There is a common view among some South Africans that after 24 years of democracy, less than 10% of the land in South Africa belongs to the majority of the population. Someone began to circulate the narrative that the biggest issue relating to the slow pace of land reform is the ‘willing seller, willing buyer’ principle – and that this is prescribed by the Constitution (which is untrue). Together with this, the second biggest obstacle is described as the “equitable compensation” for land, which is prescribed in section 25 of the Constitution. That’s where the call for expropriation without compensation (EWC) originated and gained momentum. Change section 25 of the Constitution, return land without any compensation and the “original sin” will simply vanish in a flash!

What really went wrong? Who should get the blame? Is it the property owners who resolutely cling to their (for some, stolen) land? Is it the estate agents and brokers? Section 25(5) requires that the State “must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis”. Furthermore, 25(8) states: “No provision of this section may impede the State from taking legislative and other measures to achieve land, water and related reform, in order to correct the results of past racial discrimination”. So land reform is, according to the Constitution, the responsibility of the State.

A first national dialogue on land reform took place at the end of March in Johannesburg at the request of the ANC members of the Parliamentary Review Committee. This was ostensibly an attempt by the Ramaphosa faction within the ANC to wrest ownership of the process from the EFF (and Zuma supporters), who had of late been setting the pace in the debate.

The pronouncements of ANC officials at the dialogue brought some interesting and important issues to light. A key issue is that of how the officially-documented Nasrec decision on land reform differs from that which was reported in the media after the elective conference.

While expropriation without compensation (EWC) would be one of the key mechanisms for land reform (as part of radical socio-economic transformation), it was emphasised that its implementation should ensure that future investment in the economy is not undermined (my emphasis),and that agricultural production and food security are not harmed. Implementation should also not harm other sectors of the economy (my emphasis). Further, there should be a focus on land owned by the State, especially abandoned, unused and underutilised land (not necessarily agricultural land). The conditions for EWC in the official Nasrec decision are clearly stronger than initially reported.  They are even more powerful when compared with the hastily compiled, sloppily-worded amendment to the EFF parliamentary motion regarding the changes to section 25. This only makes mention of implementation which “increases agricultural production and improves food security”.

What is ‘expropriation without compensation’ (EWC), where does it come from – and what are its implications? 

 To start with, EWC makes no sense. 

• Property rights are an indispensable requirement for all successful economies and for all genuine democracies.
• Despite the ANC’s qualifications of EWC, any dilution of property rights would inevitably have a negative impact on agricultural stability, food security, investment and economic growth.
• EWC is unnecessary.  Section 25 of the Constitution already makes adequate provision for land reform.  The failure of 90% of the government’s land reform initiatives is, according to the recent Report of the High Level Panel, due to the incapacity of government departments and the corruption of state officials. What reason is there to suppose that land redistribution arising from EWC would fare any better?
• EWC would cause a financial crisis for banks and the Land Bank, which are owed R170 billion by the agricultural sector.
• Expropriation is not necessary.  Millions of hectares of government-owned land are available for redistribution and 20 000 farms are up for sale. 
• The average age of commercial farmers is over 60.  Thousands of farmers are leaving the land because of farm murders, recurrent droughts and uncertainty caused by land reform.  Some of our best young farmers are emigrating to countries where their skills are eagerly sought.  The ANC’s real challenge may in future be to keep farmers – of whatever race – with proven food-producing abilities on the land.  
• There are other promising approaches to land reform. Organisedagriculture has repeatedly – but without any effective response – made practical proposals for the development of a prosperous black agricultural sector – and land reform schemes in the Western Cape have met with considerable success. 
• The ANC’s approach to land reform would actually undermine black property rights.  It would not result in greater black land ownership – but in most cases state custodianship. EWC would also undermine the property rights of the 7.5 million black households that own their homes.  The value of these homes (R1.5 trillion plus) is at least five times the total value of all the agricultural land in South Africa. 
  

The National Forum for Dialogue on Land Reform, held at the at the end of March in Johannesburg, was the first of many public dialogues on the land question, more specifically whether section 25 of the Constitution should be amended to enable expropriation without compensation (EWC). The Dialogue was organised – at the request of the (ANC members of the) Constitutional Review Committee – by the Gordon Institute for Business Science (GIBS), Roelf Meyer’s In Transformation Initiative and the Nelson Mandela University. Most organisations and individuals were invited at very short notice: in the case of the FW de Klerk Foundation, the invite came less than a week before the Dialogue took place. The agenda boasted a notable slate of speakers on the most topical issue confronting South Africa. Despite initial concerns about who was invited and who not, the Foundation  –  whose theme for 2017/18 is Land and Property – took the opportunity attend the two-day meeting. Ivor Jenkins, one of the organisers, confirmed that the event was organised in a very short space of time, and that some organisations had erroneously not been invited in time, but in the end those who really wanted to attend, could do so.