A referendum on the earth will not solve anything – OPINION

The ANC's ambivalence on land and expropriation without compensation now seem to land them in a swamp. This is what happens if you allow yourself to be dictated by parties such as the FEP without having properly considered the implications of the case. Sooner or later you will come into conflict with one of your support bases, something which a party like the EFF does not really need to worry about.

For example, President Cyril Ramaphosa was to hastily explain to King Goodwill Zwelithini that tribal land would not be confiscated in the state. These days, Ramaphosa is walking on eggshells like never before to please everyone. Only time will tell if it will succeed. So far, all of this proves that he and his party have not properly considered certain propositions and their implications, and now they have to face furious Zulu kings who threaten secession.

Therefore, the question of expropriation has become something to no matter who and confusion is prevalent. Ramaphosa promises that black earth will not be affected, but he says that expropriation without compensation is a sure thing. On how it will happen, it is as cryptic as an Egyptian tomb. And then we were told that only unproductive land would be taken.

Recently, Maïté Nkoana-Mashabane, Minister of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform, after months of silence about what is probably the most important problem in her portfolio, said the government would still sell public lands suitable for individuals and businesses. For the development. This was not the initial idea with the motion, but at least she broke her silence, even though neither she nor the government put their money where they got their mouths by immediately starting to sell land d & # 39; State. So the question is: why did not they start selling land so long ago, if that's their starting point? According to conservative estimates, about a quarter of all agricultural land belongs directly or indirectly to the state

All this confusion leaves the ANC with red faces (one of the obvious goals of the ANC). 39, EFF as a small party) and creates much doubt as to what is really at stake with the public hearings and the motion and what will ultimately result from the whole process. Public hearings have so far made it clear that members of the public who insist on agrarian reform are still largely in favor of private property and not state ownership – while the motion is essentially about property ownership. State on the earth.

Ambiguity and confusion (intentional or accidental) led John Dludlu, former editor of The Sowetan and self-proclaimed agrarian reform expert, to support Business Day that a referendum would be the only solution to the question of the land.

Again, it is a gross simplification of an extremely complex issue. Dludlu was likely referring to black and white people voting in a predictable way, leading to a net result in favor of blacks. However, it is not as simple as that.

Referendums and Elections

The difference between a referendum and an election is that a referendum usually seeks to approve or reject a single, specific proposal, policy, or law. put to the people of a country, giving them the choice to reject it or approve it. Usually, this is rather fixed with a very limited choice. In an election, however, you vote for a party or candidate and its broad ideological views, and that party or candidate, if it wins and governs, may subsequently enforce certain policies and decisions – but it does not. Is not certain that he is doing what they promised. An election is therefore much more vague and broad than the "yes-no" scenario and the specific questions characterizing a referendum.

Let's take Brexit as an example. The Conservative Party and David Cameron as British Prime Minister won over 50% of the vote in 2015 and Cameron used this dominant position to hold the Brexit referendum. Subsequently, he himself was opposed to Brexit, but he still wanted to organize the referendum, among others to silence members of his own party and put the issue on hold in order to focus on Other subjects without being distracted.

Against all odds – including Cameron's – the Brexit was approved in the referendum. However, it was not clear in advance that Cameron would indeed call the referendum, although that is very likely, while the referendum resulted in the uncertainty of today. on the Brexit. Boris Johnson, Steve Baker and David Davis recently resigned from Theresa May's firm because of the way she manages the Brexit process.

Be that as it may, there are similarities with the South African land scenario. As with Brexit, there is the question of exactly what to ask the public. In short, what question will be at stake and what options will be offered? Will it act on all lands, only farmland, or perhaps "white" farmland, unproductive farmland or unproductive "white" farmland? Will the mandate be expanded to include all properties, and will only tribal lands be excluded? The clbadification of these lands, the possible arguments against such a clbadification (for reasons other than Article 25 of the Constitution) and the bad publicity that the process can generate are already very problematic.

Second, what will happen to these lands? what are the options? Should it be expropriated by the state and placed under the control of the state ("black" lands included), or should it be removed from whites and given to blacks (in the case of "white" lands ")? Or should it be removed and sold at a later stage, as suggested by Nkoana-Mashabane? They could also follow the path of the 1992 National Party and demand that the current state-led agrarian reform process be supported or rejected – but it would be a useless and meaningless exercise. And think about what one of these options would mean for the "new dawn" and foreign investment of Ramaphosa, and for unity in the ANC.

The fact is that a referendum on something like land is a last resort. this should offer answers that can be implemented. Moreover, none of the permutations among the issues and options mentioned above will be accepted willy-nilly and will result in numerous counterattacks and challenges. Everyone could simply end up in a swamp (as in the case of the current public hearings) because the public becomes confused as to what it is essentially voting on and how the result will ultimately be implemented.

followed by a period of further ambivalence and inaction, the ANC will be humiliated and its supporters will be upset. This question – which could prove useful in diverting attention from their many other serious failures – will probably have to be put aside and the ANC will have to focus on more important issues (and their failures). . The current confusion of course suits the ANC and eliminates the question, but a referendum on the land is not going to give the certainty that Dludlu is hoping, and the ANC does not need to "talk about it." a referendum to create confusion about it. [19659002] Of course, many of us would now say: But the ANC (with or without the FEP) can possibly simply take the land and distribute it among the important members of the ANC and their loved ones and their friends? This is certainly true, but even a referendum will not allow this to be done in an orderly and legal manner; and a referendum will never justify it or protect the country and the ANC from its consequences. So, if they want to do that and damn the consequences, no referendum is necessary.

The complexity and problems of Brexit show how much an issue as complex as land reform in South Africa can not be solved. and an easy process or a single referendum. Also, beware of charlatan writers who try to solve such complex problems in one sentence, even as the ANC, with all its political power and many experts and gamers, has not managed to make.

Dr. Brink is Strategic Counselor for Community Affairs at Afriforum