Land: Can voters believe the DA?
The DA leader Helen Zille creates the impression that the party is opposed to the re-opening of land claims in her article titled "Land oor grond in stukke geskeur" in Beeld of 7 April.
As I had participated as a then DA MP in the land debates in the DA, I know that this is not correct. Comments made by DA spokespersons and information from the DA's own documents contradict what the DA leader is saying about this.
What is the truth?
Amendment Bills first go to the relevant parliamentary portfolio committees.
Usually the non-parliamentary role players are then given the opportunity to give their views on the amendments.
The portfolio committee thereafter considers the non-parliamentary role player's proposals, discusses the different political parties' views about it and then compiles a final document about the matter. The final document is then approved, clause by clause, through voting for it to be submitted to the National Assembly for final approval.
In the public participation process about the re-opening of the land claims, various important role players, such as Agri SA, the TAU SA and the Agricultural Workers Organisation, expressed their strong opposition to it.
The DA's position in the portfolio committee was consistently to support the amendments for the re-opening of the land claims process, regardless of all these important role player's objections.
The DA's representatives in the portfolio committee were Mpowele Swate and Kevin Mileham, the DA's spokesperson on rural development and land reform.
Before the DA caucus takes up a position on a Bill, these DA representatives have to report in writing about the portfolio committee process to the DA caucus. Their written report, which is available, shows exactly how they had supported every clause with the reasons and comments added to it. These views were documented in the official portfolio committee report; a public document.
Mileham, the DA's spokesperson on this issue, issued a statement on the 7th February, before the DA's caucus had discussed this document, in which the DA's position in support of the re-opening of the restitution claims was set out. It is also in agreement with the DA's official policy document on land published in December 2013.
In his statement, Mileham said amongst others:
"The DA fully supports the reopening of the land claims for those who missed the opportunity to do so in the initial dispensation. There is no doubt that this will go a long way in redressing the legacy of colonial and apartheid land dispossession.
Also: "It would therefore appear that the reopening of land claims, as enabled by the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill, is merely an election ploy (of the ANC) in order to garner the support of land claimants, rather than a genuine commitment to give land back to those dispossessed by apartheid. We hope this is not the case."
The DA's spokesperson on this issue even scolds the ANC because they only want to canvass for votes and aren't serious enough about fully implementing the process of new land claims, which the DA supports!
Anette Steyn, the DA's spokesperson on agriculture explains it as follows in newspaper reports of 17 February: "... the party was initially opposed to the re-opening of the process ... but now supports the re-opening because there are so many legitimate existing claims which were not submitted during the previous process."
In my comments as a DA MP in the caucus and the media I clearly voiced my opposition to the re-opening of the new restitution claims and explained the negative consequences.
The most important negative consequences are that land insecurity in the agricultural sector will return and that food security will be threatened. Commercial agriculture in South Africa provides more than 90% of the food we put on our tables daily. If food production should decrease, food will have to be imported which could lead to a sharp increase in prices.
Of the approximately 120 000 commercial farmers of 1994 there are only an estimated 37 000 left. Nine out of every ten farms which to date have been transferred through restitution, have failed and are no longer productive, according to the ANC itself.
Many of these farms are being re-capitalised at a cost of millions of rand and in the media it has been reported how fraud and corruption takes place in many of these processes.
During the previous claims period, approximately 80 000 claims were lodged. It took 16 years to finalise 95% of these claims. This time the government is expecting 380 000 claims. How many years will it take to finalise these claims?
It is obvious that production and development on farms will virtually grind to a halt once a claim has been lodged against the farm.
Against this backdrop, it is clear how ill-considered and detrimental the ANC's policy on re-opening the process is. The FF Plus opposed it in Parliament. When the DA's view in favour of the re-opening of land claims became known, there were two wide reactions.
The reaction at grass roots level from the agricultural sector was so overwhelming that Zille, during a DA caucus meeting on Monday 24 February which was called specifically for this issue, sought ways to restrict the damage. The rescue plan was to set certain pre-conditions during the next day's voting in the National Assembly for the re-opening by submitting amendments to the Bill.
These amendments, which include a shortened window period for claims, were never mentioned or proposed by the DA at any time in the months that the portfolio committee held meetings. If such an amendment was not proposed or discussed in the portfolio committee the chances is zero that it will be accepted in the National Assembly.
Knowing how the process works, the DA leader proposed that if the amendments were not accepted in National Assembly, the DA could vote against the Bill. They therefore had the perfect smoke-screen to hide behind, all the time knowing full well that the amendments would be rejected!
This action of the DA is indicative of how the party is currently expressing its views from both sides of its mouth, depending on which audience is being addressed. They support the re-opening of land claims for the one huge audience but find reasons to vote against the Bill for the other audience.
Any right thinking voter cannot approve of or support these actions at all. Voters from both the DA audiences therefore never know whether their representative will promote or harm their interests in Parliament.
To put it very plainly: One can, in South African politics, not chase after the majority black votes about issues such as land reform and affirmative action without harming the interests minorities such as the Afrikaners and Brown people.
Zille acknowledges the dilemma in her article when she writes:
"The DA faces the difficult task of bringing individuals who identify with divergent groups together around issues of common interest. It is much more difficult than it sounds, because just like in every other divided country, identity and group solidarity trumps any other priority."
It is precisely this reality in South Africa, which the FF Plus tackles in a different manner. South Africa is a society which consisting of many communities and groups with divergent interests. The FF Plus realises this and undertakes to unashamedly take care of the interests of its voters and other minorities.
Thereafter, there is cooperation with other parties against the ANC about common issues as the FF Plus is doing in the newly established Collective for Democracy.
Lourie Bosman is a parliamentary candidate for the FF Plus. He was formerly a DA MP. This article first appeared in Beeld newspaper.
Update: The response by Annette Steyn and Kevin Mileham can be read here.
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
