Profile - Reader2999351

Let’s hold referendum to settle land issue

The issue of land expropriation without compensation was always going to be contentious. But the events of the past week have shown how politicians are mishandling it supposedly in the name of their people, and it’s about time that ordinary South Africans — not their leaders (elected or unelected) — were given the right to make a decision through a referendum.

Two issues have sparked the latest controversy. First, it is the misunderstood report of the high-level panel headed by former president Kgalema Motlanthe; and second it is the parliamentary process to review section 25 of the Constitution to enable land to be expropriated without compensation beyond the scope envisaged in the current version of the Constitution.

Motlanthe was asked by Parliament to review laws passed by the National Assembly and the report — yet to be adopted by Parliament – recommended, among others, that changes be made to the socalled Ingonyama Trust, which controls huge swathes of land in KwaZulu-Natal.

The well-considered report attracted minimal publicity after its release. It resurfaced only after Parliament voted early in 2018 to consider amendments to the Constitution to make it possible for land to be expropriated without compensation. This followed a resolution by ANC delegates at their 54th national conference last December to speed up land reform by expropriating land without compensation.

Since then, the two main political sponsors of the motion to expropriate land without compensation — the EFF and the ANC — have turned it into a political football as neither have clear strategies on land. Moderate ANC leaders believe the parliamentary process will fudge the issue enough to be seen to have implemented the party’s resolution on land.

Like the EFF, the ANC — which has bled votes in the past two general elections — believes that the resolution will lure back voters lost in the Jacob Zuma years.

The difference between the EFF and ANC is that the EFF is not a governing party and has no responsibility to implement its radical policy proposals. The ANC, on the other hand, is in a tricky position: as a governing party, once re-elected it has the duty to make good on all its electoral promises.

Then enter the Zulu monarch. Supported by Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi, King Goodwill Zwelithini has been mobilising Zulu resistance against the Motlanthe report, especially the recommendation to repeal the law setting up the Ingonyama Trust. This culminated in last week’s imbizo addressed by the king and Buthelezi and attended by ANC politicians. The core message was twofold: reject the panel’s report and demand an apology from Motlanthe. Quite sensibly, Motlanthe has neither responded to the insults against him nor apologised.

For a week the ANC has been struggling to fashion a coherent position. Last week the EFF forced the ANC into a position: after confessing to not having a policy on traditional leadership, the EFF opportunistically sided with Zwelithini. Sensing loss of moral high ground, the ANC dispatched its leader to grovel to the Zulu king — the president apologised to Zwelithini and distanced his administration from the Motlanthe report.

This turn of events is significant. The ANC’s mea culpa shows clearly that it is nervous about losing support in volatile KwaZulu-Natal after ousting Zuma. As the ANC has been losing support in urban areas to the opposition, it has sought to mollycoddle traditional leaders. Despite their claim to be apolitical, the traditional leaders have acted as shop stewards for the ANC (and IFP when it was in power in KwaZulu-Natal) in the rural areas. This is why the ANC’s new “top six” prioritised visits to the traditional leadership, including Zwelithini, when it embarked on a roadshow soon after its election last December. The strategy is clear: keep the traditional leaders warm.

But this opportunism has wider implications for the land issue and the parliamentary process under way. In essence, last week’s apology means that the land under the Ingonyama Trust is off limits. This victory is likely to embolden other traditional leaders to wring out similar concessions.

This renders the parliamentary process — including public hearings and written representations — irrelevant as it excludes land under the control of traditional leaders.

This will fuel uncertainty for economic operators. Already, the land issue is featuring high on the list of concerns frequently cited by investors considering SA as an investment prospect.

With Zuma out of the way, land has become a central issue in the 2019 election, even though none of the main parties has a clear vision of how it is to be resolved.

Having effectively undermined the parliamentary process, only a referendum can decisively resolve the issue.

THE ANC, WHICH HAS BLED VOTES IN THE PAST TWO GENERAL ELECTIONS, BELIEVES THE RESOLUTION WILL LURE BACK VOTERS LOST IN THE JACOB ZUMA YEARS