According to local legend, Bernard Shabangu’s grandfather, Bhobho, bravely confronted a fearsome lion that was causing havoc in Mpumalanga, a province in eastern South Africa. Bhobho’s courageous act of spearing down the lion earned him the title of Headman in his community. However, in the mid-1950s, Bhobho lost his land and cattle without compensation due to the Group Areas Act – a law introduced by South Africa’s apartheid government.
Decades later, when land reform became possible under the new democratic constitution, Bernard and his community decided to reclaim their land in partnership with the white farmers who had been working on it. This cooperative approach led to the establishment of the Matsamo Communal Property Association, which has become a successful exporter of lychee and other produce, showcasing a positive model for land reform in the country.
While progress has been made in land reform, some view it as too slow. President Cyril Ramaphosa recently signed a bill allowing the state to seize land without compensation under certain circumstances, sparking debates about private ownership rights. Amidst concerns and opposition, including from figures like Donald Trump, the future of land reform in South Africa remains uncertain.
The challenge for Ramaphosa lies in balancing the demands for faster land reform with the potential economic consequences, particularly in relation to key trading partners like the United States. This dilemma is exemplified by the perspectives of individuals like Afrikaner farmer Lion du Pressis, who sees the new expropriation act as a threat to property rights and farming stability.
As South Africa navigates the complexities of land reform, finding a middle ground that satisfies both domestic interests and international relations poses a significant challenge for its leaders.
“The compensation must be just and fair and equitable,” he insists. He argues that without private property rights, farms like his won’t be able to borrow money. “If you allow the government to seize land without compensation, investing in South Africa becomes economically unviable. In agriculture, access to capital through private property rights is essential for borrowing money to cover costs. Without these rights, obtaining capital becomes impossible,” he emphasizes.
The potential impact of the bill on foreign investment is a major concern for AfriForum, an organization dedicated to safeguarding the rights of Afrikaners. “The term ‘no compensation’ combined with broad expropriation powers granted to various state entities will discourage international investors,” warns its CEO Kallie Kriel.
Despite these concerns, Bernard views the proposed laws as a necessary step to address historical injustices. He stresses that land reform in South Africa aims for a constitutionally-managed process for the public good, ensuring that both black and white citizens share the land. Professor Ruth Hall, from the Institute for Poverty, Land, and Agrarian Studies at the University of the Western Cape, points out that issues of land access in South Africa predate formal apartheid, tracing back to the colonization era.
Professor Hall highlights the historical injustices perpetuated by laws like the Natives’ Land Act of 1913 and the Group Areas Act, which have entrenched disparities in land ownership. She describes the enduring legacy of “structural apartheid geography,” noting that while there is a growing black middle class, many black South Africans still lack secure land rights.
Agriculture remains a significant economic sector in South Africa, yet the majority of commercial land is owned by the white minority. The ongoing debate surrounding the no-compensation clause centers on its compliance with property rights enshrined in the constitution. While some, like Kallie Kriel, fear potential abuse of the bill by corrupt authorities, land lawyer Bulelwa Mabasa believes that sufficient safeguards are in place to regulate expropriation.
In 1996, the South African government initiated its land reform program with the aim to resolve all redistribution claims by 2005 and allocate 30% of white-owned commercial farmland to black South Africans by 2014. The failure to meet these targets has led to the recent introduction of stricter legislation. Professor Hall notes the government’s obligation to address historical land claims and redistribute land, a task that presents challenges in balancing redistribution with property rights. The issue of land ownership in South Africa has garnered international attention since US President Donald Trump’s executive order in February, which criticized the expropriation act for potentially allowing seizure of agricultural property owned by Afrikaners without compensation. Trump accused South Africa of various discriminatory policies and hostile actions towards the US and its allies. This has strained relations and led to a halt in aid to South Africa, with an offer to resettle “Afrikaner refugees” fleeing discrimination. The tensions extend to South Africa’s position on Israel and its ties with Iran, prompting speculation about its international alliances. The involvement of figures like Elon Musk, who criticized the country’s Black Economic Empowerment policy as “racist,” further complicates the situation. The potential impact of Trump’s threat to cut funding on South Africa’s participation in trade agreements like the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) raises concerns about economic consequences, particularly for white farmers who may be disproportionately affected by such measures.
Farmers in South Africa are facing a dilemma as they navigate the complex dynamics of trade deals and land reform. The recent signing of an expropriation bill has raised concerns among the agricultural community, who are more worried about the impact on trade relations with the US than they are about land expropriation itself.
The South African government, led by President Cyril Ramaphosa’s ANC, is under pressure to address the demands for further land reform without risking economic repercussions from the US and potential loss of foreign investors. The question arises: can they strike a balance that satisfies both domestic calls for reform and international economic concerns?
Amidst these challenges, there is speculation about the true motivations behind US President Donald Trump’s stance on South Africa. Nomvula Mokonyane, Deputy Secretary General of the ANC, suggests that the issue may not be solely about land expropriation but could also be tied to South Africa’s position on other global matters, such as its relationship with Israel.
The political landscape in South Africa is evolving, with the ANC forming coalitions with other parties for the first time. This shift may signal a renewed commitment to addressing the grievances of the black community, especially in the wake of Trump’s funding freeze. President Ramaphosa has vowed not to be intimidated and to stand firm in the face of pressure from the US.
Despite concerns over diplomatic tensions with the US, the South African government remains resolute in its decision to enact the Expropriation Act. Professor Hall emphasizes the legitimacy of the law, passed by a democratic parliament and signed by the president, highlighting the government’s commitment to upholding its legal obligations.
The repercussions of the US’ diplomatic pressure are already being felt in South Africa, with key US officials opting out of important international meetings hosted by the country. The absence of US representation raises further questions about the future of bilateral relations and potential implications for South Africa on the global stage.
In response to these challenges, President Ramaphosa has pledged to send envoys to engage with the US and other countries, aiming to clarify South Africa’s positions on various issues, including the expropriation act and foreign policy decisions. The outcome of these diplomatic efforts will test South Africa’s ability to navigate complex international relations while staying true to its national priorities.
As South Africa grapples with external pressures and internal demands, the spotlight is on the government’s ability to navigate a delicate balancing act. The path ahead is uncertain, with the need to address both domestic concerns and international expectations presenting a formidable challenge for this young democracy.
In the midst of these developments, BBC InDepth offers a platform for insightful analysis and thought-provoking content on the pressing issues of the day. With a focus on challenging assumptions and providing fresh perspectives, InDepth invites readers to engage with the complexities of global affairs and share their feedback on the platform.
As the dynamics of trade, land reform, and international relations continue to unfold, the story of South Africa’s journey towards a more inclusive and
