A perspective on land ownership

Land Reform is necessary in the interest of all of us. If however, it were not to be stripped of its racially-driven aims and the historical facts regarding ownership were to be denied, it would serve to the detriment of food production and employment. White farmers are not opposed to this country having more black farmers, but then it must be ensured that they have the necessary skills and capital - and that their farms will not be sold or let out within a year or three - often to white farmers - or that all production will come to an end and the farm will be turned into a squatter camp.

It is interesting to note that the history of land ownership in South Africa once ended up in the International Court of Justice. From 1960 to 1966, Ethiopia and Liberia fought a fierce legal campaign against South Africa in the World Court in The Hague, with the purpose of placing South West Africa under the guardianship of the UN. They even dragged South African history into the argument with allegations that:

i) "South Africa was already effectively occupied by non-Whites before Europeans began to settle in the country"; and

ii) "... the Europeans proceeded to take occupation of non-White land."

With suitable quotations from the authoritative works of well-known and recognised historians, doctoral theses and archival documentation, the South African legal team refuted these allegations effectively.

The historical explanation given by the South African legal team of land occupation in South Africa is entrenched in the records of the International Court of Justice. South Africa's version of the history is contained in Appendix A, Volume 1 of the "Rejoinder filed by the Government of the Republic of South Africa."

In the verbal hearing in the World Court in 1965, Ethiopia and Liberia decided to change the argument regarding the facts about a policy of repression in the case by simply alleging that South Africa's policy was in contravention of an international norm which prohibited segregation, irrespective of whether it was repressive, or not. They therefore abandoned their complaints of repression an announced on 27 April 1965 that:

"The applicants have advised Respondent (SA) as well as this Honourable Court that all and any averments of fact in Respondent's Written Pleadings will be and are accepted as true, unless specifically denied."

Apart from all the other facts involved in the argument, Ethiopia and Liberia accepted South Africa's version of the history of land ownership. With reference to the occupation by black tribes by 1652, South Africa maintained that:

"Although no exact calculation is possible, it would appear that all the areas inhabited by the Bantu tribes comprised approximately one-eighth of the total area of South Africa including the protectorates."

400 Years ago, our country, the whole country, had already belonged to the Bushmen (San) and the Nama or Khoikhoin (Hottentots) for centuries.

Khoikhoin means "the men of men". Khoisan is the collective name for these two groups. They were equally "non-Black" and "non-White". Black groups spread southwards from Central Africa over a long time. The Khoisan communities were driven away and exterminated in the areas which the black arrivals occupied.

From 1652, Van Riebeeck and his successors fought the Khoisan communities in the south and decimated their numbers. Epidemic diseases also claimed a high toll amongst the Khoi. White and black and diseases overwhelmed and exterminated the original nomadic occupants and residents of South Africa. The diphthong click sound of the Khoisan languages which remained in some black languages, serves as evidence in this regard. White and black therefore are all in effect mere new occupants. If we do not stick to the original facts, the stones and rock art will proclaim it.

Let us examine the occupation patterns of the new settlers. South Africa comprises 1 219 090 km2.

Historically, not a single Zulu or Tswana or Basotho or Pedi or Swazi resided in the Western Cape, and few Xhosas were to be found in the north-eastern region only. The Western Cape has a surface of 129 386 km2, being 10,6% of the current South Africa.

In the Northern Cape, no Zulu or Xhosa or Basotho or Pedi or Swazi were to be found - and few Tswana. It comprises 361 830 km2, or 29,7 % of the current South Africa. This means that black tribes did not have historical residence in 40% of the current South Africa. And the borders of the current South Africa are not even a century old yet.

Regarding the other 60%, we are faced with a muddle of contradictions. The Voortrekkers occupied areas where in general, at the time of the Great Trek, no settled black communities were to be found. At that stage, the Free State and Transvaal were largely uninhabited, especially in the aftermath of the Mfecane genocide launched by black communities against black communities.

The two Boer Republics were under threat of England - not black tribes. In fact, agreements were made with black chiefs to recognise borders and to promote good neighbourly relationships. In Natal and the Eastern Cape, things were different. There Britain ruled.

Re the provinces of the Free State, North West, Limpopo, Gauteng and Mpumalanga, the Boers of the two Republics and the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope occupied 60% of the land. These 5 provinces comprised 38,2% of the country's surface. Historically the Tswana, Basotho, Pedi, Swazi, Shangana, Tsonga and Venda did not occupy more than 40% of the land of these provinces permanently, in other words, 15,28% of the country as a whole. Even if they had occupied 60% of the land of the 5 provinces permanently, it would only have been 22,92% of the country as a whole. If the colonial powers had not cut Africa into pieces, the Tswana of North West and the Tswana of Botswana would have had one, huge country on its own.

KwaZulu-Natal comprises 7,6% of South Africa. Even if we were to accept that Zulu can claim 85% of this area, it still is a mere 6,46% of South Africa.

The Eastern Cape comprises 13,9% of the country. If we accept that the Xhosa can lay claim to 85% thereof, it amounts to 11,82% of the country.

From a historical perspective, this leaves us with 15,28% plus 6,46% plus 11,82% - in total 33,56%, or 22,92% plus 6,46% plus 11,82%: in total 41,20%.

What is the percentage of the best agricultural land which is today being occupied by blacks and which include their traditional tribal land? Obviously much more than 41,20%. It is easy to deny historical facts, but these facts cannot be erased. The above calculations are of course open to dispute, but then the people who dispute them, have to produce an analysis which is historically founded.

A serious deficiency of the negotiations of 1990-1994 between the National Party Government and the ANC is that we did not discuss our history. We were caught up in the necessity of the creation of a constitution which would form the foundation for the continuation of government in order to ensure order. It was a dramatic change: a mainly white dominated government was being replaced by a mainly black government. But white and black and coloured and Asian have a history.

The burning issues which are part of this history were not discussed and expounded frankly. We mostly negotiated like enemies forced into a ceasefire because we had realised that if we were to continue shooting, only a mess would remain to be governed.

I cannot remember a single discussion about the history of our black nations and tribes. It is important to know that when the Bantu-speaking nations migrated southwards in Africa, the Khoi/Khwe and San occupied the whole area which South Africa comprises today. It was their country. Black nations and white settlers overwhelmed, expelled and absorbed them. Therefore we, both black and white, are colonialists.

By 1800, the South Nguni comprised independent tribes including the Xhosa, Thembu, Bomvana, Mpondo and Mpondomise. One of the crucial moments in the Xhosa history of the eighteenth century was the division of the Xhosa nation into the Gcaleka and Rharhabe tribes. In the Rharhabe tribe a power struggle developed between Ngqika, the legal successor as chief, and his father's brother, Ndlambe, who acted as regent. While the struggle between the two leaders continued, border wars raged between the Cape Colonial Powers and the Xhosa tribes. Between 1779 and 1878 - for a hundred years - nine border wars took place.

Ngqika was defeated by Ndlambe in October 1818 at the Battle of Amalinde. Ngqika unfortunately appealed to the British Colonial Authorities for protection and support.

While the struggle between Ngqika and Ndlambe continued, the Zulu Kingdom was forged in KwaZulu. From 1818 to about 1835, widespread slaughter and clashes existed amongst the North Nguni tribes. The power struggle between the Mthethwa of Dingiswayo and the Ndwandwe of Zwide Ngumayo preceded the large-scaled destruction which was to give momentum to the Mfecane/Difaqane.

Chaka realised after Dingiswayo's death that he would become the sole ruler of Zululand if he were to defeat the Ndwandwe. By the end of 1818, he succeeded to do so. The vanquished fled in different directions. The Soshangane went to Mozambique. Mzilikazi broke away from Chaka in 1821 and caused great destruction northwards, ultimately establishing his Ndebele authority in Matabeleland.

As the Difaqane/Mfecane grew in intensity, Moshweshwe of the Basotho nation realised that he would need a hideout to protect himself and his people against the hordes who attacked them. Thus it came about that his choice fell on Thaba Bosiu (Mountain of the Night).

A very gripping account of all of the main events amongst black nations from about 1800 can be found in the book "Stamme en Ryke" by J.S. Bergh and A.P. Bergh. This book deserves to be prescribed to all students who have History as subject. The authors come to the conclusion:

"Many people are of the opinion that the Difaqane/Mfecane was merely a series of wars of annihilation during which tribes tried to massacre each other and large scale slaughter took place. The Difaqane/Mfecane was however much more than that - it was a social, political and military revolution amongst the Bantu-speaking tribes of South Africa, the memory of which is still alive today.

The demographic results of the Difaqane/Mfecane were far-reaching.

The migration of the different groups and tribes amongst other things lead to the first large-scale contact between Sotho and Nguni communities. Previously the two groups were divided by the Drakensberg - the Nguni lived along the coast and the Sotho in the interior.

Furthermore the Difaqane/ Mfecane caused the greatest migration of people and tribes in the recent past of Africa. After the Difaqane/Mfecane, many black communities lived elsewhere than where they had been residing in 1815. Many thousands of people were uprooted, tribes splintered and were regrouped in new units.

Some tribes, such as the Tswana on the periphery of the Kalahari, and the Venda, did however stay on in the same place. Other tribes were completely destroyed and the survivors were absorbed by other groups."

I merely touched on a few aspects of the history of our black tribes amongst other reasons to wake up our educational authorities to compile curricula which will portray the past in a balanced manner.

Historical researchers have not been able to determine an accurate figure of the number of people who died during the Difaqane/Mfecane, or who were relocated yet. The number of victims may amount to more than a million people.

The "white superiority and black inferiority" approach had been applied politically, socially and economically by the Colonial Powers in their colonialisation process for more than a century. Out of the full heart, the mouth sings: Sandile, paramount chief of the Ngqika, was captured in 1847 when he visited a British military camp to negotiate. He was forced to kiss Governor Harry Smith's shoes. British Kaffraria was divided into counties with the names of British counties like Yorkshire and Middlesex. The residences of chiefs were renamed after British cities: Sandile's became York; Siwane's Newark and Mhala's Cambridge. Name changes therefore have a rather long history.

There were no momentous, drawn-out wars between the Voortrekkers and the black tribes during the nineteenth century. The wars took place between the British Colonial Power on the one hand and the black tribes, as well as the citizens of the South African Republic and the Orange Free State on the other.

The Anglo Boer War (1899-1902) was the largest anti-colonial war ever to take place on the African continent. In the British concentration camps, 28 000 white women and children and between 14 000 and 20 000 black people died. Six thousand Boer soldiers perished, 25 000 Boer soldiers were kept in prisoner of war camps in Ceylon, St. Helena, Bermuda and India.

Upon their return, they were faced with burnt-down homes and farms. Their cattle, sheep and chickens had been destroyed. Many of them had to search for the graves of their wives, children and family-members. Many were met by a grave in the grass.

The peace, which did not go down easily with them, was concluded at Vereeniging on 31 May 1902. For the record (and before the name of the town is changed): Vereeniging was founded in 1892 and named after a coalmining company: "Zuid-Afrikaansche en Oranje Vrijstaatsche Kolen-en-Mineralen Mijn Vereeniging".

South African citizens have forefathers with a history of wars, genocides and oppression.

The end of the war in Angola in 1988 and the election in Namibia in 1989 finally became a pivotal point in history. It opened the way for the release of Mandela on 11 February 1990. The decision to release him and others was made shortly after De Klerk became President on 20 September 1989. It was the final watershed in South Africa's centuries-long history of struggle and oppression.

A very important aspect of land reform which is often overlooked, applies to the vast areas occupied by traditional tribal areas. Whites, coloureds and Indians do not have such tribal areas, compared to millions of blacks who enjoy privileges in their tribal areas, which are exempt from taxes. Go and have a look every Friday afternoon at the traffic going to the north, south, east and west from Pretoria and Johannesburg. Several hundred thousands of our black brothers are then on their way to businesses, families, homes, cattle, sheep, goats and chickens in which they own shares. But nobody addresses this issue.

Questions which remain unanswered, are: what is the yield per hectare in the tribal areas? How many employment opportunities are created there? What do the income tax proceeds amount to? Is land-tax levied there? What are the expenses in terms of education and healthcare? Who pays these expenses? Who are the beneficiaries? Can agricultural units not be measured out and allocated to skilled black farmers who will be able to use it as security to obtain capital for agricultural activities? Will it be possible in terms of the proposed expropriation legislation also to expropriate tribal land in the public interest and how will the value of such land be determined?

Percentage claims (or the quota occupancy) must also be subject to a proper analysis of, for example, rainfall, pasture carrying capacity, arability of the soil, distance from markets, etc. The residents of the Knersvlakte might be prepared to swop 10 or more hectares of their land for 1 hectare in the East Coast area. The Eastern Cape comprises 169 580 km2 and the Northern Cape 361 830 km2. The advocates of quotas regard our country in general as uniformly arable. What would they say if the people of the Northern Cape were to ask to swop half of their province for the Eastern Cape? They would immediately reject the idea based on the different arable values of the land - and of course their cultural-historical attachment to their land areas.

A new constitutional dispensation would not have come about in South Africa if the ANC had demanded that the stipulations of the Employment Equity Act and especially the manner in which it is being applied, were to have been a part of the Constitution. And the irony is that the National Party Government would have been able to rely on the support of the International Labour Organisation. Neither the National Party Government, nor the ANC would have wanted to govern this country if the prophets of doom's prediction of an inescapable, catastrophic civil war were to have come true. Therefore, and also because we regretted the injustices of apartheid deeply, we had steps in mind in our negotiations to remedy the disadvantages and impairment caused by apartheid. We however did not agree that the injustices of the past could be compensated for by the creation of injustices in the present. Positive remediation can be brought about in terms of the Constitution by promoting the welfare of the disadvantaged in all walks of life: education, land reform, healthcare, housing, job creation, skills training and economic participation.

To what degree has the central, provincial and local authorities who have been empowered to do this, been successful? They were endowed with the authority and money to do it. Just like in the past, they are driven by a fatal obsession: the National Party by apartheid; the ANC by quota madness based on demographic racial representation.

Black empowerment requires that empowerment should take place in this manner and affirmative action requires that rectification should take place in such a manner that a substantial number of the disadvantaged will benefit from it. Discrimination against young whites, who had nothing to do with apartheid, definitely was not a part of the understanding reached by the NP in its negotiations with the ANC. Neither was discrimination against whites, coloureds and Indians in general. In the explanatory notes of the Equal Employment Director General's recently-published review, the following employment instruction is given blatantly:

"Africans: they should be at least twice the sum of Coloureds and Indians. (The motivation for this is that Africans account for the major portion of the demographics within the Black group, but are lagging behind in terms of their representivity levels in the workplace when compared to other groups within the Black group.)"

I would like to hear what our coloured and Indian compatriots' reactions are in this regard.

The ANC's obsession with quotas amounts to the rejection of skilled workers and artisans who are able to make a substantial contribution in terms of the promotion of skills training amongst blacks, as well as actual empowerment.

The boomerang-effect of the Employment Equity Act and the manner in which it is being applied, is that masses of blacks are still not trained and are unemployed, and that the country's economic progress is under serious threat as a result of skills shortages - not to mention the decline in service delivery which burdens millions of blacks, as well as whites.

We acknowledge that the ANC inherited a lot of misery from the past, but at least they also inherited the most advanced infrastructure in Africa.

Just as in the case of affirmative action, white and black need each other to conclude land reform successfully. A country which cannot feed its own population, faces serious problems. Zimbabwe is a tragic example in this regard.

Dr Roelof Botha commented as follows on the greater risk for agriculture in an article in Sake 24, Beeld, of 9 July 2008:

"Together with the implementation of minimum wages, the de facto termination of the Land Bank's activities, higher diesel prices, and continued uncertainty about land reform, it is not surprising that less and less crops are being planted. In addition Government is busy with measures for black economic empowerment by means of which future sales of agricultural products by non-qualifying farms are being threatened."

The proposed Expropriation Bill not only is unconstitutional. Instead of contributing to the welfare of black South Africans, blacks will eventually pay the highest price, as is the case in Zimbabwe.

The decisive point in our negotiations of 1990-1994 was reached when we jointly realised that we needed each other to bring about prosperity for all of our people. Within the ranks of the ANC, voices are heard that say: "We cannot all be Mandelas." We can however all emulate Mandela's legacy: reconciliation, tolerance, equal opportunities for all and the upliftment of the poor in a fair and effective manner without allowing the skills which are essential for the upliftment to be lost. I am convinced that the country's blacks will agree that we need each other to ensure that black farm owners become successful farmers. As a matter of fact, it is just as much in the interest of white farmers for black farmers to farm successfully. In this way we can feed our country's people together.

Pik Botha was Minister of Foreign Affairs under the National Party government and later Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs in the Government of National Unity. This is the text of a speech delivered to a civil society conference on the Expropriation Bill, Centurion, July 28 2008