Land reform tension will persist until a just and equitable solution is achieved. We all need to consider what such a solution will entail.
Historically, apartheid disadvantaged the majority and benefited the white minority, which resulted in disproportionate land ownership.
Since 1994 and with the adoption of the new constitution, land reform has assumed some gravitas as the pressure on the government to fast-track redistribution has built up.
The government is authorised, in terms of the constitution, to expropriate land or rights to land from anyone. The conundrum the courts now face is the payment of compensation. While the Expropriation Act 63 of 1975 (updated to 2016) assists courts, the importance of land reform has some way to go before equilibrium is reached to the satisfaction of all.
Expropriation is not simply about redress. Certainly, such redress has to be achieved if we are to allay potential civil disobedience or anarchy as tensions among the landless rises and of course, to truly correct a horrendous violation.
While apartheid beneficiaries to this day enjoy a privilege of the past that has bestowed land rights on them, the expropriation should not be viewed solely to now disenfranchise them in terms of land rights.
Compensation becomes a crucial factor - even if we are to look at the willing buyer, willing seller proviso.
Market-based remuneration for land expropriated has to be seriously considered, but does the government have the funding to enable mass expropriation?
To compound this much of the land has been developed either in terms of farms or infrastructure, despite the historical perspective. To take over such land without due consideration for the development or continuance would be an economic disaster.
In the interests of the country, a balance has to be struck to ensure stability. Zimbabwe is a classic example of how expropriation should never be done.
Foreign investors, upon whose patronage a great deal of our economy rests, must not be encouraged to withdraw their investment.
It would be a disaster if the attendant discrepancies and anomalies in implementing a “just and equitable” means of land redistribution were not to be confronted post-haste as the undercurrent of widespread restlessness could lead to a very unfortunate situation.
*The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.