Land reform is a problematic issue in southern Africa’s formerly white-dominated settler colonies. On the one hand, reform is clearly necessary and justified. On the other hand, well, look at Zimbabwe as a case study of how not to handle land redistribution. For years Robert Mugabe used the threat of land reform as a cudgel against white Zimbabweans and his opponents. And then once he finally opened the floodgates, there was no policy at all except an every-man-for-himself anarchy whereby Mugabe’s armed supporters, the so-called “war veterans” simply sole land that they neither could not intended to farm.
I would imagine that many are concerned by the potential implications of thenews that South African Presdient Jacob Zuma is considering “‘significant changes’ to the willing-buyer, willing-seller method of land redistribution”:
He said that in order to move ahead with land reform, the government will have to “investigate less costly alternative ways of land acquisition, by engaging with all stakeholders within the sector”.
He added: “The general view is that the willing-buyer, willing seller-model does not work. We will be seeking a much more pragmatic formula to land redistribution.
“It will be a formula that should address the issue as part of our country’s ongoing effort at national reconciliation.”
And he warned: “It should not be seen as a super-profit-making business venture.”
Zuma is absolutely right that there needs to be a coherent policy, that the country has economic exigencies, and that there needs to be a pragmatic approach to these issues. But now he has to follow through in developing a coherent, fair, systematic program that helps the country’s development, furthers its agricultural production, and still allows white farmers to feel invested in South Africa. Land reform is an easy issue for populist pandering, something Zuma is very good at. But the devil, as they say, is in the details.
