King Louis XV of France is famously supposed to have said, "Après moi, le déluge" ("After me, the deluge"). This is often read as a prophecy of the French Revolution which was set in motion fifteen years after his death in 1774. But, apparently, a more accurate interpretation would be: "It matters not at all to me whether, after my death, the flood or any other catastrophe comes."

One wonders whether President Thabo Mbeki took a similar attitude when it came to the Expropriation Bill. The irony is that the Bill was introduced and promoted by the supposedly pro-capitalist Mbeki faction. And it was the new more socialist-oriented ANC leadership who allowed it to be shelved (at least until the next parliament.)

The Bill was certainly consistent with Mbeki-ite intentions. The draft policy, published in November last year, made clear that the Bill was motivated by a determination to seek an overturning of the ‘legacy' of the "centuries of systematic exploitation and deprivation of land and property of black people in South Africa."

What is puzzling is why the Mbeki-ites persisted with it even after it was clear that they were on their way out.

The legislation, if passed, would have allowed the Minister to appropriate any property without the payment of proper compensation; while greatly curtailing the right to judicial review. It would also have allowed the transfer of expropriated property to private entities [see here].

Its main promoter was the Minister of Public Works, Thoko Didiza, along with certain officials in her department. Didiza was an Mbeki loyalist who had served on the ANC's National Working Committee up until the end of 2007. She failed, however, to gain re-election to the ANC's National Executive Committee in Polokwane.

She nonetheless pressed ahead with her efforts to get the legislation onto the statute books, and it was approved by the South African cabinet on March 6 2008. What seems to have led to the shelving of the bill was a combination of a mobilisation against it by (mainly Afrikaans) civil society, and a lack of support for it by the new ANC leadership. There was perhaps a recognition that the Bill was not only unconstitutional but also not worth the candle politically - particularly during a rather tricky transitional period.

Over the past eighty years there have been many ‘democratic' regimes which have decided that productive ethnic minorities should be dispossessed of their wealth. The ideological rationale for this kind of policy is that the targeted group should not be allowed to keep their property as they "could not have acquired it honestly" - and as such it had to be returned to ‘the people'. Racial nationalists preach an inversion of the Christian gospel: "Accuse others of doing unto you that which you plan to do unto them."

Past experience also teaches what the consequences are likely to be of such a programme - especially where the transfers are from one set of private hands to another. In November 1938 Hermann Göring complained that earlier efforts to Aryanise the German economy, by pressuring Jewish owners to sell their businesses, had resulted in much self-enrichment by the party faithful. At a meeting called to discuss the modalities of the introduction of the compulsory Aryanisation of the last remaining Jewish enterprises Göring stated:

"It is easily understood that strong attempts will be made to get all these [Jewish] stores into the hands of the party members... I have witnessed terrible things in the past; little chauffeurs of Gauleiters have profited so much by these transactions, they have now about half a million. You gentleman know it. Is that correct? (Assent)."

Such complaints did not stop Göring from using the opportunities thrown up by Aryanisation to amass a personal fortune for himself. As Wikipedia notes: "Some properties he seized himself, or acquired for a nominal price. In other cases, he collected fat bribes for allowing others to grab Jewish property."

In Africa the experience has been similar. In 1973 Mobutu Sese Seko ordered the transfer of all foreign and non-black owned property to ‘sons of the country.' As Michela Wrong notes, "In theory, departing foreigners were to be compensated and the performance of new owners would be carefully monitored." However, the program soon degenerated into an orgy of looting by the Zairean elite. "Thousands of businesses, totaling about $1 billion in value, were divided by top officials in the most comprehensive nationalization seen in Africa. Mobutu, of course, did best out of the share-out."

In the light of this history, along with the more current events in Zimbabwe, Mbeki could have been under no illusions about the dangers of what his government was doing; or, of the temptations which the Act would have thrown into the path of the incoming government in 2009.

COSATU has made clear that it would like to use expropriation to nationalise the commanding heights of the economy. While the more venal elements of the new leadership would have been handed an instrument through which they could set about acquiring wealth beyond the dreams of avarice.

Given the history of this continent over the past half century the easy ability to take property is one that no government should ever try and acquire. Yet the outgoing Mbeki government was planning to toss that power over to the incoming one - like a man casually handing a bottle of whiskey to an alcoholic trying to go dry.

Après moi, le deluge

Click here to receive the Politicsweb headlines in your inbox in the morning