By Zamikhaya Maseti
The signing of the Expropriation Act by President Cyril Ramaphosa of the Republic of South Africa has sparked intense debate, with various political parties expressing strong opposition. Some feel betrayed by the President’s decision, while others are dissatisfied with specific clauses in the Act, particularly, those related to compensation.
The Neo-Liberals, Right-wingers and Conservatives are vehemently opposed to the Act, prioritising property and minority rights. In contrast, the ANC firmly defends the resolution of the Land Question, which aims to address injustices and inequalities through land redistribution and restitution.
The Land Question is intricately linked to the National Question, which revolves around creating a united, non-racial, and democratic society. The National Democratic Revolution (NDR), espoused by the ANC ideologues, encompasses both questions, emphasising their interconnectedness and symbiotic relationship.
According to the Two Stage Theory of the South African Revolution, resolving these questions is crucial to achieving true liberation and democracy. These two questions are not opposed to each other. Furthermore, the two questions should have been resolved simultaneously at the consolidation phase of the First Stage of the South African Revolution, which was unfortunately deconsolidated after the May 29, 2024, National General Elections.
The GNU partners must acknowledge that they are all in this together despite their differences. The May 29, 2024 National General Elections outcome indicated that no single party emerged victorious, with the collective vote share falling short of 50%. This reality check should humble them and clarify that bullying tactics have no place in their partnership.
It is unnecessary to constantly remind the GNU partners of their role and identity. From the perspective of the South African Revolution, the GNU signifies a democratic regression and deconsolidation. At its core, it embodies a critical nexus of class and ideological struggle where inherent and non-antagonistic contradictions must be deliberately accentuated and heightened in order to foster transformative change.
It is an uneasy alliance that needs a balancing act. With Parties representing vastly different constituencies, it is a challenge to find common ground. Their precarious position does not obscure the reality that their interests are often opposed. This fragile coalition is navigating a treacherous terrain, where one misstep could lead to a collective downfall.
The GNU partners must recognise that their fate is intertwined and that cooperation is essential to avoid a disastrous outcome. They must put aside their differences and work towards a common goal. The fate of the nation depends on its ability to navigate this precarious landscape.
The Democratic Alliance (DA)’s consistent threat to pull out of the GNU whenever there are policy disagreements only to return after the international financial markets stabilise, raises concerns about their autonomy.
It appears that external forces, such as the Rating Agencies, IMF, and World Bank, may be influencing their decisions, rather than prioritizing the needs and interests of South African citizens.
This phenomenon is reminiscent of an external locus of control, where individuals or organisations attribute their outcomes to external factors beyond their control. In the DA’s case, this might manifest as a lack of agency and accountability, with decisions being driven by external pressures rather than principles or values.
The implication is far-reaching and concerning. If the DA is indeed controlled by outside forces, it undermines the democratic process and sovereignty of South Africa. The notion that international financial markets and neo-colonial interests are dictating the DA’s actions is a worrying trend that deserves scrutiny and attention from South African citizens. The political gaslighting strategy of the DA is not only morally reprehensible but also deeply insulting to the intelligence of South Africans.
President Donald Trump’s ill-informed statement on his X account regarding South Africa’s land confiscation validates and gives credence to my thesis. The AfriForum’s inflammatory actions are further exacerbating tensions and stirring up conflict, much like poking a beehive can provoke a swarm of angry bees.
Trump’s provocative message has already sparked a diplomatic row that could escalate into a severe diplomatic fallout between the two countries. Meanwhile, in our country, opportunistic political vultures are circling the GNU, ready to capitalise on its potential downfall. Some are already waiting at the doorstep of the GNU House, which they had initially rejected.
The Black people must unite and speak with one voice- by Black I mean- Africans- the People of Indian origin, the People of Colour, and the people of Khoisan descent who also bore the brunt of colonial and apartheid oppression and fought side by side in the trenches with Africans during the Great Trek- a mass migration of Boer settlers to the Eastern and northern parts of South Africa from 1835 to 1840.
If we stand united, the DA and AfriForum’s political gaslighting strategy will likely lose momentum and ultimately fall apart, exposing their true intentions for all to see. Let us be clear and unequivocally: as the people of South Africa, we shall not tolerate the resurgence of Neo-Apartheid and Neo-Colonialism which threaten to undermine our hard-won freedom and sovereignty.
We reject any attempt by the leaders of the DA - AfriForum and their newly found allies from the North to perpetuate systems of oppression and exploitation that seek to roll back our democratic gains. We demand a future where our country is free to chart its course, without interference or coercion from the external powers.
President Cyril Ramaphosa is set to deliver the State of the Nation Address (SONA) on Thursday, Thursday, the 6th of February 2025. He must use this platform to update the world on South Africa's land reform progress since 1994.
He must also assure the Nation and the World that the resolution of the Land Question in South Africa will leave no national group behind. He must also emphasise that signing the Expropriation Act is a significant step forward, replacing the draconian Expropriation Act of 1975 that was rooted in Apartheid and Colonialism.
The new Act aligns with the South African Constitution and upholds human rights. The South African government has a huge responsibility to eliminate all the vestiges of Apartheid and Colonialism. Those opposing the Expropriation Act want to maintain the status quo.
President Ramaphosa must candidly admit that the 1997 South African Land Reform Policy has failed to transfer agricultural land to Black people. Based on this policy government set a target of transferring 30% of agricultural land to Black Farmers by 2013. However, official data confirms that by the target deadline, only 6% had been successfully transferred. This substantial deviation from the stated objective reflects the ineffectiveness of the adopted policy instruments and the broader administrative inefficiencies associated with their implementation.
Disappointingly, an Audit Report that was released by the then Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform in 2017 revealed that:
- 72% of agricultural land remains in White ownership
- Africans own a mere 4%
- People of Colour own 15%
- People of Indian origin own just 5%
These statistics illustrate the limited impact of land reform efforts since 1994. Despite various policy initiatives, the prevailing land ownership structure has remained largely unchanged, perpetuating economic exclusion, spatial inequality, and racialised patterns of land tenure. The persistence of these disparities highlights the systemic weaknesses in land redistribution mechanisms and necessitates an urgent re-evaluation of government policy.
Compounding this failure is the reality that even among the land that has been redistributed, 80% remains fallow, primarily due to the lack of post-settlement support, inadequate financing, and ineffectiveness of programmes like the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP). These structural deficiencies have severely compromised the productive utilisation of transferred land, reinforcing the economic marginalization of land reform beneficiaries.
A particularly pernicious element that hindered land redistribution efforts is the application of the Willing Seller, Willing Buyer principle. While often cited as a cornerstone of land redistribution in South Africa, it was not an inherent part of the country’s Land Reform Policy but was rather smuggled by neoliberal World Bank advisers, who pressured the South African government to adopt a market-based approach to land redistribution.
This external intervention was fundamentally sinister, as it placed the burden of land acquisition on the State while protecting entrenched private landowners from any mandatory redistribution measures. By allowing the market to dictate the pace and pricing of land transfers, this model ensured that the process remained slow, expensive, and fundamentally ineffective.
It is therefore both justifiable and necessary for President Ramaphosa to engage in self-critique and acknowledge that, despite the international onslaught directed at the South African government, some of these failures were internally driven.
As he takes to the podium tomorrow to deliver the State of the Nation Address (SONA), he will stand at a critical juncture, wielding a double-edged sword. On one side, he must repel the globalization of the political gaslighting strategy orchestrated by the Democratic Alliance (DA) and AfriForum, who seek to distort and delegitimize South Africa’s land reform efforts.
On the other, he must account for the democratic government's failure to meaningfully implement the 1997 South African Land Reform Policy over the past 30 years. This is a moment that demands both fortitude and introspection—a balancing act that requires boldness in confronting external forces while demonstrating unwavering honesty in acknowledging domestic shortcomings.
President Ramaphosa must tread carefully, navigating this political tightrope with precision, clarity, and a resolute commitment to transformation.
*Maseti is a Political Economy Analyst, and he holds a Magister Philosophiae (M.Phil.) in South African Politics and Political Economy from the erstwhile University of Port Elizabeth (UPE) now Nelson Mandela University.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.