Expropriation without compensation represents a profound danger for South Africa's immediate and long-term economic future
~ The "necessity of the state being a custodian of all South African land". This is a "state" that has proven to not having any skill; is very clumsy and incompetent. Consisting of an 'employment programme' based on "nepotism", patronage, cronyism" of employing select families and friends.This 'state' doesn't have a clue on the meaning of the words "merit" and "professionalism" and "qualifications". This 'state' is just managed by the most bungling, blundering, bumbling, and unproductive,unsuccessful, ineffectual,
inadequate, inferior, wanting and not up to scratch. They just fumble on.
This resolution is sponsored by one of the most corrupt, immoral, uncaring and unprincipled young so-called leader, who
was ever produced by South Africa.
He became a +R200 multi-millionaire at
age 32, from money he defrauded from the Limpopo government. His career is marked by a string of corrupt activities in the ANCYL, the NYDA and the EFF. There is a deep irony here.
The resolution is quite correct to refer to South Africa's history and the abuse of black people's property rights. He is a champion of just doing that and I have written extensively on his corrupt escapades.
His saving grace is "rubble rousing", at which he is a 'master' ~ trashing, vandalising, looting, burning government and private property
are his speciality. The question is, how does
he manage to achieve all of these things so puplicly and brazenly?
The answer is simple, he had protection from high up in government, from non other than Ubaba ka Duduzane. They created this elaborate 'perception' of being at war with
each other, but nothing is further from the truth.
He enjoyed the same protection U Baba got from #Abrams_NPA_783_charges. How is his new reform policy going to improve the lives of its beneficiaries, and enhances the economy as whole.
Well, it is not. The young man already has 2 farms and a number of properties under his belt. He is not interested in how it is going to improve the lives of the poor, but only his own life, that of his family and cronies. He only says "the poor" in public.
This resolution rests on a flawed diagnosis of the problems facing South Africa's land reform efforts, and proposes reckless and counterproductive responses.
First, its evidence is questionable. While there is consensus that the land reform programme is not performing well, the figures it purports to draw from the land audit – 'black people own less than 2% of rural land, and less that 7% of urban land' with 'black' referring to African' ~ are incorrect.
These numbers refer only to registered and titled properties held by individual owners.
The audit was unable to assign racial identity to around two thirds of the country's land.
This was held by companies and trusts, and a large portion belonged to the 'state' or is
'state trust land'.
Much 'state' land is in fact land in the former homelands, or land acquired for 'beneficiaries', but whose title has not been transferred to them. Lunch Bar! That wasn't the plan of government officials, Juju himself got his lands through this process.
Current land redistribution policy is to retain state ownership of land and to lease it to tenants. Remember, the 'state' is now 'black'. Small wonder that 'black' ownership of land remains modest, they claim. The 'state' doesn't include itself in this category of 'owners'.
Truth be told, some 46% of agricultural potential ~ land with fertile soil and good water sources, for example, mostly in the eastern parts of the country ~ is in the hands of government and historically disadvantaged individuals.
"other constraints, including increasing evidence of corruption by officials, the diversion of the land reform budget to elites, lack of political will, and lack of training and capacity have proved more serious stumbling blocks to land reform" says the audit report.
The Constitution in fact affords the state considerable latitude in achieving such goals. As the eminent agricultural economist, the late Dr Hans Binswanger-Mkhize, once wrote:
"This constitutional and policy framework is one of the most favourable in the world for successfully and rapidly implementing land reform."
The cheapening of South Africa's founding
law for populist political ends should greatly concern the country's constitutionalists.
Attacking Section 25 would undermine the very concept of property rights ~ not just those in land. It would render all property, or all people, vulnerable to an intrusive state and its officials: mines, factories, houses, artworks.
It should be borne in mind that the poor could be especially hard hit ~ there are numerous examples across the world of poor people with weak property rights being deprived of their property, land, livestock, houses and so on, by their governments in the name of development.
Beyond enabling the state to seize property without compensation, it suggests what amounts to wholesale nationalisation of South Africa's land resources. For the state to take 'custodianship' of all land would effectively be to end private ownership in land.
It should be understood that no one ~ land baron or smallholder, black or white ~ would really own anything. All would be at the mercy of the state. Do you think Juju would allow his 2 farms to be included in this situation?
Probably the most important problem with this resolution. It avoids any reference to economic considerations. Even Cyril Ramaphosa's assurances that expropriation without compensation will not compromise agricultural output and food security are absent.
Expropriation without compensation ~ as officials in the banking industry have warned ~ will undermine the capital base of agriculture. The risks associated with large volumes of credit to enable production are likely to make financial institutions exit the sector.
Government cannot match these financing requirements, farm debt stands at over
R160 billion at present.
This implies a predictable decline in production. The damage would not be limited to job losses, declining taxes and export receipts, and the disruption of value chains.
It would likely prove destabilising to the country as shortages become the norm and food price inflation takes off. Venezuela and Sudan have recently provided vivid illustrations of the dire consequences of compromised food security.
It is unlikely that South Africa would be able to avoid further downgrades or be able to attract much investment. Interactions with business people ~ foreign and domestic ~ has shown a deep concern about the possibility of this becoming official policy.
To reiterate: that the success of land reform policy should be measured by the extent to which it improves the lives of its beneficiaries, and enhances the economy as whole.
The EFF's reported resolution would do the just the opposit, and the country might end up being owned by the likes of foreigners like,
Lord Robin Renwick and his London cronies.
#asblif_rules
(Source : Terence Corrigan ~ Project Manager at the SA Institute of Race Relations (IRR) / News24)
No comments:
Post a Comment