Correcting lies about Expropriation
Being able to seize more land won’t change the government’s inability to do its job properly.
Misinformation about the Expropriation Act has been rife. And no, I’m not referring to US President Trump’s accusations of land confiscation here. While Trump may be usually hyperbolic and is a bit misinformed, this should be no reason to doubt that the Expropriation Act is a dangerous piece of legislation.
The Department of Public Works & Infrastructure has been circulating a graphic, claiming that South Africans will benefit from the Expropriation Act. They list eight benefits - all of which are blatant lies.
I will break down each claim below and show how the Expropriation Act will not be benefit South Africans. On the contrary, it is an act that may very well destroy our society.
Land reform and equitable ownership
The only way that equitable ownership can be achieved will be by the forceful expropriation of mass amounts of land, much of which was never stolen or ever owned by the ancestors of those who would be receiving it. The ANC wants to assure us that it won’t be confiscating land, but equitable ownership of land because of land reform would require just that.
This government wastes hundreds of billions of Rands on corruption. Politicians are actively stealing from the public, letting hospitals go to ruin, and children starve. Why would they utilise their power to distribute land equitably?
With the power to seize property (which goes far beyond just land, as the act allows for the expropriation of ANY type of property), this corrupt government will use it to enrich themselves. That means more wealth in the hands of corrupt elite - not the landless poor.
Improved public infrastructure (roads, schools, housing)
The government can’t look after the infrastructure that it currently has under its possession. Being able to steal land won’t solve matters. The government doesn’t need more land to neglect. Improving infrastructure has nothing to do with expropriation, and everything to do with the government doing its basic job, not stealing public money, and appointing honest and competent people to solve its problems.
Economic growth and job creation
There is nothing inherent in expropriation that leads to economic growth or job creation. In fact, the Expropriation Act will lead to the opposite. The government being able to seize all kinds of property, including stocks, is not how you attract investment. And businesses will be disincentivised from growing their operations and employing more people when they know that their land or assets could be taken whenever some corrupt cadre wants to fund a fiftieth BMW.
Enhanced food security and rural development
Zimbabwe used to be the breadbasket of Southern Africa; now, it relies on its neighbours to avoid starvation. And they have nothing else to blame but their land reform project, that saw commercial farms (mostly white-owned) seized by the government and redistributed. By 2005, almost 4 million Zimbabwean were facing starvation. Fast forward to the present day, and there has been little to no recovery. Zimbabwe persists on a few small hold farmers feeding themselves, while the majority of the country relies on food aid and imports.
Seizing land from farmers discourages agricultural production. The recipients of the expropriated farms are either rich elites, who have no desire to get down and dirty in the farm and neglect it, or have no experience or resources to run a farm.
There have already been copious examples of redistributed farms in South Africa. Very few have succeeded. Most of the farms exhibit no agricultural activity and produce little to no value. Post-land reform, the crop production of these farms has fallen by an average of 79%.
On top of all this, most South Africans don’t want to be farmers - not truly. We aren’t a Medieval peasant society where every family needs a plot of land to grow their dinner. We’re a modern society where most people want to live in cities and get lucrative careers.
Farms should be run by experienced, well-capitalised, commercial enterprises. Toying with this status quo is how we achieve a famine.
Affordable housing and reduced overcrowding
The first part of this might be true. If land can be seized at any time without any compensation, then the price of land will plummet. But so does the incentive in owning land. There’s no reason to own or invest in a plot of land if a greedy politician can take it from you.
And overcrowding won’t be solved by this. Overcrowded informal settlements and densely packed apartments are found in cities, where everybody wants to work and live, but there is little space and not enough workable infrastructure. The government being able to expropriate land won’t solve this issue. It can take as much land as it wants and even redistribute it to people living in crowded settlements. This won’t reduce their desire to live in the city.
If you want to reduce overcrowding, ensure that every province and municipality is run well, with good policies that lead to job creation. That means people won’t need to leave their homes to live in crowded townships in the city.
Fair and transparent expropriation processes
As mentioned above, if a politician gets the opportunity to seize land for their own enrichment – they will. On top of this, Land Courts are anything but fair or transparent.
The Act stipulates that Land Courts will run parallel to the legal system, and not a part of it. The fact that they act outside the law of the land should already be a red flag.
While trained judges preside over legal matters, land courts allow unqualified assessors to overrule judges, and present incredibly low standards of evidence to justify the theft of property.
The entire system is open to untold amounts of abuse and corruption.
Support for public interest projects (water, conservation, empowerment)
This ties very much into the infrastructure point. The government already owns over 30 million hectares - approximately a quarter of the country’s total land mass. And the land it already owns is by and large neglected, underdeveloped, and lying unproductive.
Being able to seize more land won’t change the government’s inability to do its job properly.
Increased economic participation for marginalised groups
Which marginalised groups? Those disenfranchised by Apartheid are no longer. There are hosts of legislations and regulations, affirmative action and Black Economic Empowerment benefiting previous disadvantaged groups - they are no longer marginalised.
Poverty-stricken is a better term for those who truly need a leg-up. And they will not be the beneficiaries of land reform. Only politically connected elites will benefit.
If we truly want to see increased economic growth and participation by all South Africans, we need deregulation and liberalisation, lowering the barrier to entry to start a business, and making it far easier to hire and employ people by cutting labour regulations.
Conclusion
Overall, the government is spreading lies about the Expropriation Act. It will not benefit South Africa in the slightest. And if we want this country to survive and thrive, we need to force the government to tear up the act before it can be implemented in any shape or form.
Nicholas Woode-Smith is a political analyst and author. He is a senior associate of the Free Market Foundation and writes in his personal capacity.