Black Power Rising: The Heat Is On

Would Matlhomola Moshoeu have voted for DA leader Mmusi Maimane in the 2019 general elections? Nobody knows for certain what he would have done if he had lived a while longer. But what we know for now is this much: his life came to an unceremonious end after he had ostensibly stolen sunflowers from a commercial farm in Coligny. 

We also know that an expansive reservoir of mistrust between landless black communities and white commercial farmers in Coligny exists. So whatever the real cause behind the death of Moshoeu could be – one inconvenient fact remains true: he died after he had infringed on farmland belonging to a white farmer – at a time when land reform has become an enormously contentious matter. The EFF – whose raison d'être is the appropriation of commercial farmland without compensation and black economic empowerment – received 8.19% of the national vote in the 2016 local government elections.

Communications Minister Ayanda Dlodlo in February said commercial farmland was “stolen in the first place” and must be returned. President Jacob Zuma has said that the “land hunger is real” and called for a law enabling accelerated land reform – without compensation – to be enacted. A now-deleted tweet posted on the account of presidential hopeful and ANC NEC member Dr. Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma made mention of “the land they stole” after Save SA-led demonstrations against President Zuma in March. And Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa added: "The land question must be resolved. Land needs to be brought back to its rightful owners. We must find solutions." Ramaphosa said this in an address to ANC supporters in Grahamstown on Sunday, May 7. So 23 years after South Africa held its first democratic elections – the unambiguous sentiment being communicated by the ANC is: the owners of the land would like to see it returned now. South Africa – much like Zimbabwe in 2000 – seems set to introduce land reform without compensation.

The third phase of land reform in Zimbabwe arose from an unusual and extraordinary accumulation of socio-economic and electoral woes for the ruling party. Zanu-PF had lost the Constitutional Referendum in February 2000 to the MDC – a party that was barely one year old then – and this unanticipated loss had sent Zanu-PF into a panic and forewarned that a crushing loss in an election could well have been looming for the first very time in history. Calls for the immediate reallocation of farmland by veterans of the 1970s liberation war had grown boisterous and uncontrollable – as the intimidation of white farmers was rife on the farms. And a precarious economic situation had resulted in a much-devalued currency, hyperinflation, high unemployment and a dismal outlook for the future. Additionally, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had suspended $53 million in loans to Zimbabwe over the controversial land exercise, the deployment of troops to the DR Congo war, and a fast-deteriorating human rights situation. In spite of the aforementioned considerations – observers had believed that the state would not have the brazenness to redistribute land without compensation and risk economic isolation – not when the economy was underperforming and relations between the International Monetary Fund and World Bank and Harare had soured.

But once state-sanctioned farm invasions by war veterans and villagers commenced in earnest that fanciful idea faded fast. Radical land reform satisfied certain sectors of the electorate who for many years had remained excluded from mainstream economic activities. So radical land reform became a natural conclusion to the armed struggle for liberation for many uneducated war veterans and war collaborators who had no jobs or sustainable sources of income. And more notably: the MDC shilly-shallied when it came to land reform. While MDC President Morgan Tsvangirai did call for an orderly redistribution of land –the truth was: he could not calm the anxieties of restless peasants and urbanites that wanted land. By dabbling in endless conversations and planning and not doing much on the ground to show his support for the swift reallocation of land – Tsvangirai failed to match Mugabe. He could not or did not want to politicise land redistribution. You could say that was the right thing to do. But land redistribution is an emotional matter for the poorest of the poor - and not an intricate economic assignment. In a society shackled by the legacy of colonialism, land is simply not about elaborate deliberations, economic stability, food security and jobs.

Land reform is about righting historic inequalities and obtaining social justice for generations of peasants who have never had fertile land to farm on. In the eyes of poverty-stricken citizens who live in places like Coligny – 23 years of classlessness and nominal economic emancipation and neediness do not amount to one century of social and economic subjugation under colonialism and apartheid – and that makes for one dreadfully delicate scenario. But idealistic land reform is hardly exclusive to Zimbabwe or South Africa: Cuba embarked on the nationalisation of land after Fidel Castro assumed office. And in 1959 Che Guevara famously spoke about "the social justice that land redistribution brings about."

So how will the DA contest this intense longing to hasten land reform in South Africa? Although the DA has a credible land policy, it may not suffice in all honesty: the MDC had included the notion of ‘people-driven land reform’ in its 2000 manifesto, but that did little to convince rural voters and peasants that it actually did want to redistribute land – for the MDC had received substantial donations from white commercial farmers and white-owned businesses. So land reform will demand more than a tremendous agronomic policy. Land reform will require a fearless and visionary leader who has great force of personality: a leader who can make hard decisions and see them through to maturity. It will take a leader in the mould of Ariel Sharon of Israel to achieve land reform. The late Israeli Prime Minister not only fought in the Battle for Jerusalem and 1948 War, 1956 Suez War, Six-Day War, War of Attrition, Yom Kippur War and 1982 Lebanon War – all in a quest to secure land for his people - but Sharon also proposed the Disengagement Plan Implementation Law that facilitated the withdrawal of the Israeli army from Gaza and dismantling of all Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip in 2005. Sharon made vastly unpopular concessions to the Palestinians in return for peace – and you could say he became the quintessential Moses of his era, as he did everything he could when he had to fight and negotiate for land. Who then will become the Black Moses of South Africa and lead his or her people to the promised land that everyone has been talking about?

Watching footage of President Jacob Zuma dancing on stage at an ANC rally in the run up to the 2016 local elections, several things stand out: one – it is clear see that Mshlozi seems extraordinarily fit for a septuagenarian. Two: he has enviable dance skills – the man can move. Three: the crowd loves Mshlozi. He could be that man who becomes Black Moses. Like Mugabe: he could deliver the land at all costs. Zuma is an excellent orator and he has strong rural ties and an innate capacity to identify with villagers and low-class workers. If Maimane truly believes his party can win the general election in 2019 – he should concede that marginalised communities want land – and they want the promised land now – and he should further acknowledge that an accelerated land reform exercise will unearth immense support for the ANC in the 2019 elections. Maimane might call this recent push for land a political ploy by the ANC – or an election gimmick a la Zanu-PF: cynics claim Mugabe only introduced radical land reform because Zanu-PF had mismanaged the economy and feared defeat at the polls. Yes – that is probably a spot-on assessment of what happened then. Mugabe delivered the land at a rather auspicious moment in the history of Zimbabwe and he did not combat corruption with the freshness and dynamism with which he faced the land reallocation exercise –– because senior Zanu-PF and state officials appropriated 40% of the most lucrative farms – and neither did Mugabe deliver long-lasting prosperity to the entire nation – because the economy is in the doldrums.   

Yet the land had to be redistributed at some point in time – and up to 300 000 families (depending on who you ask) could well have benefitted from accelerated land reform after 1999. So unless someone else had come up with a radical resettlement plan that empowered peasants and safeguarded commercial farming concerns at the same time - a feasible scheme that had mass support – economic and political instability was inescapable – particularly after land become a bread and butter issue – because discussions centred on the land issue unavoidably encroached on fundamental matters such as jobs, poverty, health, education and infrastructure – and worse still – they did so in a historical (read colonial) context. Even if Zanu-PF had lost the 2000 general elections to the MDC, land invasions would in all likelihood have continued and possibly intensified. See when liberation war leaders like Mugabe and Zuma address rallies and recount how the land was taken and comrades died in the liberation struggle – a heartrending narrative is founded. When they talk about how a black man like Victor Mlotshwa was stuffed in a coffin by Theo Jackson and Willem Oosthuizen in Mpumalanga last year, and intimate that the revolution is not over until the land is securely back in the hands of the black population, they touch a raw nerve: for everyone evaluates their present wellbeing against historical standards (read before 1994). Which is why the EFF: a party that is just four yeas old, has been enjoying an upward trajectory since its establishment in 2013, while other relatively young parties – like the Congress of the People (COPE) – have failed to flourish as much in the political arena.  

So deliberations about land in the run up to the general elections in 2019 will remind a whole lot of people about why they were born poor and remain poor until this day – and in an environment inundated with inequality along racial lines – social and political spaces in South Africa could be fraught with tension when radical land resettlement commences. So what is the best remedy to this land conundrum? One realistic solution would be for commercial farmers and entities to donate farmland en mass to peasants very, very soon, and actively work towards the creation of a new class of black commercial farmers. Certainly it will require excellent planning and selfless economic sacrifice to usher in a decisive phase of land redistribution in South Africa. That is something the Commercial Farmers Union of Zimbabwe tried but failed to do as most of its members vacillated between intervention and inaction. Real transformation in South Africa will not be unbiased, easy or cost-conscious for the state or white commercial farmers – but a massive humanitarian-like effort to help the disadvantaged and landless remains the fairest form of redress when all other imaginable scenarios are carefully considered. Ariel Sharon hit the proverbial nail on the head when he read a speech in Sharm el Sheik, Egypt on 8 February 2005, which called on Israelis and Palestinians to do the right thing and ensure eternal peace and prosperity for all. He said: “we have passed difficult years, faced the most painful experiences and overcame them. The future lies before us. We are required to take difficult and controversial steps, but we must not miss the opportunity to try to achieve what we have wished for, for so many years: security, tranquillity and peace.”