At
the
end
of
August,
President
Ramaphosa
offered some
remarks at
the
Zimbabwe
Agricultural
Show
on
the
importance
of
land
reform.
The
comments
seemed
unremarkable.
He
said
that
land
reform
was
necessary
to
address
historical
injustices,
and
that
land
reform
can
deliver
important
benefits
for
those
who
have
been
excluded.
He
argued
that
investment
in
technology
and
infrastructure
to
support
agriculture
is
important.
Nothing
remotely
controversial
there,
surely?
A
commitment
to
land
reform
is
of
course
central
to
national
policy
in
South
Africa,
as
was
again
highlighted
in a
speech
by
Minister
Mzwanele
Nyhontso
of
Land
Reform
and
Rural
Development at
the
recent Land,
Life
and
Society
conference in
Cape
Town.
He
noted
how
“land
reform
is
part
of
climate
justice,
food
justice,
and
social
justice,”
noting
that
“We
must
ensure
that
land
reform
is
not
reduced
to
narrow
market
transfers
but
is
about
the
redistribution
of
power,
resources,
and
dignity.”
He
committed
to
carrying
the
debates
in
the
conference
forward
to
the
forthcoming G20
discussions
in
South
Africa.
This
is
vitally
important
given
that
land
reform
is
so
central
to
the
summit
themes
of
solidarity,
equality
and
sustainability.
However,
as
soon
as
the
comments
were
uttered
in
Harare
in
August
all
hell
broke
loose
in
South
Africa,
with all
sorts
of
people –
mostly
associated
with
large-scale
farming
lobbies
–
objecting.
The
spokesperson
for
the
Democratic
Alliance, Willie
Aucamp,
notionally
part
of
the
government
of
national
unity,
was
outraged. The
FW
De
Klerk
Foundation
put
out
a statement cautioning
against
praising
Zimbabwe. A
prominent
agricultural
economist,
and
a
great
supporter
of
large-scale
commercial
farming,
argued
that
Zimbabwe’s
land
reform
was
a
failure
and
no
model
for
South
Africa.
And
academic
Twitter commentators from
the
UK
even
weighed
in.
The
reactions
were
nothing
short
of
hysterical.
The
idea
that
Zimbabwe
had
anything
to
offer
South
Africa
was
abhorrent!
Myths
and
realities
Nowhere
in
this
‘debate’
were
the
facts
about
Zimbabwe’s
land
reform
put
forward.
A
close
colleague
was
invited
onto
South
African
TV
to
offer
some
perspectives
from
our
research,
but
his
interview
was
never
broadcast.
It
didn’t
fit
the
narrative.
We
of
course
remember
all
this
from
the
early
2000s
in
Zimbabwe
when
the
reactions
to
Zimbabwe’s
land
reform
were
roundly
condemned
by
liberal
elites
both
in
South
Africa
and
elsewhere,
particularly
the
UK.
Emotion
overtook
facts,
and
in
the
early
days
there
was
limited
research
information
to
counter
these
well-trodden
narratives
about
the
‘catastrophe’
of
land
reform.
In
Zimbabwe,
this
has
happily
changed,
and
the
contributions
of
the Sam
Moyo
African
Institute
for
Agrarian
Studies amongst
many
others,
including
our
own
work
and
the
2010
book Zimbabwe’s
Land
Reform:
Myths
and
Realities,
has
provided
a
more
balanced
picture.
Not
all
positive
by
any
means,
but
with
important
lessons
–
including
for
South
Africa.
The
reaction
to
the 2024
Expropriation
Act in
South
Africa
has
elicited
so
many
similar
responses,
with
people
arguing
that
South
Africa
will
surely
follow
the
(assumed)
terrible
fate
of
Zimbabwe
if
it
is
followed.
The
humiliating
dressing
down
that
President
Ramaphosa
and
team
got
on their
visit
to
the
White
House was
focused
on
the
land
expropriation,
channelling
the
ire
of
Elon
Musk
and
his
white
relatives
and
friends
in
South
Africa.
The
bizarre
talk
of
‘white
genocide’
and
the
summary
removal
of
whites
from
their
land
had
no
relation
to
facts
and
the
photos
offered
to
the
visiting
South
Africans
included
ones
that
had
nothing
to
do
with
South
Africa.
Facts
don’t
matter
in
these
emotive
situations,
and
even
the
assembled
golfers
who
joined
the
visiting
mission
were
unable
to
offset
the
Trump
tirade.
As
more
sane
commentators
have
pointed
out,
the
Act
offers
only
a
limited
set
of
options
for
expropriation
without
compensation,
and
that
these
are
unlikely
to
be
applied
in
any
case.
Expropriation
by
the
state
for
public
purposes
and
in
the
public
interest
is
a
standard
route
in
all
countries
and
does
not
undermine
the
supposed
sanctity
of
private
property.
As
long
as
effectively
governed
by
land
law
and
associated
land
administration
measures,
then
such
an
approach
can
be
important
as
part
of
wider
state
planning
of
land
use.
Compensation
at
appropriate
levels
should
always
be
part
of
a
land
redistribution
programme.
Zimbabwe
for
example
has
this
enshrined
in
the
2013
Constitution
and
compensation
for
‘improvements’
(not
land)
has
been
agreed
and
indeed
has
been
paid
since
the
early
days
of
the
land
reform
under
President
Mugabe,
although
at
inadequate
levels.
Since
the
signing
of
the Global
Compensation
Deed in
July
2020,
in
Zimbabwe
a
total
amount
has
been
agreed
and
payments
are
being
made,
although
mechanisms
of
payment
are
still
be
wrangled
over.
Why
the
confusion?
So
why
these
reactions?
What
is
behind
them,
and
how
can
they
be
countered?
The
first
and
most
obvious
reason
is
that
political
interests
are
at
play.
Large-scale
white
farming
is
an
important
lobby
in
South
Africa
as
it
was
in
Zimbabwe,
with
significant
capital
behind
it
and
with
strong
political
connections,
stretching
to
international
capitals
and
legislatures.
The
forcefulness
of
some
who
argue
against
Zimbabwe’s
land
reform
in
the
UK
parliament,
for
example,
reflects
strong
connections
dating
back
to
colonial
land
ownership.
Second,
these
lobby
groups
reflect
racial
differences
and
the
legacy
of
apartheid
and
colonialism
–
even
if
sometimes
they
are
covered
by
black
faces;
those
Jacob
Zuma
called
the ‘clever
blacks.’ That
land,
race
and
colonial
history
are
deeply
entwined
in
the
former
settler
economies
of
southern
Africa
is
undeniable.
That
its
resonances
exist
today
is
clearly
apparent
in
these
debates.
Third,
there
are
certain
assumptions
so
deeply
embedded
in
cultural
psyches
that
they
are
difficult
to
dislodge.
The
most
prominent
of
these
is
the
idea
of
the
primacy
of
private
property
rights
with freehold
title as
the
only
route
to
tenure
security,
investment
and
economic
growth.
And,
in
a
linked
equally
strong
narrative,
that large-scale
farms are
the
only
ones
that
are
viable.
That
such
assumptions
have
been
debunked
by
international
research
over
so
many
decades
doesn’t
seem
to
matter;
it
is
an
article
of
faith.
In
South
Africa,
the
‘property
rights
clause’
is
like
the
Second
Amendment
in
the
US,
and
the
right
to
bear
arms.
Why
evidence-based
research
remains
important
Can
we
ever
get
over
these
blockages
to
progressive
land
reform?
I
sometimes
wonder,
when
you
encounter
these
occasional
outbursts.
My
commitment
–
along
with
many,
many
others
–
is
to
continue
to
do
research
to
challenge
the
myths,
to
develop
evidence-based
alternative
narratives
and
provide
policymakers
and
others
the
tools
to
make
different
arguments.
Not
easy
and
frequently
frustrating,
but
‘aluta
continua’
as
the
saying
goes!
This
post
was
written
by Ian
Scoones and
first
appeared
on Zimbabweland.
Photo
credits:
South
African
presidency,
flickr
Post
published
in:
Agriculture