Land ownership in post colonial African nations is a sensitive topic that is deeply rooted in emotions.

Land is one of the primary factors of productions and whoever controls land, controls all other factors of
production. Land is therefore has a connotation, particularly in Africa of being a symbol of social and
racial power. Under colonial and apartheid era approximately 3.5 million blacks in South Africa lost the
right over their land in unlawful and forced evictions.[ CITATION Rud12 \l 1033 ]

Historical Background
The past century shows that the minority white government that controlled South Africa till 1994,
unlawfully evicted and dispossessed black South Africans of their land and property. The farmlands
which the black South Africans had cultivated for generations, where their ancestors were buried were
given to white South Africans while the black South Africans moved into unfertile dust pans. As a result
of this the black South Africans, who comprised almost 80% of the total population, now owned only 4%
of the agricultural lands after the forceful evictions whereas the white South Africans who benefitted
from the apartheid era policies were approximately 10% of the total population, controlled almost 80%
of the total agricultural area. [ CITATION Cam19 \l 1033 ]

Land Distribution in South Africa.

The first democratically elected government in 1994 inherited a country that had a completely skewed
land distribution. [ CITATION Rud12 \l 1033 ] Therefore, the constitution that was adopted in 1994 called
the government to redress these wrongs. The constitution under section 25 asked the government to
make sure that those black South Africans who were unlawfully and forcefully dispossessed of their land
and property, received their properties back.

Under the Freedom Charter, the aim of land reforms was to redistribute approximately 30% or 25
million hectares of the total estimated 83 million hectares of white owned agricultural land within five
years of the 1994 elections. The ANC pledged to complete the land reforms in the five years but till 2018
only around 9% of the total land was redistributed. Between 1994 and 2010, almost 5 million hectares
were redistributed and restituted under the land reforms at a total cost of approximately R29 billion.
[ CITATION Rud12 \l 1033 ]

Recent land audit records suggest that white South Africans own almost 70% of total agricultural land
(indicating reduction of 19% since 1994) while they are currently 9% of the total South African
population whereas the black South Africans own 4% of the agricultural land and other races own 19%
of the agricultural lands. [ CITATION Hoi20 \l 1033 ]

The extent of inequality created during the apartheid runs deeper than these statistics. Over time, as the
output from the farms increased the white owners of farmlands were able to develop their farmlands
and thus acquired stake in corporate or commercial farming businesses. Meanwhile the black South
Africans became economically marginalized and were restricted to subsistence farming.
Many blacks had to seek employment in commercial farms owned by those who had directly benefited
from the apartheid. This not only restricted the income for the blacks but also cut off future
opportunities for better employment and better education for their future generations. [ CITATION Cal \l
1033 ]

What is land expropriation

Land expropriation is defined as “Expropriation is the act of a government claiming privately
owned property against the wishes of the owners, ostensibly to be used for the benefit of the overall
public”. [ CITATION Inv3 \l 1033 ]

The current constitution prevents the government from carrying out land expropriation without
compensation. The Section 25(2) states that

Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application.

(a) for a public purpose or in the public interest; and

(b) Subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which
have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by the court.”[ CITATION
Gov \l 1033 ]

Land expropriation without compensation

Under the current constitution the policy to expropriate land without any compensation is not
permissible. To address this situation in December 2019, the chairman of Adhoc committee invited
public comments on the prospect of amending the constitution.

The amendment to the constitution is expected to add a clause that may state that the government can
expropriate land at nil compensation value. [ CITATION Hoi20 \l 1033 ]

Land Reforms in South Korea

Land expropriation without compensation has been a common theme for land reforms in former
colonies. South Korea is one such former colony that implemented land reforms and experienced
economic growth. In 1949 the South Korean government initiated land reforms over land that was
owned by Japanese colonialists expropriated without compensation and it was distributed to small
Korean farmers whereas any land above 3 hectares owned by Korean landlords was sold at market price.
[ CITATION Dav18 \l 1033 ]

Impact of Land Reforms

In the 18 years between 1947 and 1965, households that were fully employed in farming increased by
53%. The overall exports of Korea were USD 3.5 billion in 1970 and they increased to USD 198.8 billion in
2003. In the same period the agricultural exports increased by USD 1.7 billion. [ CITATION Joo \l 1033 ]
It can be argued that the Korean land reforms equalized income and assets in the rural area. The
farmers or “actual producers” who were formerly dependent on the landlords were now because of
land reforms independent. This was a key factor that resulted in phenomenal economic growth.

In 1960, South Korea was among the 25 poorest countries on earth with per capita GDP of only $80 and
at that time many African states had higher per capita GDP than South Korea, whereas in 2012 the per
capita GDP of South Korea had climbed to almost $22,590 and to $31,362 in 2018. This shows the effect
that the land reforms had on the overall economy of South Korea. [ CITATION Ste14 \l 1033 ].

However it will be too simplistic to say that land reforms were the only factor that resulted in this
economic growth, there were other factors too such as government policies and incentives to
modernize the agriculture sector, price mechanisms to stabilize the income of farmers and a move
towards industrialization of the country. Thus it was a culmination of many factors that resulted in a “big
push” towards phenomenal growth because Korea achieved in a span of 50 years what developed
nations took over 100 years to achieve. The beginning however of this revolutionary phase of growth
happened with the land reforms.

Lessons for South Africa

If land expropriation without compensation is to happen in South Africa, it has to closely follow the
model of South Korea. South Korea opted for the big push theory where emphasis wasn`t only on the
land reforms instead they pushed investment into multiple sectors at once.

The current debate in South Africa rests heavily on “righting the wrongs”. If the reforms are to happen
on a political and deeply emotional basis then they may not bear the results we want them to.

Land reforms should be complimented with policies to support the small farmers, subsidies need to be
provided to reduce costs as many new farmers will face high costs due to loss of economies of scale. In
addition to this, in order to sustain the growth the government needs to carry out wide ranging reforms
to support other industries as well in order to generate aggregate demand and keep the economy on
the path of growth.

Debacle in Zimbabwe
Prior to the land reforms Zimbabwe was not only self sufficient in food production but also an exporter
of crops. The reforms were not well thought out and therefore resulted in creating an imbalance in the
financial and economic system of Zimbabwe.

Most of the expropriated land became subject to corruption and nepotism. Even where deserving black
farmers were given land the problem was that land was taken from corporate and commercial farms
and given to farmers who had no experience in managing commercial farms and this resulted in a slump
in production.
Zimbabwe once known as the bread basket of Africa was now struggling to feed its own population. It
went from the world`s 6th largest tobacco exporter in 2001[ CITATION WHO12 \l 1033 ] to not being able
to produce even a third of its production in 2005.[ CITATION Kum \l 1033 ]. Maize, the chief food crop in
Zimbabwe saw a reduction in production by almost 31% during 2002 to 2012.[ CITATION Zim \l 1033 ]

Furthermore, credit in rural settings is based on the value of assets such as land. These land reforms
eroded the value of land and turned it into a nil value asset and this crashed the financial system of
agricultural credit. Investors and lenders divested their funds and due to this the new farmers were not
able to obtain credit to fund their operations. [ CITATION Wil18 \l 1033 ]

The ill conceived land reforms resulted in eight consecutive years of economic recession; it had a total
cost of USD 20 billion that included the cost of lost exports and forgone economic growth. It induced
unemployment as high as 90%.[ CITATION Wan18 \l 1033 ]

This shows that there is no real land expropriation without compensation; someone has to pay for it. If
the government doesn`t pay for it then the economy and the whole nation has to pay for its ill effects.

Counter Argument

The question therefore is that should there be land expropriation without compensation or not? The
notion that land expropriation is vital to right the wrongs of the colonial era plays into the emotions of
the African people but decisions of such monumental value must be based on rationality and logic and
not merely on emotions, no matter how overpowering they may be.

Therefore land expropriation without compensation, was perhaps indeed the need in 1994 but the
constant failure of ANC to come true on the promise to carry it out has created such conditions where
this topic has become a political hot box.

A Question of Transparency

The ground realities must be considered before considering any decision. The realities are that land
reforms that include expropriation that too without compensation require a high degree of
transparency followed by complimentary policies and steps by the government to ensure market
stability and farmer protection. Any scheme carried out in the absence of such measures is bound to fail,
like Zimbabwe.

Capital for Maintenance and Technical Expertise

If the expropriated land is distributed to black individuals and families that do not have the required
investment necessary for the up keep of the land then the whole exercise can turn into a disaster as
production levels will decline, causing a shortage of crops like it was seen in Zimbabwe. Furthermore,
there are no criteria to ascertain that the new owners of distributed lands will have the required
expertise and capability to continue with the same level of efficiency as former owners of the distributed
lands.

Credit System

Expropriation without compensation can be disastrous for the credit system as seen in the failed
experiment in Zimbabwe. Expropriation without compensation will reduce the value of land to nil and
disrupt the financial credit system upon which farmers are dependent. A collapse in agricultural credit
system will not only affect the new farmers but also commercial farmers and those whose land isn`t
included in the reforms.

Justifiability?

While some white farm owners maybe direct or indirect beneficiaries of the apartheid, it must also be
remembered that most of the land has been transacted and not every white land owner is a beneficiary
of apartheid. Continuing with the reforms, without considering these details may bode well for political
reasons but it will create another racial rift.

Conclusion
Two wrongs can never make a right. South Africa deserves economic growth and progress, it deserves
the wrongs of the past to be corrected but the way ANC has handled this issue has been incompetent in
the past. Land reforms, if not done in a just and equitable manner will breed a new set of problems for
the nation instead of ushering an era of prosperity.

The essay has some decent points and arguments but please take time into looking at the comments I
made on the side and how I expect it to turn out. Please take your time when addressing all the
comments as I said earlier quality is more important at this point and remember that when writing an
essay try not to use emotive language. It should be written in the third person.

Try looking up what endowment points are. I believe it would fit perfectly into your argument about
Land distribution in South Africa and how white South Africans hold the resources because of their
ancestry. Try not to use Wikipedia as a reference, it’s not reliable.

Bibliography
Buttice, C. Why South Africa should not do a RZImbabwe. The Elephant.

Clark, C. (2019). This land is our land. . Harvard International Review , 10.
Government of South Africa. (n.d.). Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Retrieved from
Department of justice and constitutional development:
https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/constitution/SAConstitution-web-eng.pdf

Gumede, W. (2018). Lessons from Zimbabwe's failed land reforms. Retrieved from University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.: https://www.wits.ac.za/news/latest-news/in-their-own-
words/2018/2018-10/lessons-from-zimbabwes-failed-land-reforms.html

Hall, R. (2018). The Land Question: What is the Answer? University of Western Cape .

Investopedia. (n.d.). Expropriation. Retrieved from Investopedia:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/expropriation.asp

Mafunda, K. (n.d.). Tiny tobacco crop spells doom in Zimbabwe. Retrieved from Afrol News:
http://www.afrol.com/articles/17158

Makhado, R. A. (2012). South Africa’s land reform debate: Progress and challenges. Polokwane: Research
and Evaluation, Limpopo Legislature.

Masondo, D. (2018). A case for uncompensated land expropriation - lessons from history. Retrieved from
new24: https://www.news24.com/Columnists/GuestColumn/a-case-for-uncompensated-land-
expropriation-lessons-from-history-20180831

Mutlokwa, H. (2020, February). Land expropriation in South Africa without compensation. Retrieved
from IACL-AIDC Blog: https://blog-iacl-aidc.org/2020-posts/2020/2/20/land-expropriation-without-
compensation-in-south-africa

Song, J. (n.d.). Perspectives on agricultural development in the Republic of Korea: lessons and challenges.
Retrieved from fao.org: http://www.fao.org/3/ag089e/AG089E03.htm

Stebek, E. N. (2014). Overview of Country Experience in Land Rights and Developmental Statehood.
https://www.ajol.info//index.php/mlr/article/view/108305 .

WHO. (n.d.). Growing tobacco. Retrieved 2012, from https://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas16.pdf

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Dependency Theory. Retrieved from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_theory

Zimbabwes land reform: challenging the myths. (n.d.). Retrieved from The Zimbabwean:
https://archive.vn/20130505080411/http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=34979:zimbabwes-land-reform-challenging-the-
myths&catid=72:thursday-issue&q=scoones