The problem with Pieter du Toit’s account of our briefings on expropriation

This week AfriBusiness resumes our countrywide public briefings on property rights and expropriation without compensation, in collaboration with AfriForum. As we do so, I would like to set the record straight on some incorrect and misleading claims by Huffington Post editor-in-chief, Pieter du Toit.

Last month, Du Toit commented on our briefings under the heading “AfriForum's Land-Reform Sales Pitch: 'Help Us Stop The Commies'”. The heading captures the substance of the article well: it is an attempt to discredit the event for fearmongering and profiteering.

Now, of course Du Toit does get some things right: No surprise, at AfriBusiness we oppose expropriation without compensation. True, we do think the threat should be taken seriously, you should know your rights, and you should have a plan for when illegal occupants rock up at your doorstep – there were, for example, at least 30 significant land invasions in March.

Emphatically, you should take pride in what is yours. Believe it or not, the South African constitution is indeed subject to convenient interpretation by the ruling establishment and even if unchanged will most certainly be applied with hostility toward property rights and minority communities. And not to underplay it: yes, we really want people to become members – it enables us to do what we do.

Those are positions I would be happy to defend any day. And in this case, even against a combination of careless journalism, a convenient mix of cut and paste, and some good old fabrications.

First, let me point out fabrications.

Du Toit writes that “Le Roux opened the proceedings by explaining how AfriSake … sees the land debate and what the dangers of communism are.”

Now, while I did offer views on the land debate, I just did not explain the dangers of communism. In fact, communism was immaterial to my speech, and I only focussed on it in response to a question at the end by a member of the audience. I spoke about the importance of private property, not about communism. This fabrication presents AfriBusiness and me to his readers as bogeymen for communism.

Du Toit alleges that my colleague, Charles Castle, claimed “that the history of dispossession of black people started only in 1910 with the formation of the Union of South Africa.” Absolutely not.

Castle’s subject was the official land restitution process, dealing with land claims. He stated that the land restitution process involves land dispossessed under and since the 1913 Land Act, which was an act of the Union of South Africa, formed in 1910. He did not pretend that “dispossession of black people started only in 1910.” Du Toit’s statement attributes to Castle and AfriBusiness a position, which we certainly do not hold, that discredits us as historically ignorant.

Second, Du Toit conveniently cuts and pastes to suit his story.

Du Toit creates the impression that I riled up the audience to be proud (read: reactionary) property owners. Now, of course, I do think property owners should take pride in what is rightfully theirs. But Du Toit here leads his readers to believe a falsehood: that this – presumably selfish and/or irrational – reason was the only defence of private property I had to offer. In truth, stewardship was only the first of three reasons.

The second reason was that secure property rights are in the public economic interest: insecure property rights lead to worse economic conditions for both richer and poorer.

The third reason was that secure property rights are in the interest of civil society: property provides the material basis on which civil society can act to advance constitutionalism and the rule of law.

Quite selectively, Du Toit did not reflect this much broader appeal: that property rights should be protected not only for personal interests, but very much also in the public economic interest and in the interest of civil society itself.

A further misrepresentation is particularly glaring. Du Toit writes: “Le Roux explained AfriSake's position on land reform and restitution, saying it can either be "positive" or "damaging", identifying among other things market forces and "goodwill" as examples of positive forms of land reform. Redistribution and nationalisation are among the "damaging" forms of land reform, he stated [emphasis added].”

Now, what were those “other things,” too numerous or immaterial for Du Toit to mention, that I had identified? Well, there was only one: restitution. I took considerable time and care to defend restitution of land expropriated based on race as a legitimate and necessary form of land reform. Omitting it creates the impression that AfriBusiness acknowledges no role for government to play in land reform, and that we ignore all matters of justice for past wrongs. Why would Du Toit so selectively leave this out, if he was interested in fairly representing AfriBusiness’s views?

Also, Du Toit claims that “every speaker reminded the audience to ‘fill in the forms; join!’,” something, he says, “heard almost as many times as references to nationalisation.” Really? While we certainly encourage people to join AfriBusiness, and while AfriForum certainly does the same, Du Toit here parades hyperbole as fact. Naturally, every organisation needs resources to fulfil its mission, so we do hope that people who attend our briefings join us as contributing members. And it is our mission to help bona fide members of the audience when their property rights come under threat. But to pretend that the evening was just one big sign-up exercise is not a truthful account of events.

Finally, there is careless journalism. And I leave aside some smaller errors, such as on location and attendance.

Du Toit calls AfriBusiness “AfriForum’s lobby group for business.” This is incorrect. AfriBusiness is a separate organisation, of which I am the CEO, with an independent board, and with a distinct mission. I took time at the outset of my presentation to explain what AfriBusiness does, what its goals are, and that it has more than 12 000 members countrywide. AfriForum, who focuses on civil society initiatives and does good work of its own, has more than 200 000 members.

We have in the past, as in this instance, and will in future cooperate with AfriForum, but we are not its “lobby group for business.” Did Du Toit purposefully ignore what was said from the podium? On a favourable interpretation here, I suppose Du Toit simply did not pay attention, nor did research like visiting our website. He certainly did not approach us for clarification or comment.

By the end of this week our first round of countrywide briefings will come to an end. We will have spoken to 15 audiences ranging in size from 30 to 250. Requests for more events and speaking engagements keep coming in. And it is not because we fearmonger and profiteer, as Du Toit suggests, but because there is a groundswell of opposition to the direction this country is taking and because AfriBusiness does something about it.

Piet le Roux is CEO of AfriBusiness (AfriSake)