I am a Black South African citizen

I am a Black South African citizen ...✋

~ I am Going To Speak ~ Independently; I am Going to Write Freely and Democratically ! ! !

This is just a word of advice to the African National Congress government: You, as government, you are going to cause the most unbelievably "constitutional debacle" in the history of all democratic states.

You see? Your products? the "30% pass rate Matriculants" really believe you and every word you are saying... that:

~ "their land was stolen by all white people living today" ~

Fact and Truth..The Union of South Africa 1902

The British, after defeating the Boer Republics, subequently declared most Southern African lands as colonies of Great Britain; from what is now Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa. Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho opted to go the route of "protectorate states" of Great Britain.... sort of like the homeland bantustans under Apartheid, called "self-governing homelands" under direct control of the South African government.

Fact and Truth..The Republic of South Africa 1961....

South Africa became a Republic, but on condition it remained part of the Great Britain Commonwealth of Nations.

(covered elsewhere in my posts.)

Fact and Truth..
The Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA): 1991

CODESA was a process that was influenced
by a number of stake-holders like Britain,
USA, Japan, West Germany and giant local factory and mine owners; the banks, the Nationalist Party, the ANC and other lesser forces.

The purpose of the process was to ensure
that in the long and short term, the interests
of capitalism and imperialism in Southern
Africa are safeguarded through stability.

It was a by-product of ANC officials who
had political ambitions to occupy government posts, including the presidency, those who would be duly rewarded for their co-operation with the capitalists and imperialists.

South Africa became a Democratic Republic
with a government of National Unity, under the majority rule of the African National Congress (ANC); but it also remained part of Great Britain's managed Commonwealth of Nations.

Now with the EFF misguided:
"land expropriation without compensation";

The youth are now on the rampage... invading each and every piece of land they can see, even land that is owned by other black people...

Government? You should rather be informing young black people that they should rid themselves of the view that all white people walking around South Africa today own land.
Furthermore; You yourselves as government, know this to be true..that...

Those white people who do own land today, they bought it and you, as government, you issued the "legal tender" documents called "TITLE DEEDS". Issued by the New
SA Government".

To my mind and growing up experience,
I have never come accross someone called van Riebeeck who still own land today in South Africa, since 1902..

Historical processes did take place... up to the point were you took control of the country, it's land and it's people.

You did this after adopting a 'constitution' that made this country a 'sovereign independent state'. There is nowhere in that "constitution" that states that "this land is stolen property".

If it was so? Then, you as government, could've taken that "stolen land" back from them long time ago. You controlled the police, the army the navy and the airforce.

You had a full quarter century to do so without prejudice ~ BUT if "the whites" produce and show you a "TITLE DEED" that was issued by your government.

Then frankly you don't have "a leg to stand on" in any Court of this Country and even the International Criminal Court (ICC). Unless, you can counter-produce another "TITLE DEED" that says: “"This Is Government Land.”"..

Blacks can hate me if they want to... 😣

Haibo! This is "nonsense" nje! We are gonna
be "a laughing stock" of the everybody in the international arena.

Lawrence Ntlokoa

IS SOUTH AFRICA'S YOUTH FIT TO GEAR THE WHEELS OF CHANGE?

IS SOUTH AFRICA'S YOUT FIT TO GEAR THE WHEELS OF CHANGE?

Dumisa Mbuwa asks the question and ellaborate.

It is no longer a myth that the progress of South Africa`s youth was never at the forefront of our democracy in 1994. Nor was our youth, genuinely regarded as an instrumental part of the struggle against apartheid.

This reality is becoming evident by the day, despite the several reactional advances by the ANC government to make up for missed opportunities to qualitatively develop the youth of South Africa with the same historical vigour we used when conquering Apartheid.

Thus, as we celebrate Freedom Day, we ought to ask ourselves: has this grand democracy, which was greatly suffered and unimaginably sacrificed for, served our nation's best interests? Or has it merely elevated only those who rightly brought about its realisation by putting them in the government at our expense?

For some time now, there has been a sustained debate around the issue of land expropriation without compensation; how its delay in implementation (full nationalisation) has been regarded as the core impediment for real growth and development our country has needed for 24 years.

This view has been hammered into our minds everyday by embattled politicians that we end up being convinced that it is shared by all South Africans; especially black.

This is despite the fact that it has been proven several times that it is only a very marginal fraction of South Africans who believe that more land reform will indeed bring about the prosperity the country needs.

Comprehensive opinion polls commissioned by the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) have repeatedly shown that most black South Africans have little interest in land reform. Their 2016 field survey indicated that only 1% of black respondents (down from 2% the previous year) indicated 'more land reform' as the 'best way to improve lives'.

By contrast, an overwhelming 73% of black people saw 'more jobs and better education' as the 'best way' for them to get ahead.
Conversely, the IRR`s 2017 field survey showed that only 1% of black respondents identified 'speeding up land reform' as a top priority for the government. Even among people who lost land under apartheid laws, and were later compensated, most opted for cash compensation than having actual land restored to them.

Of the roughly 76 000 successful claims in post-apartheid South Africa’s land restitution process which begun in 1994, only about 5 800 chose to have land returned to them. The remaining 92% preferred cash compensation.

Similar results were found from a September 2017 opinion survey by eNCA, carried out among some 5 000 people, including roughly 2 700 self-declared ANC voters. Even here, most South Africans wanted "more pro-business policies", over "more radical policies/redistribution".

This is against the backdrop of the Government`s Land Survey, which has been used both by the ANC and the EFF to advance the misleading notion that SA blacks own less than 2% of rural land; and less than 7% of urban land. While whites own over 72% of farm land.

These claims form the basis of the impending onslaught of property rights, that are currently protected by our country`s Constitution. The same property rights black people were deprived from having by the apartheid government.

It is for this reason, that in response, the IRR published a study early this year, where they have shown and proven that Black South Africans actually own more land than Whites and that the government is the biggest owner of land in the country (46%).

For example, of the 3.2m ha of the urban land owned by 6.2 million individual South Africans, 3.2 million (56%) is owned by Black South Africans. While 1.55 (26%) is White and the rest is divided between Coloured’s (507 829), Indians (414 069) and Others.

Even when you look at the individually owned farmland by whites (the focus of the ANC/EFF`s claims); you will find that a substantial majority of this white-owned land is located in arid or semi-arid areas of the country. 43,1% is located in the Northern Cape alone, 11,3% in the Eastern Cape (most of it in the drier western parts of the province), 10,14% of it in the Western Cape, and 14,1% in the Free State.

The huge overlays that exist between such land and the arid or semi-arid areas in the western part of the country make this land unsuitable for cultivation in the absence of irrigation.

This is in addition to 13,1 million hectares (6,6% of the extent of SA) of agricultural land has been acquired and transferred by the government since 1994 through its land redistribution programme.

Little of this land would be individually owned today as most land claims and redistribution projects had multiple beneficiaries, and furthermore, since 2009, the government has held back from granting title to the beneficiaries of the land redistribution programme. In addition, government has made no effort to ensure those living on their ancestral land in former homeland areas acquire individual title to their land.

Now that we have established how faulty the Land debate is, especially since it is deeply predicated on lies and abysmal political propagandas, instead of viable solutions for taking our country forward, what can help take us forward?

Qualitative education and jobs!

You don`t have to be a social scientist to arrive at the realisation that South Africans need more of these than land. This observation is crystallised by the fact that between 2011 - 2016, over a million South Africans (mostly young) have migrated from "worse-off" provinces such as the Eastern Cape, to "better performing provinces" such as Cape Town and Johannesburg; looking qualitative education and jobs (not land).

Credit must be given to those young people, who in response to poverty and massive unemployment start initiatives that are primarily aimed at tackling these stubborn problems. Particularly aspiring entrepreneurs, who find and establish opportunities where they have been considered to have long expired.

Yet, these individuals are but a very small drop in the ocean of insecurity that affects close to 60% of unemployed young South Africans, almost like unemployed university graduates, who make up 170 000 of the 3.5 million unemployed youth.

What our country needs is comprehensive investment into rigorous and real-income job generating sectors such as manufacturing; where our young people can be able to create what the world consumes. Just as with China, where they make the dashiki`s, doeks, cellphones, tablets, stoves, microwaves and even electric bulbs; that we in turn spend billions of rands in consuming, instead of creating.

While there is a great deal of importance placed on higher university education, (particularly for black students) by the ANC government via "free" university education, internships for graduates. It must always be borne in mind that these endeavours are very meager in comparison to grade 4's who cannot read to understand, many learners still progress into higher grades because teachers are unable to cater to the individual needs of learners due to the size of their classrooms.

These learners eventually dropout mid-high school or fail grade 12.

Of what value is it to spend billions in squeezing learners into universities, when only 20% of them complete their undergraduate programs on time and the rest struggle mainly because of the higher reading levels required at university and the lack of funds to obtain the support and resources to succeed?

Is it not obvious then that we are putting too much emphasis on what uplifts only a few (university education), when the millions of young South Africans could be better off at (currently under-funded) TVET colleges; where they can be trained and placed into employment programs as technicians, electricians, carpenters, plumbers, manufacturers, and many other skills that are needed to rebuild our economy. Government jobs cannot be the fallback, which is currently where most South Africans work.

The simple truth is that not all young people can be doctors, entrepreneurs, lawyers, inventors, scientists, filmmakers or even record producers.

To deny them focus on other avenues which could amplify their talents and serve our country with their output, is to deny the very thing that needs their hands to be sustained - Freedom!

Let us Rise!

Our Future is no longer in the colours of our respective flags and races.

It is on a common need to build a socio-economically free South Africa, where all can live in complete harmony and relish every fruit of her prosperity.

© 2018 Dumisa Mbuwa
All Rights Reserved.

Ramaphosa and the EFF's dodgy land stats

Ramaphosa and the EFF's dodgy land stats.

Ramaphosa and the EFF's dodgy land stats

The Ratcatcher | 

22 March 2018

The Ratcatcher examines the racial land-ownership data on which the EWC push is being justified

The numbers in the 2017 State Land Audit report on “Private Land Ownership by Race, Gender and Nationality” released in February this year have been used extensively to motivate for Expropriation Without Compensation of white owned land. In the EFF motion to amend Section 25 of the constitution the Audit is cited as the source for the claim “that black people own less than 2% of rural land, and less than 7% of urban land”.

President Ramaphosa also used the numbers contained in the report recently in the National Assembly, saying that “While more than 3 million hectares of land was restored between 1995 and 2014, the Land Audit Report indicates that white people in our country still own around 72% of the farms owned by individuals; Coloured people in our country own 15%; and Indians 5% and Africans -- who constitute the majority of the people who live in this beautiful land -- only own 4%."

Given the centrality of these figures to the demand for either eradicating (EFF) or eroding (ANC) property rights it is important to examine them closely. It is worth noting at the start that there are numerous numerical errors in the text and tables of the report, and so the reliability of the data presented below is not beyond question.

Methodology

The methodology used to conduct this land audit was to go and extract information on all property registered with the Deeds Office. This was then combined with cadastral information held by the Surveyor General to determine the extent of the properties. The nationality of origin and gender of individual property owners was acquired from the Department of Home Affairs’ population register and their race from the highly confidential census data held by Statistics South Africa.

The report states that 114m ha of 122m ha of land in South Africa is registered with the Deeds Office. The remaining 7,7m ha is unregistered trust state land in the Eastern Cape and Limpopo. The registered land falls into only three categories: “erven” (urban land - 3,2m ha), agricultural holdings (a nominal 340 000 hectares) and “farms” (110,7m ha.) The study classified land held by companies (presumably including that held by state-owned enterprises), trusts, individuals, community-based organisations as “private” and land owned by “national government, municipalities, provincial government, public entities, public schools” as state-owned. This included land held in the name of Ingonyama Trust in Kwazulu-Natal. Private land came to 94m ha (77%), leaving the remainder as all state-owned land (including the unregistered state trust land) at 28m ha (23%).

Urban land

The report states that 722 667 ha - 22,6% of the 3,2m ha total - of erven are individually owned by 6 million people, of whom 3,32m were black African (56%), 1,55m white (26%), 507 829 Coloured, 414 069 Indian (6,9%) and 173 418 (2,9%) “other.” If one looks at the land extent the situation appears to be far less balanced however.

357 507 ha are apparently owned by whites (49,5%), 219 033 ha (30,3%) by black Africans, 54 522 ha (7,5%) by Coloureds, 55 909 ha (7,7%) by Indians, 14 332 ha (2%), 14 332 ha under co-ownership (2%) and 21 365 (3%) by others. The EFF’s claim that black people own “less than 7% of urban land” is based on this figure. They have divided the 219 033 ha individually held by black Africans over the total area covered by erven (3,2m ha), which comes to 6,85%.

Incidentally, using precisely the same method of calculation one could say that “only” 11% of urban land was owned by white people. The land audit report does not provide figures for erven other than those individually owned, or falling under sectional title (another 50 000 ha). It does not provide figures for “privately-owned” land in total, or the extent of erven owned by the state and parastatal corporations. The latter must be a massive proportion of the total however.

Moreover, if one looks at white individual erven ownership by province it is clear that there is some anomaly with the Northern Cape figures. 84 041 white individuals in the Northern Cape, who make up a mere 5,4% of all white erven owners, apparently own 152 624 ha of erven. This is 42,7% of the total area of erven owned by whites, and 21,1% of the total area of individually-owned erven in the entire country. According to the land audit white individuals in the urban areas of the Northern Cape own an average of 1,8 ha each (4,9 acres). This seems implausible, and given the small population of the province, it is largely irrelevant to understanding urban land ownership patterns across the country.

Excluding the Northern Cape from these figures changes the picture significantly. Outside of this province 38.1% of individually owned erven are owned by white people, 40,2% by black Africans, 7,8% by Coloureds and 7,9% by Indians. Even here about half of the remaining extent of erven, individually owned by whites, is in the Western Cape. In the seven more eastern provinces whites own 26,5% of the area of individually owned erven, black Africans 53,3%, Coloureds 6,8% and Indians 7,8%. Accepting the figures for the other provinces are correct, according to the land audit black Africans own more individually owned “urban land” than whites in seven of nine provinces, and a majority of such land in four provinces. This is before including the massive share of urban land owned by municipalities, and other state or parastatal bodies. See table below.

Table 1: Individually-owned erven (“urban” areas) by race and province in South Africa

“Rural” land

According to the figures provided by the 2017 land audit land categorised as “erven” at the Deeds Office makes up 2,6% of the extent of South Africa, “agricultural holdings” 0,3% and “farms” 90,8%. It is important to note here that the reference to “farm” is a classification of a piece of land not a description of its use, and such land could be used for a variety of different purposes other than agriculture. For example it could form a section of a national park, game reserve, water reservoir, communal area, or cover a mining or forestry operation. The land audit report is mistaken to refer to it on occasion as “farmland”. The 6,3% remainder is the unregistered state trust land referred to earlier.

In terms of ownership 30,4% of the total extent of the country is – according to the figures in the land audit - in the hands of individuals, 24% in the hands of trusts, 22,9% in state hands, 19% in the hands of companies, 2,9% in the hands of Community-Based Organisations, and 0,7% under co-ownership. As with erven, the report provides only a detailed provincial breakdown for “farms” and agricultural holdings owned by individual owners (by race and gender) only.

It is here that one finds the basis for the claim – employed by the EFF, Ramaphosa and others – that 72% of individually owned land is in the hands of whites. See table below.

Table 2: Individual land ownership of farms and agricultural holdings by race in South Africa

Race	Hectares	% of total
Whites	26 663 144	71.9%
Blacks	1 314 873	3.5%
Coloureds	5 371 383	14.5%
Indians	2 031 790	5.5%
Others	1 271 562	3.4%
Co-owned	425 537	1.1%
Total	37 078 289	100%

The focus on this particular statistic is misleading for three reasons. Firstly, such individually-owned land makes up less than a third of the extent of land in South Africa, according to the land audit itself. This means that individually-owned land, held by whites, makes up only 21.9% of the extent of South Africa. This is less than the extent held by the state. There is substantial variation by province with under 10% of the total extent of Limpopo and KZN individually owned by white “farm” owners, 12.6% in Mpumalanga, 15,1% in Gauteng, 17,8% in the Eastern Cape. 

Secondly, as the provincial breakdown of these figures make clear, this pays no regard to the agricultural potential or value of the land. A substantial majority of this individually-owned white-owned land is located in arid or semi-arid areas in the western part of the country. 43,1% is located in the Northern Cape alone, 11,3% in the Eastern Cape (most of it in the drier western parts of the province), 10,14% of it in the Western Cape, and 14,1% in the Free State. As the land capability map below illustrates there is thus a huge overlay between such land and the arid or semi-arid areas in the western part of the country, which are not suitable for cultivation (in the absence of irrigation).

In terms of the carrying capacity for livestock of natural pasturage Ernest Pringle has pointed out previously “In the high rainfall eastern areas of the country, the average carrying capacity is 1:4, whereas in the arid western areas the average is 1:16. This means that one hectare of land in the former region can produce the same as 4 hectares in the latter, and the value of the land should therefore be 4 times higher.”

Map of land capability in South Africa (the blues and green areas are potentially arable land)

Thirdly, the ANC and EFF have seized on a metric that effectively ‘disappears’ both the land that has been transferred to black hands by the ANC government since 1994, and that was in black hands pre-1994. Ramaphosa’s suggestion that despite 3,1m hectares being “restored” between 1994 and 2014 black African people (through land restitution) “only own 4%” of individually owned land is somewhat disingenuous.

First-off the more appropriate figure for “restoration” is in fact 8,1 million hectares (6,6% of the extent of SA), as a further 5 million hectares of agricultural land has been acquired and transferred by government since 1994 through its land redistribution programme. (In an area covering another 2,2m hectares financial compensation was accepted by claimants in lieu of land restitution).

Little of this land would be individually owned today as most land claims and redistribution projects had multiple beneficiaries, and furthermore since 2009 the government has held back from granting title to the beneficiaries of the land redistribution programme. In addition, government has made no effort to ensure those living on their ancestral land in former homeland areas acquire individual title to their land. It is unclear how such restituted and redistributed land was categorised by the land audit – other than as not individually owned - but it quite clearly qualifies as ‘black owned’ land, and it would have taken little to quantify it accordingly in the report.

If one measures the individually white owned land by province against former homeland areas and land restituted and redistributed post-1994 then one gets a far more balanced (though still highly incomplete) picture of land ownership patterns, notably in the wetter eastern regions of the country (the Free State being the exception here). See table below.

Table 3: Individually white-owned land vs. communally black-owned land by province 

Province	Extent of province	Former homeland areas	% of total extent	Land owned white individuals 2017	% of total extent	Land restituted or redistributed post -1994	% of extent	As % of ind. white owned land 2017
EC	16 891 700	5 757 277	34.1%	3 007 709	17.8%	650 123	3.8%	21.6%
FS	12 982 600	238 582	1.8%	3 748 192	28.9%	444 956	3.4%	11.9%
GP	1 817 800	91 447	5.0%	275 021	15.1%	67 257	3.7%	24.5%
KZN	9 332 800	4 223 491	45.3%	853 152	9.1%	1 333 087	14.3%	156.3%
LP	12 575 600	3 399 298	27.0%	1 139 454	9.1%	806 256	6.4%	70.8%
MP	7 649 500	954 621	12.5%	967 634	12.6%	924 209	12.1%	95.5%
NW	10 488 100	2 079 612	19.8%	2 408 880	23.0%	853 551	8.1%	35.4%
NC	37 288 800	1 689 794	4.5%	11 498 449	30.8%	1 998 674	5.4%	17.4%
WC	12 946 300	0	0.0%	2 764 652	21.4%	543 292	4.2%	19.7%
Total	121 973 200	18 434 122	15.1%	26 663 144	21.9%	7 621 406	6.2%	28.6%

Conclusion

It is striking then that in a debate on such import for the future of the country the proponents of expropriation without compensation have employed such partial and misleading statistics. Indeed, there seems to have been a deliberate focus by the ANC and EFF on a particular metric that would exaggerate the discrepancy between white-owned and black owned-land. Most South Africans would have been unaware that Ramaphosa was talking about a minority sub-set of South African land, mostly located in the most desolate regions of the country.

To sum up then the land audit may have given the state access to highly sensitive information about the race and nationality of individual property owners via census and DHA data – essential information for any planned RET-style programme of racial dispossession – but the report itself provides little meaningful basis for discussion as to overall patterns of rural land ownership in the country, let alone of agricultural land in particular.

Politicians who continue to use these statistics are unlikely then to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Intellectual Honesty any time soon. 

Why The Poor Should be Worried ~ Expropriation of Land

Why The Poor Should be Worried ~ Expropriation of Land 🦃🐖🐃🏞🏜

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)

Black lies about land settlement in South Africa

Here is the article link ...

https://sa-news.com/the-4-black-lies-about-land-in-south-africa-bantu-black-africans-do-not-have-default-right-to-land/comment-page-1/

In fact, there were stable White communities in the South African interior before the founding of most of the Latin American republics. The first West European arrivals at the Cape antedated the colonization of Australia (1788) and New Zealand (1790) by 136 and 138 years respectively. The white community was also economically settled on unoccupied or negotiated land before the most and major black tribes even crossed the modern day borders of South Africa.

Majority of black South Africans have little interest in land reform

Some facts behind the land issue ...

President Cyril Ramaphosa has recently claimed the ruling party must move ahead with land expropriation without compensation because of a 'pressing' and 'urgent' hunger for farming land among South Africans.

However, comprehensive opinion polls commissioned by the IRR from 2015 to 2017 have repeatedly shown that the great majority of black South Africans have little interest in land reform.

In the IRR's 2016 field survey, for instance, only 1% of black respondents (down from 2% the previous year) said that 'more land reform' was the 'best way to improve lives'. By contrast, 73% of black people saw 'more jobs and better education' as the 'best way' for them to get ahead.

In similar vein, in the IRR's 2017 field survey, only 1% of black respondents identified 'speeding up land reform' as a top priority for the government.

Even among people who were dispossessed of land under apartheid laws – and were most likely to have a strong wish to see their land restored to them – there has been little interest in land as opposed to cash compensation.

When the land restitution process began in 1994, some 79 700 valid land claims were submitted by December 1998. By 2013, as the then minister of rural development and land reform, Gugile Nkwinti, pointed out, roughly 76 000 successful claims had been disposed of. However, only about 5 800 of these successful claimants (roughly 8%) chose to have their land restored to them. The remaining 92% preferred to receive cash compensation instead.

Said Nkwinti: "We thought everybody when they got a chance to get land, they would jump for it. Now only 5 856 have opted for land restoration." People wanted money because of poverty and unemployment, but they had also become urbanised and 'de-culturised' in terms of tilling land. "We no longer have a peasantry; we have wage earners now," he said.

The 76 000 successful claimants who could have chosen land rather than money could be seen as respondents in a particularly large opinion poll. That most of them – faced with a real-life choice – opted for cash, rather than land, is telling.

Opinion polls also show that ordinary people would far prefer to have rapid growth and many more jobs than the massive land distribution that the ANC is now portraying as the key antidote to poverty.

In the IRR's 2016 survey, for instance, respondents were asked whether they preferred "a political party which focuses on faster growth and more jobs", or one which "focuses on land expropriation to redress past wrongs". Given this choice, 84% of black respondents opted for growth and jobs, whereas only 7% wanted major land redistribution as redress for apartheid injustices.

Similar results have emerged from a comprehensive opinion survey commissioned by eNCA and carried out by MarkData in September 2017 among a representative sample of some 5 000 people, including about 2 700 self-declared ANC voters. (The results of this survey, as analysed by renowned political analyst and author R W Johnson, were first released by eNCA during the December race for the ANC presidency at the Nasrec conference.)

Even among ANC voters, it was clear that most people wanted the ruling party to embark on "more pro-business policies", rather than to pursue "radical policies/redistribution".

This was also the case in KwaZulu-Natal, the home base of the then president, Jacob Zuma, with his repeated calls for "radical economic transformation". There, 57.2% of ANC voters said they wanted the ruling party to "adopt more pro-business policies in the hope that business would invest more and create more jobs". By contrast, only 19.5% wanted the ANC to "push on with radical policies aimed at the complete redistribution of all wealth and income".

Support among ANC voters for "more pro-business policies" was frequently still stronger, standing at 75.9% in North West, 66.8% in the Eastern Cape, 57.1% in the Northern Cape, 55.9% in Limpopo, and 49.9% in Gauteng. In all these provinces, support for "more radical policies/redistribution" was low, coming in at 6.6% in North West, 8.7% in Limpopo, 10.6% in the Eastern Cape, 12.8% in the Northern Cape, and 16.2% in Gauteng.

These survey outcomes confirm that the great majority of ordinary ANC voters want more business-friendly policies – not the land "expropriation without compensation" option which the Nasrec conference endorsed and the ANC and EFF now seem determined to push through Parliament.

Claims by Ramaphosa and other senior figures in the ANC that ordinary South Africans are agog for land expropriation without compensation should be taken with a bucketful of salt. Far closer to the truth is Johnson's telling comment on what the eNCA survey results reveal.

These results (says Johnson) show that "much of the ANC leadership has completely lost contact with what most ANC voters think – and may not even be conscious of the huge divide that separates their assumptions from those of their electorate".

- Dr Anthea Jeffery is head of Policy Research at the Institute for Race Relations. The IRR is a think tank which promotes political and economic freedom.

https://www.news24.com/Columnists/GuestColumn/pressing-hunger-for-land-the-stats-show-something-different-20180301

A BRITISH LEGAL EXPERT'S OPINION ON EXPROPRIATION OF LAND WITHOUT COMPENSATION

A BRITISH LEGAL EXPERT'S OPINION ON EXPROPRIATION OF LAND WITHOUT COMPENSATION

2018/03/01

Response written by Mark Philip Malcolm Horn - London Barrister. * No one does business with a thief, and no one extends credit to a thief.

"You can not have land expropriation without compensation. It is illegal in international law. It is contrary to a dozen treaties that South Africa has signed and ratified. As such, it is a principle that is also enshrined in South African domestic law. You can not change the Constitution therefore to make it legal - Treaty law is superior law, it always applies.

The proposal, if directed at land held by the white community, would also contravene half a dozen international treaties, notably those condemning apartheid, that South Africa since the ANC took power, has signed and ratified.

The same argument applies above, but now with the ironic twist that any such initiative would result in the ANC being condemned under international law for actions that the world would condemn as being racist.

So no, it can not be done. When Mugabe tried this, the point was litigated. These were the legal conclusions. Now, Mugabe pushed ahead, so what happened?

Well, the claims for illegal expropriation still are valid in law - at some point the Zimbabwean Government will need to pay them.

The consequence of their illegal policy is not forgotten with time. If they ever want to be re-integrated into the global community, they will need to pay.

As to the consequences of such a policy - Zimbabwe is a good example. There are no sanction on Zimbabwe. That is a myth. The only sanctions are those targeted on Mugabe and a few of his associates, and they are in place because of human rights abuses.

The economy has crashed, there is a 90% unemployment rate, for the very simple fact that Zimbabwe has shown itself to be a thief. No one does business with a thief, and no one extends credit to a thief.

You can not run a modern economy without access to the international market, and for that you need credit. The Zimbabwean economy has declined by 70% from what it was at independence simply because no one does business with a thief.

So what would be the consequence of a policy of expropriation without compensation in South Africa? Well, as noted, such a policy would be illegal.

The international community will immediately take note that South Africa has become a rogue state. That is not too much to worry, about, its just political. There are plenty of rogue states around the world.

What would happen, however, in terms of South Africa's access to the international markets is of far more concern. South Africa would have signaled that property rights are insecure. That will mean that international investment in South Africa would come to a screeching halt.

This has been happening for many years in any event - that is why South Africa is now ranked no. 7 in gold mining, when it used to be no. 1.

It is why South Africa has a 27% unemployment rate, and a 50% youth unemployment rate. So the response could well be: "who cares, we do not need their investment". That may well indeed be true.

But, that is not where the real crisis occurs. South Africa needs access to international financial markets because it has a trade and budget deficit. It needs access to international financial markets to pay for its bloated public sector, and to pay social grants to all those unemployed people.

To raise that money, it needs the banks. Now this is where the consequences of a policy of expropriation without compensation hits home.

Banks have, as is the nature of banking, highly leveraged Balance Sheets. They lend as multiples of the assets they actually have. They need to conform with the Basel ratio's. If they have a rise in bad debt, they can easily wipe out their Balance Sheets - they then become bankrupt, and they collapse.

So what do you think will happen if land is expropriated without compensation to the Banks? The answer is, they will see a rise in bad debt, and they will collapse.

That is not the end of the story. South Africa has seen its black population rise from approximately 2.5 m in the mid 19th century, to its current level of 50 m. The 2.5 m may be taken as the sustainable level of the black population without the benefits of colonialism, and of modern agriculture.

That 2.5 m number is important, because only 13% of South Africa is suited for agriculture, and only 3% is high quality agricultural land. The vast majority of South African agricultural land requires the application of modern technology.

Farming in South Africa is highly capital intensive. Farmers depend on bank lending not only to buy their farms, but also to provide essential working capital.

So, what happens if the land is expropriated without compensation, if the banks then collapse? Well it means no one is able to provide the essential working capital. If the farms then collapse, then up to 95% of the existing black population is at risk of starvation.
The banks can not access international markets, international lenders will not lend, South Africa then descends into chaos. At point, the international community would probably intervene military to restore order. As such, South Africa would have become yet another Failed State in the traditional African mold."