B. Africans must be first in line for empowerment. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 22.
  83. Mthombothi B. Zuma’s homage to Biko seeks to fill the abyss left by the ANC’s exhausted ideology. Sunday Times. 2017 Sept. 17; p. 21.
  84. Shain M. Malema: A fascist or racial nationalist? Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Mar. 18; p. 22.
  85. Tabane OJJ. So whites are our people and African refugees are not? Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 July 15; p. 26.
  86. Gandhi E. It’s time we really get to know each other across the racial divide. Sunday Times. 2018 Mar. 18; p. 21.
  87. Haffajee F. Will business leaders chew on Obama’s words? Sunday Times (Business). 2018 July 22; p. 2.
  88. Joffe H. Obama’s economic lessons from Mandela. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 July 22; p. 10.
  89. Khumalo A. Capitalism needs to find its conscience. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 July 22; p. 10.
  90. Mabuyane O. Goals we must all work and play, Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Jan. 21; p. 18.
  91. ANC finally wakes up to the fact its grip on power is slipping. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 May 13; p.16.
  92. Cardo M. A suggestion for how the spent force of the SACP might mark this centenary Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Nov. 5; p. 26.
  93. Feketha S. ‘Clip ANC’s powers in governance’. The Star. 2018 July 16; p. 4.
  94. Kodwa Z. The ANC is not on trail at the commission of inquiry into state capture. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 26; p. 22.
  95. Nzimande B, Cronin J, Would the ANC have prevailed against apartheid without the Russian Revolution? Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Nov. 5; p. 26.
  96. Hofstater S A president for sale. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 Sept. 9; p. 18.
  97. Ndlovu R. Harare scraps contentious ‘indigenisation’. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Mar. 25; p. 8.
  98. Ndlovu R. It won’t be easy to clean up Bob’s mess. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 July 15; p. 3.
  99. Thompson J. Mnangagwa’s largesse has Mugabe’s fawning. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Sept. 9; p. 7.
  100. Zim ‘must break from past’. The Citizen (World). 2018 July 11; p. 10.
  101. Ndlovu R. Zimbabwe’s bitter rebirth. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 16.
  102. Vice T. A topical twist to an old massacre. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 16.
  103. Kgosana C. Pravin tie riles some as Cyril beefs up office. Sunday Times (News). 2018 July 15; p. 4.
  104. O’Connor T. Steady ship needed during these turbulent times. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 July 15; p. 2.
  105. Haffajee F. Who owns the land? It’s not all black and white, audits reveal. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 6.
  106. Mkhondo R. Let’s put it to a vote – referendums would rejuvenate our jaded democracy. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 June 3; p. 18.
  107. Umraw A. Hoping for a piece of land since 2004. Sunday Times (News). 2018 July 29; p. 6.
  108. Mthethwa B. Land, roots and generations of hurt. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 July 22; p. 22.
  109. Mthethwa B, Naidoo Y. Even the moon did its bit for the king. Sunday Times (News). 2018 July 29; p. 3.
  110. De Jager T. Grond: Koeël is nog nie deur kerk. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 19; pp. 4-5.
  111. Vegter I. ‘Hulle het ons hier gevind…’ Rapport (Weekliks) 2018 Aug. 5; pp. 4-5.
  112. Umraw A. True voice of the people on the land question is being drowned out by a politicachorus. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 18.
  113. Bruce P. Careful moves as the endgame begins. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Dec. 31; p. 12.
  114. Gregory RJ. Psychological Testing. History, principles, and applications. New York: Pearson; 2004.
  115. Maree K, Van der Westhuizen C. Head start in designing research proposals in the social sciences. Cape Town: Juta; 2009.
  116. Siegel S. Nonparametric statistics for behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1956.
  117. Starbird M. Meaning from data: Statistics made clear. Virginia: Teaching Company; 2006.
  118. Bernstein A. Jobs crisis needs new approach. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 30; p. 21.
  119. Jonas M. The work of saving democracy requires us to focus on the people, not a political party. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Sept. 30; p. 22.
  120. Speckman A. Ramaphosa invites business to join expropriation talks. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Mar. 18; p. 4.
  121. Mthombothi B. Ramaphosa may have won the leadership battle but he’s lost the ideological one. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Mar. 11; p. 21.
  122. Munusamy R. Amid high theatre and spectacular blunders, it’s up to the Zondo inquiry to gauge the full extent of the rot. Sunday Times (Opinion) 2018 Mar. 11; p.22.
  123. Bruce P. EFF’s Dr Charming pulls a fast one on TV. Sunday Times (Opinion) .2018 May 20; p. 16.
  124. Opperheimer M. Six myths about land reform that show the folly of meddling with Bill of Rights. Sunday Times. 2018 May 13; p.18.
  125. Cele S, Rooi J. 139 plase op ANC-gryplys. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 2.
  126. Retief H. Onteiening: Wat presies is die waarheid oor 139 plase? Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug.19; p. 3.
  127. Eybers J. Eerste plase onteien. Rapport. 2018 Aug. 19; pp. 1-2.
  128. Umraw A. State identifies farms for expropriation test cases. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 4.
  129. Eybers J. ‘Boere ly al skade; kopers stap weg’. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Sept. 19; p. 4.
  130. Kok A. Lys: AfriForum het volste reg. Beeld (Kommentaar). Aug. 16; p. 16.
  131. Hunter Q. ANC ‘test’ farms a route to legal clarity. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 4.
  132. Derby R. It’s jobs, not polls, says Cyril. Sunday Times (Business Times). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 1.
  133. Njobeni S. On paper, land debate holds no fear for Mondi. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 6.
  134. Munusamy R. ANC wanders into uncharted territory with announcements on land but no coherent policy. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 4.
  135. Tabane OJJ. Policy – or a rash bid to steal the EFF’s thunder? Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 4.
  136. Speckman A. Fencing off property rights. Sunday Times (Business Times). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 1.
  137. Derby R. Beware the traps of populism in dealing with land reform. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 2.
  138. Haffajee F. It’s still a long walk to land expropriation. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 2.
  139. Prince, L. Grond: 18 groepe kry kans vir voorleggings. Beeld (Nuus). 2018 Oct. 12; p. 2.
  140. 75%-meerderheid nodig vir wysiging. Rapport (Kommentaar). 2018 Sept. 16; p.16.
  141. Mantashe, ANC praat bont oor grond. Rapport (News). 2018 Aug. 19; p. 2.
  142. Bruce P. Cyril making ground on craft; not so much on policy. Sunday Times (Opinion) 2018 Aug. 19; p. 20.
  143. Wyngaard H. Grondkwessie bied die land ‘n tweede kans. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 19; p. 6.
  144. Munusamy R. It’s easy to scoff and jeer from the cheap seats as SA stumbles in confusion, but getting involved would achieve a great deal more. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 19; p. 22.
  145. Van Rensburgh RJ. Só bereik Kriel, Buys en Van Zyl niks nie. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 10.
  146. Steyn P. Zim-boere dink nuut oor grond. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 12.
  147. Mangu X. Early Zimbabwe land reform showed the value of small-scale farmers. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Sept. 9; p. 22.
  148. Du Plessis C. Baie emigrante kom terug na Suid-Afrika. Beeld (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 16; p. 14.
  149. Land expropriation talk spreads to Namibia 28 years after independence. [Cited 2018 Apr. 10]. Available from https://www.biznews.com/africa/2018/09/28/namibia-land-grabs-poverty?utm_source= Biznews.com+Main&utm_campaign=e99d7
  150. Leon T. Back to the politics of the long haul for a post-Zuma DA. Sunday Times (Opinion) 2018 Mar. 25; p. 22.
  151. Stadler H. ‘Raak nie mandaat van Resewebank’. Beeld (Sake). 2017 Dec. 22; p. 18.
  152. Bruce P. Make no mistake, we’re in survival mode. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 July 22; p. 2.
  153. Mthombothi B. The ANC is drunk from the alcohol of corruption, and its growing support is bad news for South Africa. Sunday Times. 2018 July 22; p. 3.
  154. Musyoka J. Time for the political weight of the black middle class to be felt. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Jan. 21; p.18.
  155. Olifant N. NDZ’s own branch snubs her candidacy. Sunday Times (News). 2017 Oct. 29; p. 7.
  156. De Lange J. 48% in 2019, wys eie ANC-peiling . Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 2.
  157. Pelser W. EFF-steun verdubbel. Rapport. 2018 Sept, 23; pp. 1-2.
  158. Feketha S, Sidimba L & Mtshali S. Communists out in the cold. The Star. 2017 Dec. 22; p. 1.
  159. Lebitse P. Isn’t time the SACP went it alone at the polls?, Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Oct. 14; p. 22.
  160. Naki E. Cyril ‘failed the poor, destitute’. The Citizen (News). 2018 Oct. 15; p. 3.
  161. Tabane OJJ. Cyril’s window of opportunity. The Star (Opinion & Analysis). 2017 Dec. 22; p. 14.
  162. We have squandered the goodwill we enjoyed from voters for the past 24 years. Sunday Times. 2018 May 13, p. 4.
  163. De Lange R. Nog taks wink vir SA se rykstes. Rapport (Sake). 2018 Apr. 15; p.1.
  164. Roodt D. Wat gedoen kan word aan ongelykheid in SA. Rapport 2018 Apr. 29; p. 4.
  165. Munusamy R. The state capture commission reveals the passion of Ncebisi Jonas and the betrayal of the ANC. Sunday Times. 2018 Aug. 26; p. 22.
  166. Clean governance, not propaganda, will win votes. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 July 29; p. 18.
  167. Haffajee F. Xi should lend Ramaphosa some of that tiger and fly repellent. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 July 29; p. 2.
  168. Newham G. ‘Polisie se hande is nog vol bloed’. Beeld (Nuus). 2018 Aug. 16; p. 9.
  169. Tabane OJJ It is time to close the graves of Marikana. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 19; p. 22.
  170. EFF rooi in die gesig. Beeld. 2018 Oct. 12; p. 1.
  171. Mthombothi B. The crises that confront Ramaphosa are also timely opportunities to clean house. Sunday Times. 2018 Oct. 14; p. 21.
  172. Stadler H. ‘Leefstyl ver bo salaris’. Beeld (Nuus). 2018 Oct. 12; p. 6.
  173. Croucamp P. Die man met die span uit die hel. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Dec. 24; pp. 8-9.
  174. Pelser W. Cyril wil dobbel en die res van ons drink. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Dec. 24; p. 6.
  175. Retief H. ‘Bestuurder is nuut; bus is dieselfde’. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Dec. 24; p. 3.
  176. Rooi J. ANC se ‘dood’ was grootliks oordrewe. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Dec. 24; p. 7.
  177. Khumalo A. To BBBEE or not to BBBEE? Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 10.
  178. Derby R. Familiar cast of characters can’t move economy forward. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 2.
  179. When DA’s imperial leadership crosses a line. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Mar. 11; p. 20.
  180. Makinaqna A, Deklerk A. Maimane catches DA offside, wants to succeed Helen. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 16; p.1.
  181. Matiwane Z, Deklerk A. Calls for racial diversity could cost Steenhuisen his job as MP. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 4.
  182. Mokone T. DA strife over BEE splits senior leadership. Sunday Times (News). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 4.
  183. De Klerk A. DA ‘black caucus’ toils after shock ballot bid. Sunday Times (News). 2018 July 8; p. 4.
  184. Why DA was forced to deal with its bête noire. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 12; p. 16.
  185. Bruce P. Cyril’s bogey-chasing is a dangerous game. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Aug. 5; p. 2.
  186. Shoba S. For the first time, Maimane has a target on his back. Sunday Times. 2018 Mar. 25; p. 21.
  187. De Lange J. Maimane wou ras-plan fnuik. Rapport (Nuus).2018 Sept. 23; p. 2.
  188. Maimane M. The DA’s 2019 promise is to bring change that builds one SA for all. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Oct. 14; p. 22.
  189. Eybers J. DA-plan het een sin oor grond. Rapport (Nuus). 2018 Sept. 23; p. 4.
  190. Deep in unbanked country, a sophisticated heist relies on political cover. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Oct. 14; p. 20.
  191. Munusamy R, Kgosana C NO, NO NENE! Sunday Times. 2018 Oct. 7: pp. 1-2.
  192. Munusamy R. Despite VBS scandal, Malema will continue to fill the leadership vacuum and concoct bogeymen. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Oct. 14; p. 22.
  193. Bruce P. Of VBS and the EFF, old white guys and the ANC. Sunday Times (Opinions). 2018 Oct. 14; p. 20.
  194. Munusamy R. Malema and the EFF lead the charge in trying to intimidate the media into relinquishing its watchdog role. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Oct. 21; p. 18.
  195. Bruce P. Ramaphosa has an inspired way of ‘not doing anything’. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Oct. 21; p. 16.
  196. Mthombothi B. Ramaphosa has sacked most of the lickspittles but Zuma himself will be harder to banish. Sunday Times. 2018 Mar. 25; p. 21.
  197. Barron C. Standing firm amid ill wind of populism. Sunday Times (Business). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 10.
  198. Makgoba T. Community needs, not politicians, should lead the redistribution debate. Sunday Times. 2018 Sept. 23; p. 21.
  199. Venezuelan inflation blasts off. Sunday Times (Business Times). 2018 Oct. 14; p. 1.
  200. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of South Africa: 1652-2018. Part 1: Leadership characteristics in perspective. Ensovoort, 2018; 38: 6(1): 1-31.
  201. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of South Africa: 1652 to 2018. Part 2: The entities in government and society that executive political leaders used to aid their political behaviour. Ensovoort, 2018; 8: 6(2): 1-44.
  202. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of the South Africa: 1652 to 2018. Part 3: Factors that influence the development of executive political leaders. Ensovoort, 2018; 38 (2018): 7(1): 1-54.
  203. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of South Africa: 1652 to 2018. Part 4: A basic checklist for the appraisal of executive political leaders and regimes. Ensovoort, 2018; 38 (2018): 7(2): 1-36.
  204. Louw GP. An appraisal of the executive political leaders and regimes of the South African: 1652 to 2018. Part 5: Performance profiles of executive political leaders and regimes for the period 1652 to 1795. Ensovoort, 2018; 38: 7(3): 1-59.

PEER REVIEW

Not commissioned; Externally peer-reviewed.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author declares that he has no competing interest.

FUNDING

The research was funded by the Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus of the North-West University, South Africa.

UNSUITABLE TERMS AND INAPPROPRIATE WORDS

Please note that I, the author, am aware that the words Creole, Bantu, Kaffir, Native, Hottentot and Bushman are no longer suitable terms and are inappropriate (even criminal) for use in general speech and writing in South Africa (Even the words non-White and White are becoming controversial in the South African context). The terms do appear in dated documents and are used or translated as such in this article for the sake of historical accuracy. Their use is unavoidable within this context. It is important to retain their use in this article to reflect the racist thought, speech and writings of as recently as sixty years ago. These names form part of a collection of degrading names commonly used in historical writings during the heyday of apartheid and the British imperial time. In reflecting on the leaders and regimes of the past, it is important to foreground the racism, dehumanization and distancing involved by showing the language used to suppress and oppress. It also helps us to place leaders and their sentiments on a continuum of racism. These negative names do not represent my views and I distance myself from the use of such language for speaking and writing. In my other research on the South African populations and political history, I use Blacks, Whites, Xhosa, Zulu, Afrikaners, Coloureds, KhoiSan (Bushmen), KhoiKhoi (Hottentots) and Boers as applicable historically descriptive names.

Who are colonists and who are indigenous people in South Africa? (1)

Gabriel P Louw

iD orcid.org/0000-0002-6190-8093

Research Associate, Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa (Author and Researcher: Health, History and Politics).

Corresponding Author:

Prof. Dr. GP Louw; MA (UNISA), PhD (PU for CHE), DPhil (PU for CHE), PhD (NWU)

Email: profgplouw@gmail.com

Keywords: Age-old custom, colonist, frontiersman, humanity, impoverishment, indigenous people, land grabbing, landless, land ownership, land redistribution, political history, radicalism, terrorism, unemployment

Ensovoort, volume 38 (2018), number 12: 1

1. Background

1.1 Introduction

So Joshua conquered the entire land – the hill country, the Negeb, the land of Goshen, the lowlands, the Arabah, and the hills and the lowlands of Israel. The Israeli territory now extended all the way from Mount Halak, near Seir, to Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon, at the foot of Mount Hermon.1

All the loot and cattle of the ravaged cities were taken by the Israelis for themselves, but they killed all the people. For so the Lord had commanded his disciple Moses; and Moses had passed the commandment on to Joshua, who did as he had been told: he carefully obeyed all of the Lord’s instructions to Moses.1

and

So Joshua took the entire land just as the Lord had instructed Moses; and he gave it to the people of Israel as their inheritance, dividing the land among the tribes. So the land finally rested from its war.1

The Jews became colonists, and with time indigenous colonists, and at last indigenous people to a part of Palestine and of today’s Jewish nation-state of Israel. The Western and Christian world believe this as the truth and the only truth, and acknowledge today these Jews as indigenous people of Israel and as true and rightful owners to it. The fake stories of the Jewish past became the grandparents of the fake news of today’s Israel and Israelis.

When one reads Old Israel’s political and biblical history, it is striking how similar South African political history reads. Only the geography, regional names, the names of leaders, participating tribes and historical periods are different. These histories boast the same radical ideologies on racism, cultural dogmas, doctrines, religious blindness and murderous intentions. The Jews of the Old Testament perpetrated violence tantamount to a rape of humanity, shedding the blood of the innocent. It did not matter if the victims were men, women and children in their own homeland. Their actions were justified as a divine command. Today these murderous biblical acts of ethnic and racial cleansing and land grabbing would be classified as psychopathic and mentally disturbed behaviour on the part of political and religious leaders.1,2

In South African history, we see this abnormality in the murderous sprees of Shaka [Chaka], the King of the Zulus, during the Mfecane and Lifaqane wars. He not only murdered the warriors of the many Black tribes he conquered and whose land and cattle he stolen, but also the women and children of these tribes, just like Joshua. We also see it in the history of the early Afrikaners, the White frontiersmen. They murdered the KhoiSan and captured their women and children to keep as slaves in their hunger for land, money and political power in the early Cape. We see this abnormality in the genocide of Boer women and children during the Anglo Boer War (1899–1902) under Alfred Milner. His British Empire had an insatiable hunger for self-enrichment, political power and control of the land in South Africa.2,3

What stands out here is land ownership and physically taking land with war, killing and murder. These killings and murderous acts always lead to a vicious cycle of more wars; killing and murder ensure “legal” land ownership through land occupation and forced land transfer. This land transfer is simply land grabbing. Other direct outcomes of the efforts to maintain power and ownership include the development of exclusive political and economic government models, like racial domination. The Grand Apartheid of the Afrikaners and the European supremacy of the British through their Empire serve as examples.2 Enclosed here stands the distortion of history, leading to each group embracing a “fake story”.

The fake stories of the South African Blacks and South African Whites gave birth to the fake stories and fake news that dominate the relationship between South African Blacks and Whites.

The main aim of this project of seven articles is to examine the land redistribution debacle harrying South Africa now in the light of the country’s history of land grabbing as an age-old custom. The article series offers a perspective on the current troubled political state of South Africa and the possible future awaiting the country if the envisaged land redistribution fails.

The aim of this first article is to evaluate and describe land ownership in the period 1652 to 2018 by considering the following:

  •     Who pass as indigenous peoples, colonists and indigenous colonists?
  •     Legal indigenous land ownership versus predatory land ownership
  •     The role and influence of the land terrorism and land grabbing in South Africa’s past

The evaluations and descriptions outlined above are contained in the Results and Discussion sections (Sections 3 and 4).

2. Method

The research was been done by means of a literature review. This method aims to construct a viewpoint from the available evidence as the research develops. This approach is been used in modern political-historical research where there is often not an established body of research, as is the case with ownership of South African soil for the period 1652 to 2018. The sources included articles from 2016 to 2018, books for the period 1944 to 2018 and newspapers for the period 2016 to 2018. These sources were been consulted to evaluate and to describe past and present land ownership in South Africa. This would put the different thoughts, views and opinions on land grabbing as an age-old custom in South Africa into perspective by identifying indigenous and colonial people; indigenous, legal and predatory land ownership; and the role and impact of land terrorism and land grabbing in the past of South Africa.4-6

The research findings are presented in narrative format.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Land ownership obtained by means of modern terrorism in South Africa

Land ownership has always been problematic in South Africa. Problems started when the early proto-Afrikaners, supported by the VOC at the Cape, drove the KhoiKhoi off their traditional land in the Liesbeeck Valley (Western Cape) during the KhoiKhoi War (1658–1660).2,7 Geen7 describes it as the first commissioning of White terrorism perpetrated on non-Whites in South Africa in the form of planned land grabbing. This early White terrorism meets all the requirements of the current British definition of terrorism, which reads8:9:

  1.     Violence against a person or serious damage to property;
  2.     Designed to influence a government or an international organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public with the aim of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

It is politically-historically correct to describe the moment that Jan van Riebeeck planted the VOC-flag at the Cape in 1652 to establish the Cape Refreshment Station as the first land grabbing by Whites in South Africa. However, generally speaking, land grabbing in South Africa goes further back to the southwards migrating fore fathers of the modern Black South Africans. They ousted the KhoiSan and KhoiKhoi from their South African territories, which these tribes in turn possibly grabbed from earlier unknown inhabitants.2,7,9

It is interesting that in South African land ownership is been established along the same route as that of land ownership in the time of Joshua’s Old Israel (land/property being stolen from inhabitants, who in turn settled there by stealing it from another group by means of terrorism). The recently established (1948) new democratic Jewish state of today looks similar. Kaari Ward10 writes as follows on this type of land ownership during Joshua’s time10:101:

Land ownership, was a matter of family inheritance. In Scripture, the tradition can be traced back more than 1,000 years to when Joshua distributed the lands of the newly conquered Canaan among the tribes of Israel according to God’s plan. Ownership was supposed to pass in an unbroken line down through the generations, from father to sons, the eldest receiving double the share of any of his brothers. As the younger sons usually received shares too small to sustain independent farms, they had little choice but to shell their inheritance to the principal heir, who was thus able to keep the ancestral family farm intact. The then landless younger sons might remain in the village, taking up a trade or working as farm labourers for their brother, or they might leave the village to join the large numbers of migrant workers who found casual labour where they could, or they might even resort to becoming brigands. If a landowner died, leaving no sons, the property went to his daughter or if he had no daughter to his brothers, uncles, or nearest relative.

The above ownership of land (of the land obtained by their ancestors through land grabbing), that is passed on to the ordinary Jew through inheritance, has changed dramatically. The Jewish political environment and the country’s executive political leadership were been taken over by powerful foreigners (colonists) and rich and politically untouchable Jewish groups (indigenous colonists). Land ownership changed during the Roman occupation and rule. The Romans favoured Jewish civil and religious elites. This left many of the ordinary Jews landless as peasants and labourers, living in poverty. The same metamorphosis is apparent when one looks at South African history. Early Afrikaners (colonists) and later Afrikaners (indigenous colonists) experienced a growth in their land ownership and riches as result of land grabbing from non-Whites. This left most of these non-Whites (indigenous colonists) landless and poor, and that state of affairs lasted up to today.1,2,3,7,9 Ward comments as follows on the Jewish experience10:100:

…in some parts of Palestine, the best properties at this time were in the hands of a relatively few landowners – mainly Rome’s rulers, the Herodian family, and the priestly aristocracy. In these places, the farmers working the land might have been tenants or even slaves.

South Africa currently has to balance two strong opposing views on land ownership at present. There is a clear division between those who favour land transfer and -redistribution with compensation on the one hand, and those in favour of land grabbing without compensation on the other. This mostly Black-versus-White issue started in 1652 and results in a daily growth in hostility. In this context is it the landless Blacks, mostly unemployed and impoverished, who are standing up against what they see as South Africa’s modern “Rome’s rulers, the Herodian family, and the priestly aristocracy” of Whites”; the people who are also still the land owners of the country. The developmental economist Jason Musyoka11 emphasises that the South African land reform issue has become more than a showdown between Blacks and Whites. It is now a fight between two types of South African localized nationalisms – one progressive and the other conservative. The basis of the conflict centres on whether the Blacks or the Whites are the rightful franchisees of the South African land. Musyoka11 classifies the two opposing role-players, each representing various subgroups, as follows11:18:

The progressives (or left-wingers) consist of the Nationalist left (the EFF), the social democratic left (the ANC and alliance partners), and solidarity groups such as the Black Management Forum, and others. The conservative nationalists (right-wingers) range from the centre-right DA, agriculture-based associations – most of which represent the interests of White commercial farmers – to far-right groups as the Freedom Front Plus and solidarity groups such as AfriForum.

The support of the progressives mostly comes from the poor masses of blue-collar workers and the untrained rural population. The conservatives are more representative of the minority richer classes and the financial sector, with a strong foundation in the global economy. Although there is undoubtedly a clear Black-versus-White inclination here, Musyoka11 emphasises that there is a crossing of Blacks and Whites to both sides of the dispute over land ownership, making it a critical issue that should be addressed urgently.11,12

The fact that more than 24 years have passed since 1994 without land ownership having been addressed in a balanced and just manner, draws attention to the failure of the new democracy to serve the individual citizen. This failure equally pertains to farmland and plots for housing in urban areas near the financial hubs. The poor landless and unemployed Black population attribute (rightly so) much of their misfortune to Grand apartheid and the years of White political domination. However, the failure of the ANC regime to address land reform constructively in the course of their 24 years of reign is also prominent8.12-14 Land ownership is becoming a political stew pot. Musyoka11 in this regard warns11: 18:

South Africa’s land reform is therefore no longer an innocent national conversation. Rightly so, given that two decades have passed since the country became a democracy, and South Africa’s half-a-generation-old miracle moment is well in the rear-view mirror. It would be naïve, therefore, to imagine that the outcome of land reform is a fait accompli simply based on public utterances and intentions from either the right or the left.

Worse still, Zimbabwe bungled its land reform process, thereby becoming the rulebook of what expropriation of land without compensation in South Africa might look like.

On this basis, even if the South African government follows a different methodology, it is difficult to imagine any different outcome. Zimbabwe’s nationalism blunder has become the reference point for the nationalist right in South Africa.

Like language and culture, while land is a national asset, it reflects a struggle for nationalism – and these have been unkind to the history of the last century. The nationalisms of the 20th century are howling from the other side of the grave, and South Africa’s current land debate is answering their call with enthusiasm.

3.2 “Uhuru” has arrived in South Africa at last

Musyoka’s description11 of the present-day conflict surrounding land ownership is excellent. His precise rendition shows that land ownership far more than a general, one-sided emotional debate. Uhuru has arrived in South Africa at last, although sixty years too late. Musyoka’s11 emphasis that land is a national asset is clearly meant as a wake-up call to the predominantly White farmer class and many ordinary Afrikaners who argue (and seem to genuinely believe) that land ownership is (and always was) the exclusive right of a certain group. Musyoka points out that it is a right to all South Africans, a national asset, not a personal asset. Any occupation of land sealed by a deed of conveyance for the purpose of improving the land and making a living from it is always a temporary right of care of the state’s assets, nothing more. South Africa’s political history from 1652 reflects this well. Land ownership changed involuntary from the KhoiSan and KhoiKhoi to the migrant Black tribes from North Africa and later to the colonial White frontiersmen (early Afrikaners) who came from Europe and moved north from Cape Town. The ownership of the Black tribes in northern South Africa changed to the White frontiersmen (Trekboers and later Voortrekkers). This chain of tragic South African events confirms the vicious cycle of war, bloodshed and terrorism, built on a foundation of ethnicity and racism.2,7

The envisaged process of Black occupation of White farmland and other land – land that Whites obtained from the KhoiSan, KhoiKhoi and Black tribes by means of force from 1652 onwards – is therefore a normal and unavoidable process in the post-1994 South Africa. The decisions on whether land reform should be with or without compensation clearly do not constitute a first autocratic act as portrayed by especially White landowners. It is a democratic act based on majority consultation and decision. This process of majority consultation and decision-making on the country’s interests is a principle that the Afrikaners endorsed when they transferred their political power in 1994. They cannot deny this reality or try to obstruct it with all kinds of foolish arguments and actions.2

It does not really matter how the process of land transfer takes place. Whether it is a Zimbabwe-style act of violence or a democratic process without conflict or bloodletting, it will happen, perhaps as soon as this year given the ANC’s clamouring for votes in the 2019 elections. There is very little difference in the thought process at the foundation of land occupation by the VOC, the British, the Boers, the apartheid government and Robert Mugabe. All these instances are overshadow by a lengthy history of murder, genocide, injustice, impoverishment and suppression of the previous landowners who had lost their land to outside intruders and conquerors through multiple atrocities. What is different in South Africa is that many White citizens have erased knowledge of the cruel and unjust political history of land grabbing from 1652 to 1994. They have selective amnesia, brought on by a political history that deceived them to perceive themselves as good. White Christian capitalism is central to this skewed perception, although Christian principles always came in second to the Afrikaner drive for self-enrichment at the cost of non-White South Africans.2

3.3 The Herodotus Rules as predictors of South Africa’s current land dispute

The current uncertainty on land ownership is been saw as the curse of revenge and counter-revenge. This mechanism is not only apparent from the teachings of the Old Testament, but also of the Greek historian Herodotus. This is undoubtedly belief systems that the Afrikaners and the Blacks have embodied from early on. Land transfer, radical economic transformation (RET) and radical social transformation (RST) is an inevitability awaiting the Whites in South Africa if one views it in the context of revenge. The Herodotus Rules were been formulated more than 2 500 years ago as a guideline for good governance. The goal is respect for other persons in governing, no matter their race, religion or status. Herodotus reasoned that any ruler (or ruling group) should adhere to six rules to stay in power and to lead a long and happy life as a ruler. The rules are meant to ensure that when a group is no longer in charge, there would not be reprisals and retaliation from aggrieved subordinates or conquered groups and their descendants.2,15,16

The six rules that a good ruler should underwrite, practice and respect are2:

  •     Always act with fairness and wisdom towards your subjects;
  •     Empower each individual politically, legally, socially, and economically;
  •     Do not favour or put certain individuals or yourself above others;
  •     Act with self-control at all times;
  •     Do not be self-enriching at the expense of your subjects, and
  •     Given the power of a ruler, avoid and be free of power mismanagement and     emotional and physical exploitation, abuse and misuse of your subjects.

The above six basic rules provide an excellent explanation of the deep-seated views among Blacks about racism and its accompanying land grabbing by the Afrikaners. One of the revenges is grabbing land “back” from Whites, a sentiment fuelled by the EFF and other radical Black politicians. The current hostility of some Blacks towards Whites, especially Afrikaners, and their rejection of Afrikaners as an indigenous tribe is a predictable political, psychological and pathological response within the framework of the Herodotus philosophy. It makes a dramatic land redistribution policy and programme inevitable. It will happen and Whites must enter the process less rigidly and address the situation constructively.15-17

3.4 The shortcomings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) with respect to addressing land ownership

The TRC’s main aim was to bring reconciliation between Afrikaners and Blacks with respect to apartheid crimes, a task that they mastered to a certain extent. Criminal prosecutions and civil action against the culprits of apartheid are the primary tasks of the NPA and of course the ANC regime itself.18

South Africa’s complexity of politics, racism, discrimination, Black and White colonialism and need for Black empowerment asks for more than the emotional catharses of forgiveness for politically and morally reprehensible behaviour by individuals and groups that characterized the TRC proceedings. The TRC left many Black persons not only with unsolved personal, emotional and psychological issues, but also with enormous financial difficulties rooted in the racial discrimination that began in 1652. Most of these issues are exacerbated by landlessness, either for farming or for housing.3,18-20

The ANC is now emphasising the rectification of apartheid wrongdoings and the role Afrikaners played in the previous regime. Other Black factions are joining in to mobilise the poor as voters, using false rhetoric to reclaim land that has never really been the land of the Blacks. A kind of Land Reconciliation Commission (LRC) seems needed. A Poverty Obliteration Commission is needed.

There has indeed not been any real legal, civil and financial transformation and correction in the form of criminal prosecutions of apartheid leaders and their immediate accomplices after 1994. The TRC could not rectify wrongdoings, like the land grabbing of Black land during apartheid. There has been no organised effort by the ANC regime to repossess the properties and assets of the Whites who benefited or to compensate those who lost their land or the land of their fore fathers.3,18-22

Many of the poor, landless and jobless Blacks of yesterday are still waiting for a restitution process that would do them justice at last. Many are of the opinion that grabbing White property, land and assets, a more radical BEE, and reducing government protection of the rights of Whites, is an unavoidable process that must start soon.3,15,21-21,30-32,35-36

However, at the centre of South African legal land ownership is the question of who should be regard as a colonist and who should be see as an indigenous person who could claim. Emotional and political rhetoric and opinions became intertwine; overshadowing logical, historical and legal reasoning. Whites are been regarded as the sole thieves of South African land and as unwelcome and uninvited settlers. South African land is seen always having belonged to Blacks; arguments that are not always true representations of the facts.29-35

3.5 The failure the National Prosecution Authority to start land reform

The envisaged efforts by the NPA to prosecute individuals for apartheid crimes (which includes the possibility of compensating the victims by repossessing properties and assets if found guilty), are too late and will surely involve only a few prosecutions. This is a task which should have started in 1994; most of the NP culprits are deceased or have left the country. Only a programme of immediate, dramatic and fast land reform would solve the “long outstanding land-reforming issue” to which Musyoka11 refers. He sees it as a “crucial issue” that can address the NPA’s failure to start some form of redistribution in 1994. This suggestion is the wish of many wronged Black persons who are still living in dire financial situations on White farms, caught in abject poverty and economic deprivation. The present post-1994 political dispensation offers these unfortunate citizens no hope of escaping poverty or becoming farmers or homeowners. Essentially, their lives are very similar to the pre-1994 political setup. Land redistribution is the only solution to get them out of this hole. Anyone who sees the failed land reform policy introduced in 1994 as a fait accompli is underestimating this troublesome matter. Terrible violence is waiting if the matter is not successfully settled.11

The South African government and its justice system failed the Blacks in terms of addressing their loss of land over many years as Whites grabbed land without compensation. Land ownership should be immediately after 1994 be addressed, but the political system was manipulated and inefficient. Had this matter been settled, there would have been better reconciliation between White and Black, instead of the present ongoing uncertainty and fighting around land ownership (which is becoming more and more racially laden).18,20,36

3.6 The failure of the ANC to offer a sound programme of land redistribution from 1994

It is important to understand why land redistribution is now only after 24 years of democracy and Black rule addressed. The ANC regime’s failure to create an LRC in 1994 was not due to a lack of political will, but rather a lack of political power (which includes military). It is important to note the nationalist Afrikaners under their NP leadership was well armed in 1994. Any provocative action, like the large-scale prosecution of the political and military leaders, or redistribution of land, assets and property of the nationalist Afrikaners would been seen as a threat to the Afrikaner’s immediate safety and rights. It would have triggered a White military intervention that could have thwarted the transfer of power to the Blacks. The late Nelson Mandela and his counsellors knew this well and took the wise route of not prosecuting the NP-regime and its elite immediately after 1994.2,15,21,22,37-42

The further failure of the ANC to correct the imbalance in land ownership later on between 1994 and 2018 when the ANC had the political and military power is not a strange case of political failure. The constant manipulative efforts of Whites to de-empower Blacks – politically, socially and economically – are cemented in South Africa’s political history. This manipulation began in 1652 and involved brute force from 1853 up to 1994. It is a still present in South Africa’s political dynamics; planned, steered and dominated by the country’s mighty business bullies and their political associates. At moment, it takes the form of well-organized opposition to any form of land redistribution.43

This outcome of a disempowered Black populace – politically, socially and economically – are traced in more detail below to show why 2018 brings with it an awakening from political passivity, leading to an overemphasis on land redistribution.

3.7 The sidelining of Blacks from politics and land ownership from 1853 to 1994

3.7.1 The Cape Constitution of 1853, Constitution Ordinance Amendment Act of 1872 of the Cape Colony and the Union of South Africa of 1910

The Cape became in 1853 a colony of the British Crown. The Queen instituted in the same year a parliament in terms of the Cape Constitution of 1853.7,9,46- 48

This first Parliament (1854–1858)7:81-82 gave the vote to all British adult male subjects who earned at least ₤50 a year or who had occupied a property with a minimum rental value of ₤25 per annum for at least a year. This Act was been applied to its logical conclusion with Ordinance 50 that prohibited any discrimination on the grounds of race or class. This created a non-racial qualified franchise. The same qualifications for suffrage applied equally to all males, regardless of race. However, the impoverished non-Whites experienced what Geen7 refers to as the so-called “liberal franchise” awarded to British subjects as discriminatory. The Cape Constitution of 1853 used wealth as a selection criteria to deny non-Whites their right to political decision-making, including their right to vote on matters related to land ownership. The Blacks found themselves in a situation of declining political power and the matter of land ownership that had been contentious from 1652, became the worst it had ever been.7,9,46- 48

Eighteen years later the Constitution Ordinance Amendment Act of 1872 upheld the non-racial nature of the Cape Constitution of 1853 as a core value. The universal qualification for suffrage of ₤25 was seen low enough to ensure that most owners of any form of property or land could vote. The political position improved for Blacks, seeing that their economical welfare was much better than in 1853, while the franchise requirements of 1953 had not been amended.7,9,48 This improvement in the financial position of Blacks led to the registration of large numbers of new rural Xhosas voters on the frontier on the grounds of communal land ownership. Geen’s7 “liberal franchise” was quickly becoming a “Black danger” for the Whites with respect to political, social and economic power because of the growing political self-empowerment of the new Black voters. The Cape Whites mobilised to limit the liberal policy on Black political rights propagated from London to keep Blacks from gaining a possible majority at the Cape. Such a majority would have had a great impact on the government and land possession.7,9,48

The Whites’ political manipulation to de-empower Blacks with the 1886 adjustment of voting qualifications was to counter the possible influx of Black voters as result of the annexation of British Kaffraria in 1865. When the Transkei territories were been incorporated into the Cape Colony, bringing more potential Black voters, the White parliament enacted a bill that disqualified Black voters specifically. It read7:86: “No person [could] be deemed to be a registered voter by reason of holding land on tribal or communal tenure”. There was already a differentiation between “Coloured non-Whites” and “Black non-Whites” in 1886, showing the worsening political situation of Blacks when it came to human rights, equality and unrestricted rights to land ownership in South Africa, then the Cape Colony. The “Coloured people” had a slightly better deal when it came to voting, but they were in truth also being kept out to ensure White power.7,9,46,48-50

The above discriminatory changes of 1886 were been upheld when the franchise laws were amended in 1892 during the premiership of Cecil Rhodes. Geen7 reports that this had to 7:86: “prevent the ‘blanket’ Kaffirs of the Transkeian territories from the right of voting”. They had to be cut out of White and Colonial politics.7,46,49

The law was been amended in 1892 and the salary qualification was abolished. The occupational qualification was been raised from ₤25 to ₤75 per annum. The Act was also been amended with the stipulation that voters had to be able to write their names and occupations. This change was racially oriented, although well masked. The fact that no drastic change was been made to the liberal franchise created by the 1853 Cape Constitution, reflects a thoroughly considered racially discriminative plan on the side of the Cape Whites to get the 1872 dispensation going without obstruction by London. On the surface, the legislation gave equal rights, but the door was left wide open for future human rights abuses without interference from London. The 1872 negative change to the Cape Constitution was a result of the hidden intentions of the Cape parliament to discriminate against Blacks later on.7,9,46,48,49

The 1853- and 1872-constitutions were nothing more than paper constitutions when it comes to the political, economic and social rights of non-Whites in South Africa. Both constitutions ensured that the country would be steered by the Whites, mostly at the costs of the Black inhabitants. The British Empire’s ability to uphold the rights of non-Whites and to safeguard them from White opportunism was limited from 1892. From 1892 onwards, Black political rights were gradually limited, especially given the post-1892 passivity of London with respect to the political, social and economic rights of non-Whites in South Africa. Black land ownership and just political policies never reached maturity in the Cape Colony. This discriminatory policy, although liberal in comparison with that of the Transvaal and Free State republics (British colonies after 1902) was later transferred to the Union of South Africa in 1910. By then the liberal Cape Dutch inhabitants were politically trounced by the racial Transvaal and Free State burghers and the wheels had been put in motion for ever-limiting policies of discrimination against non-Whites, ultimately culminating in the Grand apartheid of 1948 to 1994. Land grabbing from Blacks and land ownership became an issue that needed urgent attention, but it was bluntly and blindly ignored by the Whites. The fact that non-Whites were the majority from 1652 caused the Whites, especially the Afrikaners after 1910, to see this as the “Black problem” or the “Black question”. The Whites conquered by means of military, social and economic domination, so one could say there was actually a White problem. The British imperial mentality at the time was that numbers did not count in politics and government, only military and political power. The White problem continued uninterrupted up to the end of apartheid. This “problem” is now very visible in the dissatisfaction of the Black masses with respect to land ownership, the enforcement of restitution and the completion of the transition to new dispensation and its constitution.7,9,46,48-50

The great political injustices committed in South Africa from 1652 bring Blacks and Whites into direct conflict on land ownership. It all started with the rather innocent intention to establish the Cape Refreshment Station as a temporary settlement. Now there is an age-old conflict between the White colonists or settlers and the indigenous Blacks. Under below is the validity of the claim that all Whites are colonists and all Blacks are indigenous, as the foundation for the legality of the demands from Blacks with respect to land redistribution, evaluated.

3.8 The dilemma of ignorance about the indigenous status of the South African peoples

3.8.1 Myths, lies and facts on the rightful franchisees of South African land

Political clichés on the rightful franchisees of South African land and on which Black tribes and White groups have rights to South African land ownership have become prominent over the last five years.2,11 Many of these statements are purely political, filled with emotional rhetoric. They often reflect the speaker’s lack of understanding of the political history of South Africa, and, most of all, a lack of basic knowledge on political governance and science. Remarks range from Blacks referring to Whites as colonists who stole Black land, to threats to kill the White colonists, with a cursory “but not yet” added on. On the other, some Afrikaners claim ownership based on their fore fathers who took possession of undeveloped, uninhabited and barren land. References to the Boer victory over Dingane of the Zulus in the Battle of Blood River, are frequent.7,9 This kind of rhetoric is many times fake news, but fake news is only a very small part of political misinformation and intolerance. Governments worldwide use the media to stay in power and to crush any opposition. The NP was and the ANC is a master of the art of exterminating enemies. History and false histories are part of this political misinformation and intolerance.

It is therefore of great importance to separate myths and lies from the truth to determine who the non-indigenous colonists (the land predators) are, who the true indigenous people (the native or natural people) are, and who the indigenous colonists (foreigners who become natives over time) are. Only then can the various claims of who the rightfully owners of the country’s land is, be discussed. It will help us determine if the intended land redistribution without compensation by the Blacks is justified, or if a process of land redistribution with reasonable compensation should be followed to do justice to all South Africa’s people.

3.8.1.1 Early inhabitants and their indigenousness

The earliest inhabitants (settlers) of South Africa, before the Europeans and Blacks arrived, were undoubtedly the KhoiSan and the KhoiKhoi. It is unknown who the people were before them, if there was any. The settlement at the Cape brought an infusion of an Asian, Indian and Malay blood, resulting in a new race in South Africa, namely the Coloureds. This kind of a mixed race was commonly in the Far East, the Middle East, or in European territories. In addition to the Coloureds, this infusion resulted in an Indian population that has become as indigenous as any White, Black, KhoiKhoi and KhoiSan group. This unique constellation of ethnic groups in South Africa brings the many clichés on who the rightful landowners are to the foreground. The pre-1900s South Africans’ were six broad racial and ethnic categories, namely the KhoiSan, the KhoiKhoi, the Black tribes, the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. Their history and arrival in South Africa are discussed below.2,7

3.8.1.1.1 The KhoiSan

This group, probably the first inhabitants of South Africa, seems to have migrated from the central parts of Southern Asia. The theory is that their migration to South Africa was by a scarcity of food and/or that they were been driven from Asia by other stronger races. The initial tribe ultimately split into three sub-tribes: one group moving south-east to the Malaysian Peninsula, the Philippines and as far as Australia; the second group moving west as far as Spain and the third group moving into North Africa and from there southwards as result of attacks by the Hamites in the Nile region. A subgroup of this third group moved downwards from the eastern part of Africa to gather south of the Zambezi in the 1600s.

The KhoiSan was nomadic hunters, living largely on game and gathering roots for their daily food. Geen7 describes them as follows:7:10

Their family and tribal ties were weak, their ideas of religion rudimentary and their vocabulary limited, but they had considerable artistic talent; and

…their neighbours, both the Hottentotte [KhoiKhoi] and Bantu [Blacks], doubted whether they were quite human and so it is not surprising that the Europeans also proved enemies, and that today Bushmen [KhoiSan] remain only in very small numbers in the Kalahari Desert and South-West Africa.

Today the KhoiSan are not prominent role-players when it comes to land due to their small numbers and lack of political and economic power. The KhoiSan of today sadly finds themselves in the age-old position of the winner(s) takes all. They can claim land based on their history of miscegenation with Blacks, Coloureds and the KhoiKhoi.

3.8.1.1.2 The KhoiKhoi

The KhoiKhoi are slightly bigger and a little darker than the KhoiSan. They probably owe their origins to an intermingling of KhoiSan and the Hamites in Somaliland. Geen7 states that it seems they travelled south-west down into Africa to the region of the Great Lakes, and, after staying several centuries, they moved further southwards around 600AC to reach the Orange River. They established themselves along the banks of the river and the West Coast, from Walvis Bay to the Umtamvuna River. Later on, they split into smaller group, each group with a name and their own customs.7

The KhoiKhoi were pastoralists and hunters. During the 1713 small pox outbreak, many died.7 Geen writes7:10: “…today few pure-blooded Hottentots exist, but their blood has been absorbed by the Griquas and the Cape Coloured people and, in varying degrees, by many Bantu tribes”.

As a group in itself, apart from their intermingling with the Coloureds and Blacks, the KhoiKhoi have very little impact on today’s land ownership debacle. However, in terms of equality and human rights as protected by the South African Constitution, they should as a group given the opportunity to claim ownership of the South African soil.

3.8.1.1.3 The Indians, Asians and Malays

These late comers to South Africa, mainly as result of the import of labour to Natal in 1860, have like all the other races in South Africa, become indigenous to the country. Many of their fore fathers or tribal associates were Asian, Indian and Malay female slaves who came to the Cape Refreshment Station between 1650 and 1670.2

It is important to mention that research adds a 7.2% to 10.7% Indian influence into the Afrikaners’ matrilineal gene pool from Malaysian and other slave women (up to the early 1800s, 80% of the slaves came from India. It was only from 1730 onwards that the import of slaves from Madagascar was intensified).50,51

These historical facts reflect a horizontal biological association between the races in the Cape, especially immediately after the introduction of the free burghers in 1657 up to 1671. The fact is that three out of four children born to slave mothers during 1650 to 1670 had White fathers (meaning that the direct, first line infusion of “non-White blood” into the White parent stock can even be as high as 75%). Between 1657 and 1671, the early male ancestors of the Afrikaners at the Cape also took Black and KhoiKhoi women. These non-White women were accepted into the White community as either concubines or wives. They, together with some White women, became the parent stock of the White population and the later Afrikaners. These non-White women’s children, especially the females, were mostly assimilated into White society directly and horizontally to make up for the shortage of women without any discrimination or stigmatisation.2,50,52,53

It is clear that the Asians, Indians and Malay claim on South African land ownership is not limited to their South African identity, it is strengthens by their interbreeding with the Whites and the Coloureds.2

3.8.1.1.4 The Coloureds

There is an erroneous argument that the early Cape Settlement’s intermingling with non-Whites was limited to a small number of White families, and that these 6% to 10.7% mixed Afrikaner descendants were pushed from the White society to form the new Coloured population at the Cape. A vertical biological development of a closed and outcast group of mixed people, mostly excluded from the White nucleus that formed the modern Afrikaners, is surely true as evident from the existence of South African Coloureds and other mixed people of today. The fact is that the situation can be described as a “schizophrenic” split between the Whites and the Coloureds, peoples of the same bloodline, basically because the one group supposedly has “more non-White blood”. One can explain it as the same father having children by two different women (the Arabs and the Jews have the same “schizophrenic” origin). Evidence of an immense horizontal biological impact of “Coloured blood” on Afrikaners’ genes confirms the superficiality of this split between Coloureds and Whites. This contradicts the idea that there is only 6% to 10.7% of mixed Afrikaner descendants and of an exclusive separate vertical development of the Coloureds as a separate ethnic group. This fellowship between White Afrikaners and Brown Afrikaners makes the claims of White Afrikaners on land ownership applicable to the Coloureds and vice versa.50,54,55

Looking more critically at nationhood in South Africans is it only the Coloureds who can pride themselves on being a true mix of the various racial and ethnic groups in South Africa. They are indeed South African Creoles to the quick. Notwithstanding this right of birth and the fact that they are the second largest tribe in the country, they are still politically, economically and socially marginalises as in the previous dispensation.2

3.8.1.1.5 The different Black tribes

The first real physical contact between the White settlers and the Black settlers occurred more or less in the 18th century. The Blacks, like the Whites, are comparative newcomers to Southern Africa, writes Geen7:10. The South African Blacks probably came from Central Asia. They moved into Africa en masse, splitting in two: one group moving down into the middle of Africa and the second group moving along the East Coast to reach Sofala by the 10th century. When the Portuguese established themselves on the East Coast, various eastbound Black groups moved as far down as Natal and in the 1650s the area around the Kei River. The central group also moved southwards to establish themselves in the vicinities of the Vet and Caledon Rivers in the 1750s.7

Geen7 describes the unique characteristics of these various groups of Blacks, moving as foreigners southeast and southwards into Southern Africa. They constituted an ethnic group who matched the power and political intentions and motives of the White frontiersmen from day one at the Eastern border of the Cape Colony. Geen says the following7:11: “The Bantu [Blacks], mentally alert and physical strong, had a complex tribal system with hereditary chiefs whose powers were limited by their councils of headmen”.

Looking critically at the tribal and leadership customs and traditions of the early Blacks during their First and Second Colonization of South Africa between 1810 and 1840, we see similarities with Joshua and Moses and their conquest and creation of a New Israel. The Blacks wanted to become permanent settlers with indigenous status (especially through land grabbing, war and the extermination of their opponents by robbing them of land and cattle).2,3

The constant references to the Afrikaner as an alien, murderous colonist in South Africa, the only colonist in South Africa, are clearly false. It is an undeniable fact that the current Black population are also foreign to South Africa and is indeed in the same boat as the Afrikaners. The term “alien murderous colonists” is also applicable to them.

The Blacks have no more right on land ownership in terms of citizen-rights than the KhoiSan, KhoiKhoi, Coloureds, Asians, Indians, Malays, Whites and Afrikaners. They are simply a larger population and can therefore occupy proportional more land as the smaller groups. Their present claims on land and their focus on land redistribution without compensation amounts to land grabbing and terrorism, as did their fore fathers when they settle here as foreigners.2

3.8.1.1.6 Whites and the Afrikaners

The widely accepted and propagated views that the Afrikaner is a unique and “pure” White, European and Caucasian race that had its cultural origins in 1652 at the Cape Settlement, is, as indicated above, wrong. The proof in literature of miscegenation and a multiracial component is a fact that most Afrikaners hush. The White Afrikaners’ earlier Afrikaner families are descending from various racial and ethnic bloodlines to form the trunk (nucleus) of the Afrikaner family tree that branched out to today’s Afrikaners.52,56

The multiracialism of today’s Afrikaners makes their legal claims on land ownership equal to that of South Africa’s Asian, Indians, KhoiSan, KhoiKhoi, Coloureds and Blacks. The Afrikaners have become indigenous, as have the Asians, Indians, KhoiSan, KhoiKhoi, Coloureds and Blacks.50-53,57,58

3.9 Liberation, terrorism and land grabbing in South Africa

As indicated in the title of the article, land grabbing is an age-old practice in South Africa. The question is by whom. Two main ethnic role players are prominent: Whites versus Blacks. From a modern political perspective, the two main role players are the National Party (NP) up to 1994 and the ANC after 1994.

3.9.1 The liberation and terrorism heart of the ANC elite and their supporters

An in-depth analysis of the political history of the ANC is helpful for understanding more of the political heart of the party and its leaders in 2018 and of their demand for land grabbing. Mhtombothi writes23:17 that the ANC’s modus operandi, their raison d’être and their main skill is to destroy rather than to build. Liberation movements (like the ANC) in Africa, Latin America and East Asia have been unable to run passable governments or to improve the quality of life of the people beyond giving them handouts. These handouts come from the redistribution of the wealth of the “conquered” groups. Instead of growing the cake, they redistribute what is already in existence by means of land grabbing and stealing from the minority and defenceless individuals and groups. What is more, there is an unbalanced allocation of these resources to party cadres and elites.23,59-64

Historical and modern land grabbing alike are been founded on liberation and terrorism. This has to be high light here. The official British description of terrorism (See: 3.1Land ownership obtained by means of modern terrorism in South Africa) is quite applicable to the South African situation. Terrorism is been described as serious violence against a person or serious damage to property to influence a government or an international organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public with the aim of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.8

The ANC’s current ideas on land grabbing are rooted in the first Black colonization of South Africa. Their fore fathers simply sought freedom and a better life in Southern Africa. This soon turned into fighting with the other incoming Black tribes and local non-White tribes and groups. The resulting land grabbing and murder of the legal owners of the territories by the fore fathers of the present ANC, was nothing else than terrorism. The unique characteristics that we associated with many of the ANC’s executive political leaders are the same as those associated with their fore fathers, who were without doubt freedom fighters, terrorists and liberators.2,3,8,26,52,65,66-67

Many of the current behaviours of Black leaders, like their intentions of land grabbing, RET and RST, are part of a culture passed on from their fore fathers. The unjustified oppression they experienced at the hands of the Whites (specifically the early Afrikaners and Afrikaners between 1910 and 1994) undoubtedly exacerbated their desire for terrorism and land grabbing with the focus on Whites specifically.2

These early negative values, internalized long ago as good customs, traditions and habits inside the Black culture were been transferred over the years to later generations. Many of the modern South Africa Black leaders who come from this culture have captured the unstable political setup after 1994 for their benefit and to spread their terrorist thinking among their Black supporters.23,27,59-62,68-71

The Black population initially migrated to South Africa to settle in areas that were at that time mostly KhoiKhoi and KhoiSan territory (territory that they also occupied as settlers earlier). These occupations were illegal in terms of modern international law. The establishment of a permanent stronghold in their new homeland is been seen, as said, as the first Black colonization of South Africa. However, the initial colonization did not last long. There was infighting over land, livestock, water resources and political rights. This led to brutal wars in the newly occupied areas. Groups tried to drive each other out of the new territories. These series of expulsions are been regarded as the second Black colonization of South Africa. The years 1810 to 1840 (known as the Mfecane in the coastal areas and the Difaqane inland) led to widespread Black-on-Black bloodshed in the northern parts of South Africa. This “Black re-colonisation” process took place more or less simultaneously with the northward migration of the Trek Boers and Voortrekkers into the interior from the Cape Colony.3,7,9

In this second Black colonization, King Shaka, the king of the powerful newly formed Zulu kingdom is been pinpointed as the main culprit of wrongdoings. His murderous behaviour around 1819 led to political, social and economic chaos and large-scale land grabbing. He was the main perpetrator of Black colonialism and land grabbing between 1810 and 1840, leading to the eradication and re-colonization of other Black tribes. The remnants of these broken Black tribes fled and settled away from the Zulus and other occupying tribes. This led to the depopulation of large parts of South Africa because of further infighting and land grabbing. Intense food shortage followed and it is been estimated that more than 28 independent Black tribes were completely wiped out. The total death toll has never been determined, but the estimation is between one and two million.3,7,9

Mzilikazi (Msilikazi), the king of the Matabele in Transvaal between 1826 and 1836, also played a prominent role in this genocide. He also ordered widespread killings of other Black tribes and the removal of all opposition to his new Ndebele order.3,7,9

These first and second Black colonisations represent South Africa’s first genocides. This is a political-historical fact that is been ignored and hidden from the public eye in the present context of the ANC’s post-1994 policy on guarding the Blacks’ political power and unity. Today, Black South Africans seem to refuse to accept personal blame and responsibility for their ancestors’ colonial atrocities. These atrocities were committed simply to obtain new land.2,3

3.9.2 The liberation and terrorism heart of the early and later Afrikaner leaders and their supporters

The current noises of land redistribution without compensation are making some Afrikaners nervous, especially White farmers. However, they are wrong to point a finger at the ANC when it comes to land grabbing. The early proto-Afrikaners grabbed land from the early 1700s up to 1910, where after the Afrikaner Nationalists continued from 1910 to 1994.2,3,9,48,52,67,72-74

The Afrikanerism of the early and later Afrikaners represents terrorism, supporting and upholding a liberation movement. It often became radical and extreme, especially between 1948 and 1994. The modus operandi of the early proto-Afrikaners and Afrikaner Nationalists and the liberation principles of the ANC is the same. In the Afrikaners’ case, their initial early enemies were the English. Later, the “Black danger” came to the foreground as the most pertinent issue. The tendency of Afrikaner leaders to see themselves as the liberators of the Afrikaner tribe and to pursue White supremacy, were found necessary to explore. 2,48,52,62,71,72,74,75

The history of the Afrikaners, from the early days of the Cape Colony to the later Boer republics, the period from 1910 to 1948 and the Afrikaner Nationalists from 1948 to 1994, reflect active and destructive terrorism by a liberation movement. This was long before the ANC appeared on the scene. The timeline concurs with that of Shaka and other Black leaders. Both the White and Black groups destroyed the opposition and preyed on their assets. Afrikanerism also meets the British definition of terrorism, just like the ANC. Land terrorism and land grabbing without compensation (but with bloodshed) as propagated by ANC was part and parcel of the way in which Afrikaners took possession of land from 1652 to 1994. It brought the Afrikaners in possession 85% of the South African territory. In other words, the ANC is not planning anything that the Afrikaners did not do.2,3,7,9 Both of the two prominent role players were and are nothing other than political mobsters. Boon3 describes their characteristics as follows3:75:

Selfishness; delinquent inclinations all-over; strategies total stripped of all democratic principles, traditions, thinking, planning and doings; absolute intolerant; anti- order; minorities are quickly eradicated; coercion actions characterized by destruction, threat, killings and brutalities; aim the creation of a delinquent mob-reign; aim the exclusive of executive political mob-leaders to reign the country.

Just as some of the bad early political-history of some of the Black-tribes of in South Africa became part of ANC’s culture, the years 1652 to 1910 cemented certain thought patterns in the Afrikaners. From 1910 up to 1994, it took an extreme form. The Malan manifesto of 1948 that introduced Grand Apartheid confirms this.48,52,71,72,74-76

The radical racist land grabbing behaviour of 1948 to 1994 on the side of the Afrikaner Nationalists has a much deeper aetiology that dates from the 1700s. Some of the deviant behaviours are been founded in the history of the Boers on the borders (Grensboere) and the migratory Boers (Trekboere). Geen7 describes these groups as White frontiersmen. Some deviating behaviours became entrenched as acceptable in the minds of these White frontiersmen.2,7,52,76

Geen7 quotes Deneys Reitz’s book titled “No outspan on the early Afrikaners”, as follows7:69: “Knowing my countrymen as I do, I think the cause of their leaving [Great Trek] was not so much hatred of British rule as a dislike of any rule”. Reitz7 reflects on the foundation of the racist and defiant thinking of the early Afrikaners. They expressed their Afrikanerism without inhibition, among other things by means of terrorist attacks on Blacks. Geen7 writes7:69:

The frontiersmen – and it was they and not the well-to-do farmers of the western districts who went on trek – were stock-farmers and hunters with a low standard of living who were used both too isolation and trekking, so that though the Trek implied an uprooting it did not mean a change in their way of life. The dangers of the interior were undoubtedly great, but at any rate, the leaders of the various parties knew that of all the tribes the Griquas, Matabele and Zulus alone were to be feared. Any other people but the Boers might have rebelled in similar circumstances, but since the trek-spirit was in-born farms were either sold or abandoned and their holders went off into the interior, where cheap land and labour would be plentiful and government interference of the slightest. It seems probable that the Great Trek would not have happened had the scene not been South Africa and the actors Boers.

Geen7 continues to describe the defiance of the White frontiersmen and their refusal to submit to law and order. He states7:68-69:

Traditions of government in the Cape Colony were bad, as the frontiersmen had been used to too little control in the days of the Dutch Eastern India Company, when they had provided their own defence and so had become their own law. They had become a race of extreme individualists with an inherited suspicion of any authority and discipline, so that they viewed with dismay the steady extension of magisterial districts, which in their eyes meant stricter government control and, moreover in 1828 involved the abolition of the representative Courts or Heemraden.

It is very important to pause for a moment to consider this early Boer mentality and their views of what is civilized and uncivilized behaviour, of what is right and wrong. Land grabbing and suppression of other groups were part of their way of doing. This was been transferred to the Boer republics and later to the modern Afrikaners. Geen continues7:72-73:

For many years, the trekkers and their descendants led a roving life in the interior cut off from educational facilities and other civilizing agents. Their education was first that of the open veld and then that of the isolated farm, but it was neither literary nor industrial and made the Boers far more backwards than their counterparts in Australia and the American Middle West. The isolation in which the children and grandchildren of the trekkers grew up has helped to create the Poor White problem of today [1946], for the civilizing work of the original trekkers was superficially done and was spread far too thinly over a wide area.

The fact that the Boers constantly moved northwards confirms that: “they wanted to do things their way”. Their way was not always within the limits of the law (like land grabbing and the planned termination of non-Whites like the KhoiSan). It resembled terrorism as described by Powell8 and Boon3. Their terrorist behaviours, as already indicated, reappeared during the Great Trek when the Voortrekkers started to occupy land that they argued and rationalized as “uninhabited and ownerless,” while in reality it was the property of Black tribes who used it as hunting grounds and pasture for their cattle and as a defence zone between hostile tribes. Despite this reality, the Boers occupied the land, often by brute force and the loss of Black lives. This first forceful occupation of Black land north of the Cape Colony’s border took the same form as the killing and atrocities during the migration of Black tribes southwards with the first and second colonization of South Africa.2,52,76

It is important to look at Powell’s8 description of terrorism again. When considering the actions of the Boers, it resembles Saddam Hussein’s unlawful occupation of Kuwait that caused the world to react with full military force. In modern times, the behaviour of the early Boers would bring them before the International Criminal Court for terrorism, the unlawful occupation of foreign land and murder.8,77

The aggression of the Boers escalated with the large-scale occupation of Black territory to form the Boer republics. They drove away or killed the Black owners. They used the same tactics that Shaka used to take over the land of other tribes. This early occupation facilitated the founding of the two Boer republics, both of which supported racial discrimination. This shows how much terrorism and Boer liberation are internalized in the minds of the Afrikaners.2,9,47,52,65,66,67

The purpose of the terrorism and land grabbing of the Boers was to create an economic system that would be theirs exclusively. Their dehumanization of Blacks also served this purpose. Chomsky78 says it well78:28:

Concentration of wealth yields concentration of political power. And concentration of political power gives rise to legislation that increases and accelerates the cycle.

After the fall of the two Boer republics, the Transvaal and the Free State, the Boers gained the political upper hand again with the formation of the Union of South Africa. They were still been driven by their rigid racism (which included the dehumanization of Blacks and the capture of Black interests). This negative energy was been channelled into the racial policy of the Union and from there into the Grand Apartheid of the Verwoerd Republic, which only ended officially in 1994.2,52,68,69,76,79

Researchers have thus far refrained from studying the land grabbing of the early Boers in the Transvaal and the Free State because it is so politically sensitive. The same goes for the earlier actions of Whites in Cape Colony and later in the greater South Africa. The South African situation does not differ much from the early American terrorism against the Native Americans (Red Indians) in their land grabbing. Martinez80 writes as follows about the ignored colonial history of the Americans80:151:

 When freedoms clash, some must take priority over others. In the economy, the     mechanism that determines which freedoms are prioritized is the property rights system. Property rights bestow the freedom to control and profit from what is owned. They determine who has     decision-making authority over a given commodity. Ownership is     necessarily exclusive: as soon as one person owns something, the     rest of the world does not. When the Wild West pioneer claimed to     own ‘newly discovered’ land and made it his home, he appropriated resources that had been the preserve of Native Americans for thousand s of years.

Martinez80 reports further80:153:

The history of colonialism and imperialism poses further challenges to the legitimacy of property rights today. From the fifteenth century onwards, European nations took control of much of North, Central and South America, large swathes of Asia and, by the twentieth century, most of Africa. Indigenous populations were wiped out or pushed off their land, communities were devastated and resources were appropriated for Western profit; and

There is nothing voluntary about this process. Indeed, it is hard to see the original appropriation and privatisation of commonly owned resources as anything but theft.

Geen’s7 description of the early Boers’ land grabbing by terrorism is reminiscent of the White Europeans early land grabbing from the indigenous populations of Norh, Central and South America, large parts of Asia and most of Africa (1500s to 1800s). The behaviour of the Whites, aggravated further after 1910, has contaminated all possibilities of successful and civilized land transformation in South Africa. Land grabbing is an evil that has affected all the populations of South Africa. Geen7 writes as follows in the context of the tragic chain reaction of early White land grabbing7:73:

As the Trek is responsible in some measure for the Poor White problem of the present so also it made the segregation of the Bantu [Black] tribes forever impossible. Despite the wars of Chaka and Msilikazi in the land into which the trekkers moved was by no means empty of population for Native [Black] wars were not unduly destructive of life. Having subdued the Native tribes the trekkers soon disposed them of their lands and thus helped to create a landless class of Natives, which is the source of many of the Union’s economic troubles at the present time [1946].The trekkers hardly exemplify a judicious Native policy, for their haphazard apportionment of land often without survey at all mean that the Natives became mere squatters on their own tribal land; and in looking at the things exclusively from the point of view of European interests the trekkers set the disastrous fashion of ignoring the very existence of the Native population. Sir T. Shepstone was near the truth when he wrote to the Colonial Office in January 1880 that “the government of the (Transvaal) Republic never thought it necessary even as a matter of mere prudence, to set apart land for the occupation of the natives”. The Native Problem that exercises the attention of S. African statesmen today [1946] is largely the creation of the trekkers, who in the interior provinces of the Union laid the foundation of a civilization based on a landless Bantu proletariat and a rigid maintenance of the Colour Bar in State and Church.

Looking at the current landlessness of many Blacks and their dire ongoing poverty, the above words are applicable to the South Africa of 2018. The fact that the Afrikaner Nationalists are no longer in power makes it possible for widespread land redistribution to start at last to erase the injustices of the past.

4. Conclusions

The political dispensations of Cape Colony of 1853 and 1872 and the Union of 1910 offered excellent opportunities to redistribute land and hand it back to Blacks to create an open, just South African society. The much later 1994-dispensation failed completely. This makes the current land redistribution, which may also just become land grabbing, a natural and unavoidable interference and intervention. Land redistribution is a necessary must. It is unavoidable. It needs a solution.

From 1652 to 1994, many Whites in South Africa had it good, especially the Afrikaners. They still see their possession of certain valuable land as normal, rightful, certain and permanent in 2018. This is an illusion that has lasted nearly four centuries because of the Afrikaner’s refusal to become an indigenous South African and to make the change from an outdated European to a modern African identity.

The bad parts of South African history are as intertwined as the bloodlines are. South Africa’s Blacks and Whites are indeed equals when it comes to freedom fighting, land terrorism and land grabbing. Now is there only one prominent difference between the two: The Afrikaners own most of the land that the Blacks want. The prominent question is how the transfer will take place: Will it be another land grab; or will there be a reasoned, a balanced and a just land transfer and redistribution? The last option has been absent for all of South African political history.

The refusal on the part of the Whites to surrender capital to the Blacks is concerning. Not even the various political consequences of the post-1994 dispensation could detangle and break down the intertwined self-enriching politics and economics of especially the Afrikaners.

Louw writes in this regard2:93:

Negative thought patterns like racial discrimination, forged by years of exposure, examples and compensation, will not be erased easily from the thinking of most Afrikaners, especially if they are not rational. The lost privileges, rights, benefits and empowerments are seldom reclaimable. Most Afrikaners find themselves in an unbearable dilemma today.

The Afrikaners as individuals and a tribe are over-estimating their current importance and role in South Africa. They do not see the fact that they are probably moving towards dissolution in a century’s time. Some of the ANC elite and other radical Black politicians know this well.2 For these Blacks, especially those still thirsty for revenge after apartheid, the prominent question is: So why care about the Afrikaners’ rights and concerns? Did the Afrikaners care for non-Whites from 1652 to 2018?

Land redistribution has the potential to become a much more devastating and life-threatening phenomenon than Europeans have ever seen in the history of Africa. It has the potential to overshadow the murderous acts of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe or Patrice Lumumba in the Belgium Congo. In this new South African history there seems to be only one short-sighted loser: the Afrikaner landowner. The position of the Whites will certainly be far less favourable than their present one if there is a orderly land redistribution, but the alternative is anarchy that the Afrikaners would be lucky to survive.2,68,69,79

The Blacks have no more right to land ownership than the KhoiSan, KhoiKhoi, Coloureds, Asian, Indians, Malays, Whites and Afrikaners. The present claims by some Blacks that they have the sole right to grab land, are been based on a false indigenous identity. It is a new land terrorism, similar to what their fore fathers did when they settled here as foreigners.2

What is been needed is an appropriate, equal land redistribution programme in terms of the tribal proportional numbers of the Blacks, KhoiSan, KhoiKhoi, Coloureds, Asian, Indians, Malays, Whites and Afrikaners. The issue of land for the poor should take centre stage. This will bring some justice and harmony to the South African population at last.2

The Blacks and the Whites of South Africa are equally foreign, equally indigenous, equally colonialist. The claims that the Blacks deserve to be here more in anyway, are based on a denial of history.2,3,7,9,81

Mthombothi82:21 write as follows on the lack of a South African patriotism:

Sometimes we view other people either as enemies or as the source of our problems.

One often wanders why some South Africans, for instance, are filled with love for complete strangers from Europe or other parts of Africa – which is a good thing – but at the same time show an aversion for some of their compatriots who happen to be of a different colour.

Perhaps South Africans on the whole are still struggling with the notion of identity. We’ve been rudderless for a while. Are we one people or a collection of different nationalities who happen to inhabit a single geographic area? And where in the political cosmos do we belong?

Mthombothi82 is correct when he posits that South Africa is not an empty landscape: that it is flesh and blood and its people needs respect. To address land expropriation needs first the healing of South Africans’ estrangement from each other. If we addressed this matter many years ago, we would be a united nation today.

5. References

  1.     Joshua 11:14, 11:16 and 11. 23; pp. 325-326. In: Life Application Bible. The living Bible.     Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers; 1988.
  2.     Louw GP. The crisis of the Afrikaners. Beau Bassin, Mauritius: Lambert; 2018.
  3.     Boon M. The African way: The power of interactive leadership. Sandton: Zebra Press;     1996.
  4.     Bless C, Higson-Smith C. Fundamentals of Social Research Methods: An African Perspective. 2nd ed. Kenwyn: Juta; 1995.
  5.     Louw GP. A guideline     for the preparation, writing and assessment of article-format     dissertations and doctoral theses. 2nd ed. Mafikeng Campus: North-West University, South Africa; 2017.
  6.     Maree K, Van der  Westhuizen C. Head start in designing research proposals in social     sciences. Cape Town: Juta; 2009.
  7.     Geen MS. The Making of the Union of South Africa. London: Longman and Green; 1945.
  8. Powell J. Talking to Terrorists. London: Penguin; 2014.
  9. Scholtz GD. Suid-Afrika  en die Wéreldpolitiek: 1652-1952. Pretoria: Voortrekkerpers; 1964.
  10. Ward K. Jesus and his times. New York: Reader’s Digest Association; 1989.
  11. Musyoka     J. Ghouls of global nationalism stalk our land question. Sunday     Times (Opinion). 2018 May. 6; p. 18.
  12. Tabane OJJ. Calling the ANC’s dangerous bluff on land reform. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 June 3; p. 18.
  13. Derby R. Land reform is a necessary fix for the fault lines in our economy. Sunday Times     (Business). 2018 Apr. 22; p. 2.
  14. Mkhondo R. Let’s put it to a vote – referendums would rejuvenate our jaded democracy.     Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 June 3; p. 18.
  15. Dalrymple W. From the Holy Mountain. London: Harper Perennial; 2005.
  16. Kapuściński R. Travels with Herodotus. London: Penguin; 2007.
  17. Van Rensburgh JPJ. Die Ooste teen die Weste. Herodotus se geskiedenis. Pretoria: Hans     Kirsten; 1994.
  18. Boshomane P. ‘Want us to get over it?’ Send them to jail. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2016 Apr. 10; p. 19.
  19. Morudu P. Wie dra die meeste skuld? Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 May 22; pp. 4-5.
  20. Retief H. ‘n Halfeeu oue seer brand nog. Rapport (Nuus). 2016 Mar. 15; p. 11.
  21. Ramphele M. The ANC is no longer the solution. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 June 4; p. 20.
  22. Ramphele  M. State capture: how ‘liberation culture’ damage SA’s future. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2016 Apr. 10; p. 21.
  23. Mthombothi B. Zuma’s political demise no instant cure for a country caught in the grip of     an unreconstructed ANC. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Sept. 10; p. 17.
  24. Barnes M. Throw away the rule book, draft a new one. Sunday Times. 2017 Feb. 5; p. 2.
  25. Cwaile M. Class traitors cleave to an unjust status quo. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Feb. 5; p. 17.
  26. Mpofu D. Niks so ergs as skoen pas nie. Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 Nov. 20; p. 6.
  27. Hartley R. The rainbow nation in Black and White. Cape Town: Jonathan Ball; 2014.
  28. Young J. Rassisme: Waarom nou? Beeld (Kommentaar). 2016 May 18; p. 24.
  29. Chigumadzi P. Helen Zille and the myth of the White Saviour. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Mar. 19; p. 21.
  30. Chigumadzi P. White men – the Black woman’s burden. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Mar. 26; p. 6.
  31. Du     Preez M. ANC se misdaad teen mensdom. Beeld (Kommentaar). 2016 Dec. 13; p. 6.
  32. Khumalo     A. Transformation not pacification. Sunday Times (Business). 2017 Mar. 19; p. 10.
  33. Khumalo A. Sowing the seeds of real change. Dlamini should take a leaf out of Creecy’s book on BEE initiatives. Sunday Times (Business). 2017 Mar. 12; p. 10.
  34. Mbatha K. Unmasked. Cape Town: KMM Review Publishing; 2017.
  35. Zille H. White-bashing cancer destroys SA from within. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Apr.     30; p. 18.
  36. Lesufi P. Racism is not making a comeback: it never quit. Sunday Times. 2016 July 10; p. 17.
  37. George L. Die Hlope beskaam nie. Rapport (Nuus). 2017 June 11; p. 6.
  38. Malan K. Of jy daarvan hou of nie: Howe is elite se regsarm. Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 May 15; p. 11.
  39. Malan K. Dié hof se visie is dieselfde as die ANC. Rapport (Weekliks). 2016 May 1; p. 4.
  40. Molewa E. A tendency to be swayed by tears, M’lady. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2016 July 1; p. 18.
  41. Mombembe P. Hlope showed bias for lawyer, appeal judge finds. Sunday Times     (News). 2017 June 11; p. 6.
  42. Scholtz L. Kruispaaie. Pretoria: Kraal-Press; 2016.
  43. Anestos P. Big business bullies choke SA’s economy. Sunday Times (Business). 2018 May 20, p. 7.
  44. Immelman RFM. Men of Good Hope, 1804-1954. Cape Town: CTCC; 1955.
  45. McCraken JL. The Cape Parliament. Oxford: Claredon; 1967.
  46. Parliament of the Cape of Good Hope. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Apr.18]. Available from     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_Cape_of_Good_Hope
  47. Wiid JA. Politieke Ontwikkeling in die Kaapkolonie, 1872-1896. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA Wiid, AL Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: Nasou; Annon.
  48. Friedman B. Smuts: A reappraisal. Johannesburg: Hugh Cartland Publishers; 1975.
  49. Cape Colony. [Internet]. [Cited 2018 Apr.18]. Available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Colony
  50. The purity of Arthur Kemp’s People: The Afrikaner. [Internet]. [Cited     2016 Nov. 18]. Available from http://www.geocities.ws/kempcountrymen/afrikaner1.htm
  51. South African History Online (SAHO). History of Slavery and Early     Colonisation in South Africa. [Internet]. [Cited 2017 Mar. 4]. Available from http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/histiry-slavery-and-early-colonisation-south-africa
  52. Giliomee H. Afrikaner Nationalism, 1870-2001. In: A Fisher, M Albeldas (eds). A Question of Survival Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball; 1988.
  53. South Africa. Unie van Suid-Afrika. Samevatting van die verslag van die Kommissie vir die Sosio-Ekonomiese Ontwikkeling van die Bantoegebiede binne die Unie van Suid-Afrika. Pretoria: Government Press; 1955.
  54. Afrikaner genes could hold key to diseases. Bioformatics Database.[Internet].     [Cited 2016 Aug 27]. Available from http://ichts.tripod.com/Julyupdate/trJuly9-3.html
  55. Population genetics and Huntington Disease. [Internet]. [Cited 2017 May 2].     Available from http://web.stanford.ed/group/hopes/cgi-bin/hopes_test/population-genetics-and-hd/
  56. Van den Heever CM. Generaal J. B. M. Hertzog. Johannesburg: AP. Boekhandel; 1944.
  57. Afrikaners are black. [Internet]. [Cited 2016 July 8]. Available from     http://www.news24/Afrikaners-are-black-20130223
  58. Greeff J. Deconstructing Jaco: Genetic Heritage of one Afrikaner. Annals of     Human Genetics: 2007; 71(5), 674-688. [Internet]. [Cited 2016 Dec. 5]. Available from https://DOI:10.1111/j.1469-1809.2007.00363.X
  59. Mthombothi B. By his friends – thugs, smugglers and scoff laws – shall you know him.     Sunday Times (Opinion); 2017 Oct. 29; p. 24.
  60. Mthombothi B. Our double dose of despair: courtesy of Zuma and his cabinet of     incompetents. Sunday Times (Opinion); 2017 Oct. 29; p. 25.
  61. Mthombothi B. A constitution designed for a Mandela buckles when someone like Zuma     is at the helm. Sunday Times (Opinion); 2017 Oct. 22; p. 21.
  62. Bezuidenhout A. Spelreëls van SA politiek. Die Burger (Forum); 2017 July 22; p. 15.
  63. Gumede W. Zuma has been so bad, he has in some ways actually been good. Sunday Times (Opinion); 2018 Jan. 14; p. 13.
  64. Bruce P. A country imperilled by one man’s strange fears. Sunday Times (Opinion).     2017 Oct. 22; p. 20.
  65. Bosman ID, Oorheersing en Vrywording, 1877-1884. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA Wiid, AL Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: Nasou; Annon.
  66. Grundlingh MAS. Vyftig Jaar Britse Bestuur, 1806-1854. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA Wiid, AL     Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: Nasou; Annon.
  67. Sampson A. Mandela. The authorised biography. London: Harper Collins: 2000.
  68. Engelbrecht T. ‘n Kroniek van ‘n kaalgatperske. Rapport (Weekliks). 2018 Jan. 21; pp. 12-13.
  69. De Lange J. Die plan: Stuit die wit mens! Rapport (Nuus). 2017 Dec. 17; p. 2.
  70. Mnguni L. ANC sidelines constitution and its own processes in secret “talks”. Sunday     Times (Opinion). 2018 Feb. 11; p. 21.
  71. Venter T. ANC volg NP se pad. Rapport (Weekliks). 2017 Sept. 17; p. 7.
  72. Ginsberg A. South Africa’s future: From crisis to prosperity. London: MacMillan;     1998.
  73. Kenney H. Verwoerd: Architect of apartheid. Cape Town: Jonathan Ball; 2016.
  74. Verwoerd WJ. Verwoerd: Só onthou ons hom. Pretoria: Protea Boekhuis; 2001.
  75. Malloch-Brown M. The Unfinished Global Revolution. Johannesburg: Penguin; 2012.
  76. Boëseken AJ. Jan van Riebeeck en sy stigtingswerk: 1652-1662. In: AJH Van Der Walt, JA     Wiid, AL Geyer. Geskiedenis van Suid- Afrika. Cape Town: Nasou; Annon.
  77. Chomsky N. Masters of Mankind. London: Penguin; 2015.
  78. Chomsky N. Occupy. Parktown: Penguin; 2012.
  79. Holomisa B. South Africa is in the grip of ‘citizen rage’. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2018 Feb. 4; p. 18.
  80. Martinez R. Creating Freedom. Power, London: Canongate; 2016.
  81. Ngcukaitobi T. Land could right so many wrongs. Sunday Times (Insight). 2018 July 8, p. 25.
  82. Mthombothi B. The country we love is not an empty landscape, it is flesh and blood. We should act accordingly. Sunday Times (Opinion). 2017 Dec. 3, p. 21.

PEER REVIEW

Not commissioned; externally peer-reviewed.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author has no competing interests to declare.

FUNDING

The research was funded by the Focus Area Social Transformation, Faculty of Humanities, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa.

UNSUITABLE TERMS AND INAPPROPRIATE WORDS

Please note that I, the author, is aware that the words Creole, Bantu, Kaffir, Native, Hottentot and Bushman are no longer suitable terms and are inappropriate (even criminal) for use in general speech and writing in South Africa (Even the words non-White and White are becoming controversial in the South African context). These terms do appear in dated documents. These terms or translations are use for the sake of historical accuracy in this article. Their use is unavoidable within this context. It is important to retain their use in this article to reflect the racist thought, speech and writings of as recently as sixty years ago. These names form part of a collection of degrading names commonly used in historical writings during the heyday of apartheid and the British imperial time. In reflecting on the leaders and regimes of the past, it is important to foreground the racism, dehumanization and distancing involved by showing the language used to suppress and oppress. It also helps us to place leaders and their sentiments on a continuum of racism. These negative names do not represent my views and I distance myself from the use of such language for speaking and writing. In my other research on the South African populations and political history, I use Blacks, Whites, Xhosa, Zulu, Afrikaners, Coloureds, KhoiSan (Bushmen), KhoiKhoi (Hottentots) and Boers as applicable historically descriptive names.