You might have seen a headline here and there, and maybe seen a fiery video or two, but the past few weeks have seen the Constitutional Review Committee’s public hearings on land expropriation without compensation take place, focusing on the proposed amendment of section 25 of the constitution.

If you like your sections clearly defined, Constitutionally Speaking outlines the relevant sections:

Section 25(2) of the Constitution currently states that property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application for a public purpose or in the public interest; and subject to compensation.

Basically, rewrite that section, and land can be expropriated without compensation.

Thuli Madonsela, however, believes South Africans are coming at the issue of how to redistribute land fairly all wrong. Penning a column for Business Day, she says “the problem lies partly in the framing of the question”:

People are simply answering the question as to whether they support expropriation without compensation and the amendment of section 25 to allow it. There are no nuanced questions.

Responses are also racially split: the majority of black people say yes and white people say no. Supporters argue that the current process of restitution and redistribution has been slow and that land was stolen, so it must be handed back to its rightful owners without compensation. Key imperatives, apparently, are speed, cost and justice. Those who own land argue that expropriating without compensation would be unjust and would undermine social cohesion.

Missing, or muted, is the fact that the current constitutional provisions have never been fully implemented. Specifically, section 25(8) of the constitution permits expropriation with and without compensation — yet it has never been tried. Equally, nothing has stopped government from enacting legislation that regulates expropriation for restorative and redistributive purposes. And the new Land Expropriation Act, which replaced the anachronistic 1975 act to regulate expropriation, is currently “being consulted on” after President Jacob Zuma referred it back to the National Council of Provinces for further consultation. So, 24 years into democracy, the furthest that bill has gone is to simply reach the president.

Allow us to feign being shocked at the idea that something that would benefit a large majority of South Africans stalled when reaching Zuma.

Then there’s what I can only assume is going to be a rather unpopular opinion:

The predominant narrative, also missing in this debate, is the truth that not all land was stolen. Some land was sold by traditional leaders before 1913 and some was given as a gift to settlers. Other complicating factors, which haven’t been ventilated, include the fact that some of the land is no longer with the original people it was given to after 1913, or even before.

As Thuli points out, landowners aren’t going to give up their farms without a fight. There will be legal battles playing out in courts across the country, and tangible change for those who want land may not come quickly enough.

Here’s her suggestion:

One thing for sure is that to anchor democracy through peace and stability, social justice is a must. So the speed of restitution must be accelerated exponentially. People are tired of waiting. Nor is the delay good for those who own or wish to buy land, as the uncertainty poses a risk.

Recently, I engaged farmers in Upington, and it was clear many had adopted a wait-and-see attitude before they recapitalise their farms — this is a real threat to food security.

What then are our options? In my parliamentary submission, I suggest we try negotiation and mediation. This country’s new deal, which has put us on a pedestal of hope, was built on negotiation. Why don’t we try that?

The idealist in me says yes, good idea, and the realist rolls my eyes and remembers that the theatrics of the bigwigs punting land expropriation without compensation are doing so for votes, not meaningful change.

Still, nice to hear a level-headed approach that tries to consider the interests of everyone involved.

[source:conspeak&busday]