S. Africa gives white farmers 6 months warning: sell now or we will take your land

[Rambuchan]

However, the process of increasing black wealth in South Africa more rapidly has to be an issue for SA politics. Tell me you atleast agree with that.

I agree with that.

And not only in SA where - more than a decade after the end of apartheid - over 90 percent of South Africa's commercial farmland is still owned by the white minority. This is the legacy of apartheid and colonial rule, which saw blacks kicked off their ancestral land - through means far less savoury than what is being proposed here.

In this context it must be noted that there remain MASSIVE imbalances in wealth between local populations of most sub-Saharan countries and the colonial descendants (as well as the manifold shoddy, indigenous leaders). This brings lack of opportunity, indignity, injustice, resentment, plus crime and war to their societies. The latter two are hugely debilitating on the economy in themselves and are a major obstacle for inward investments that could bring more wealth, expertise and stability to these countries.

The poverty of the black populations sees them falling foul to AIDS and generations are being decimated as such. It brings addiction to illegally made, cheap alcohol, which tends to slowly poison people to death. It sees them being unable to maintain themselves in education, if they can get to some. Poverty in these communities also breaks up family ties as members are pulled apart to eek out a living wherever they can get it, rather than where it might suit them best (the AIDS epidemic doesn't help this much either).

Let's not forget the civil war, military coups and genocide that are so fervently driven and assisted by such gross imbalances in wealth, with their incumbent sense of indignity and injustice.

And you guys are worried about whether the black farmers are up to the job?

I think many have missed the point of empowering and enriching the indigenous populations. All the above is far more ruinous to an economy than what is being screamed about so hysterically in this thread.

 

[Rambuchan]

They probably do exist. However, knowledge of running a farm is not what is being taken into account when the government is deciding who gets the land. It's based on your family tree. Genetic pot-luck so to speak. And well, you can't deny the reality of the legacy of apartheid. Most of the blacks in SA are uneducated and unskilled - this is not their fault but it is the reality.

It's simple logic really. You have people who have been deliberately kept uneducated and unskilled being dumped on a modern 1st world farm - which is extremely mechanized, requires high levels of education, knowledge of complex accounting rules and asking them to run the place. If I dumped *you* on a modern American farm and asked you to run it I'd like to see how well you can do even though you are likely highly educated. It is not impossible though if the government is well-prepared and has massive support programs in place to help the new farmers. This could even include keeping the former white farmers on for a while as managers and mentors.

I think the education matter, for the higher levels of expertise you refer to, is not as severe as you make out. Remember that this is management and white collar stuff you're talking about. These guys are not in the same basket as the masses I comment on above. These are people who have reaped some benefits from post-Apartheid positive discrimination. They have attained wealth and are gaining education that counts. Also, we live in a global market for education. Africans study in first world countries and attain the relevant skills you speak of above (if they can afford it). Plus, there is nothing that I can see here discounting the inclusion of the old farmers from the farming procedures (save for resentment, racism and crime). Maybe it's there, but I've missed it.

 

[azzaman333]

With what army? They are heavily outnumbered and outgunned and no longer have the apartheid government to protect them.

You know what's really sad though? It won't really matter that much to the rest of the world if SA decides to self-destruct.

I dont know how long it will be until it happens, but i am quite certain that eventually things will evolve in such a way that "whites" will take the lands back.

 

[Rambuchan]

It's a fact that South Africa is an agricultural powerhouse, in fact it is one of the leading agro-exporters in the world. This can't be argued. It is also a fact that white south africans have an educational and financial level on pair with western europeans, while black south africans, for a multitude of reasons including colonial control and the apartheid, don't.

I see no sense in giving productive land that bring profits to the country to people that don't have the proper skills to keep them as productive as they currently are. Educate those people first - and for educating them you need lots of money, And guess who has the money and who brings more money to South Africa? Again, a fact.

In the long run the blacks who are given the land will be worst off.

And also note that I'm not fully opposed to land reforms. Taking unprodcuctive land from it's current owner (paying an indenization) and giving it to the people who work there is usually a good idea. But expropriating commercial farms is so stupid that it shouldn't even be explained.

I think you've got it wrong about South Africa and agriculture. Look at this:

'A LOT OF ROMANTICISM'

Studies suggest that in a country where the economic role of agriculture has steadily declined over the decades, and where more and more rural folk are flocking to cities, agriculture should not be seen as a panacea for poverty.

"There's a lot of romanticism about agriculture," said Nick Vink of the University of Stellenbosch in Cape Town.

The sector shrank 6.9 percent in the first quarter of 2006 after expanding by 3.9 percent in the previous quarter, according to official gross domestic data (GDP) data.

Its contribution to GDP was around 2.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2005 compared to around 6 percent in the 1980s.

Still, in some ways the sector punches above its weight.

South Africa's ability to feed itself is a vital source of stability in a region that suffers frequent food shortages.

Department of agriculture statistics show the sector employed around 940,000 people out of a population of 45 million in 2002 -- the last year for which figures are available -- down from about 1.6 million in the late 1960s. But it is still a crucial source of work in a country with a jobless rate of around 26 percent.

URBAN LANDSCAPE

However, South Africa is now a nation of city dwellers.

Nearly 60 percent of the country is "urbanised" and in eight years that might rise to 70 percent, according to a 2005 study by the independent Centre for Development and Enterprises.

"In line with this, most South Africans now see land as a 'place to stay' rather than a 'place to farm'," it said.

"There is no doubt that many black South Africans are strongly attached to South African land in general, and the lands of their ancestors in particular ... However it should not be equated to wanting to farm for a living."

An OECD report earlier this year echoed those sentiments, saying simply handing more land to blacks, without developing neglected rural communities, was meaningless.

Dirk du Toit, deputy minister of agriculture and land affairs, said shortcomings in his department's policy were being ironed out and there was great economic potential in agriculture.

"There are sectors in the agricultural economy that are growing tremendously. Go and look what happened to our wine exports. We are doing very well with beef at the moment and you can go on," he said on a recent trip to KwaZulu-Natal to visit Mbhele's project.

"The land reform programme is critically important ... Number one, it redresses the past imbalances ... but it's also about the socio-economic development of poor people in this country."

Reuters.

 

[Rambuchan]

In a free market things will even out naturally over time, which is better because it does not leave the scars and bitterness that forced "evening out" leaves.

Yes, that's a lovely bedtime story that one. Sadly, in the real world, things don't work quite like that.

 

[Uiler]

I think many have missed the point of empowering and enriching the indigenous populations. All the above is far more ruinous to an economy than what is being screamed about so hysterically in this thread.

Yeah, just like Zimbabwe! No wait...

 

[luiz]

Ram, the text you quoted (which is quite good), says that SA is becoming more urban, which is natural, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's agriculture is declining. It still has a very competitive agricultural sector.

Also note this piece of your text:

"There is no doubt that many black South Africans are strongly attached to South African land in general, and the lands of their ancestors in particular ... However it should not be equated to wanting to farm for a living."

An OECD report earlier this year echoed those sentiments, saying simply handing more land to blacks, without developing neglected rural communities, was meaningless

If the Americas are any exemple, the poorer segments of society (black, white or mixed) usually find more opportunities in the cities than in the countryside, and in fact leave the farms in great numbers.

 

[Uiler]

Ram, the text you quoted (which is quite good), says that SA is becoming more urban, which is natural, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's agriculture is declining. It still has a very competitive agricultural sector.

Also note this piece of your text:



If the Americas are any exemple, the poorer segments of society (black, white or mixed) usually find more opportunities in the cities than in the countryside, and in fact leave the farms in great numbers.

Also this bit:

Still, in some ways the sector punches above its weight.

South Africa's ability to feed itself is a vital source of stability in a region that suffers frequent food shortages.

Department of agriculture statistics show the sector employed around 940,000 people out of a population of 45 million in 2002 -- the last year for which figures are available -- down from about 1.6 million in the late 1960s. But it is still a crucial source of work in a country with a jobless rate of around 26 percent.

 

[Rambuchan]

Ram, the text you quoted (which is quite good), says that SA is becoming more urban, which is natural, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's agriculture is declining. It still has a very competitive agricultural sector.

It doesn't necessarily mean that agriculture is diminishing, you're right. However, agriculture is diminishing nonetheless:

The [agricultural] sector shrank 6.9 percent in the first quarter of 2006 after expanding by 3.9 percent in the previous quarter, according to official gross domestic data (GDP) data.

Its contribution to GDP was around 2.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2005 compared to around 6 percent in the 1980s.

same Reuters article

Also note this piece of your text:

"There is no doubt that many black South Africans are strongly attached to South African land in general, and the lands of their ancestors in particular ... However it should not be equated to wanting to farm for a living."

An OECD report earlier this year echoed those sentiments, saying simply handing more land to blacks, without developing neglected rural communities, was meaningless

If the Americas are any exemple, the poorer segments of society (black, white or mixed) usually find more opportunities in the cities than in the countryside, and in fact leave the farms in great numbers.

Americans are not a good comparison for many, many reasons, too obvious to point out here. But a similar dynamic is evident.

But I agree with the point I've bolded and you've pulled out. I believe that South African ministers are paying undue attention to land ownership alone, and these policies will not alleviate the problems I spoke of about poverty above as effectively as they are presuming. At least not without some other measures alongside. That's why I want to see more detail on this policy.

I do see that they could help some though, with these other measures that the sources are not speaking of. And that 90% figure is still unacceptable imho.


PS. I have to go to bed now. Shame. Good thread Uiler, I look forward to seeing where things have progressed when I next log in. Maybe I will get that 'free trade and the market sorts everything out' bedtime story read to me as I drift off to slumber

 

[Uiler]

Here's a recent OECD report on agriculture in S. Africa.

http://www.oecd.org/document/39/0,2340,en_2649_33797_36482847_1_1_1_1,00.html

You have to pay for it but here are some illuminating facts from the summary:

- agriculture may contribute less than 4% of GDP but accounts for 10% of employment in SA.
- there are actually two types of agriculture in SA. The competitive export one run by white farmers and the subsistence level farming run by black farmers.

BTW as far as I know, the worse poverty (and crime) is in the townships, not the countryside. Why isn't the majority of the government attention aimed at creating jobs for people in the townships? Anyway, despite the SA government dressing this up as poverty alleviation I honestly think that this is far more to deal with emotions, populism and history than practical reality.

 

[Mott1]

BTW as far as I know, the worse poverty (and crime) is in the townships, not the countryside. Why isn't the majority of the government attention aimed at creating jobs for people in the townships? Anyway, despite the SA government dressing this up as poverty alleviation I honestly think that this is far more to deal with emotions, populism and history than practical reality.

The expropriation of white-owned farms has nothing to do with alleviating poverty but rather a move to empower the local black community as part of a land reform program.

 

[amadeus]

Alright I won't argue with you on the morality of this...it will be a pointless discussion. Ah, but benefits of modernization in Africa were only for who? White people.

A vauge and virtually impossible statement to verify.

It's only been recently that blacks were even able to tap into these resources. Even when whites left these modernized and resourceful areas to Africa...they left without teaching africans the skills to use them.

The Africans didn't want the whites there, so they lost the benefits associated with European influence and technology. African countries, if they're going to nationalize our property and kick us in the rear ends, don't deserve any help in developing.

No this isn't the cause for all instability in Africa as Muagbe shows, but it has not helped. Still, the goverment has now decided...So now whites have a choice whether they agree with it or not. Struggle and make the situation worse or just infrom and educate the black africans.

It isn't a choice if there's only one option.

 

[_Philospher_]

A vauge and virtually impossible statement to verify.


The Africans didn't want the whites there, so they lost the benefits associated with European influence and technology. African countries, if they're going to nationalize our property and kick us in the rear ends, don't deserve any help in developing.


It isn't a choice if there's only one option.

Come on rmshape, don't play dumb...you know good and well that historically whites did not care about black rights. You can't re-write history. Thus the reason for African desire for nationalization in the first place and why they didn't want whites there. Is this the case now? No, but historically yes and effects are still felt today. All this dosn't matter anyway cause I'm not arguing for whites to give up there land. What I'm asking is that serious efforts are put toward helping black africans progress without economic exploitation. I think that IS A FAIR DEMAND.

 

[amadeus]

Come on rmshape, don't play dumb...you know good and well that historically whites did not care about black rights. You can't re-write history.

I didn't mention rights. I'd rather be healthy and well-fed in a country where I couldn't vote than starve to death in one where I can, not as though there were any democratic countries in Africa after decolonization anyway, with only a few small exceptions.

Thus the reason for African desire for nationalization in the first place and why they didn't want whites there. Is this the case now? No, but historically yes and effects are still felt today. All this dosn't matter anyway cause I'm not arguing for whites to give up there land. What I'm asking is that serious efforts are put toward helping black africans progress without economic exploitation. I think that IS A FAIR DEMAND.

Who are the Africans to demand anything from the Europeans? My ancestors were impovrished by different European powers, subjugated under various monarchs and empires, but I'm not demanding any sort of compensation for their evils.

If the Africans want to get on with their lives, they're going to have to get over it. The Africans are too bound up in their own misery about the past effects of colonization that they're running around in a circle. Much of the Americas and Asia was colonized, but we don't hear them blaming European powers for every single fault that lies in their countries today. It's ridiculous.

 

[_Philospher_]

Yes, I understand your point. The blame game is not helpful. I give you that. I don't disagree. But to simply say Europeans are free from all responsibility in helping black africans is equally ridiculous.

 

[Cheetah]

The case is simple. If they can get qualified people to work and operate these farms after they have been redistributed, things may work out. The white farmers will probably be angry (especially if they don't get a fair compensation), but there won't be much they can do. The black farmers will probably be better off and it can give a positive effect to other black people in South Africa.

If they can't get qualified people to do the job, they're heading for a lot of problems. Food shortages, angry mobs, more violence, more poverty. Another Zimbabwe.

But where are they going to find more qualified people to work and operate the farms? After all, if they are qualified, they are probably at a farm already...

 

[luiz]

It doesn't necessarily mean that agriculture is diminishing, you're right. However, agriculture is diminishing nonetheless:

What I see here are two distinct facts:
1-The SA agriculture is facing / faced a recession after a period of expansion.
2-Agriculture is falling as a percentage of GDP.

Fact number 2 is natural and happened everywhere, though maybe it is happening too fast in SA. Fact 1 should be a cause of concern, but in itself is also natural. Those facts do not deny that there is indeed a modern and competitive agriculture there.

Americans are not a good comparison for many, many reasons, too obvious to point out here. But a similar dynamic is evident.

I didn't mean only the USamericans, but rather the whole continent. What happened here was that as agriculture became more professionalalized and internationally competitive, the unskilled subsistence farmers were pretty much literally pushed out of their properties and into the cities, where they would for the most part start in poverty but at least would meet their most basic needs. In SA of course this didn't happen only due to market forces, but also because of a deliberate policy of taking lands from blacks (who were usually subsistence farmers) and giving to whites.

So what happened there can't be excused, but we must be realistic. Expropriating the commercial farms and resettling the subsistence farmers goes against the economic interests of SA and also against logic. Ultimately they would lose a source of revenue and of jobs, and they need that revenue for, among other things, educate the black population and build stuff as basic as a sewer system that many of them lack.

It may be very cruel, but giving land to poor and unskilled (and by unskilled I mean on a manegerial level) is a lousy idea on a modern context. Poor people do live better in the cities or even working in the commercial farms than as subsistence farmers.

As Uiler also pointed out most of the most serious problems in South Africa, like extreme poverty, criminality and AIDS are located in the townships, so it is clear that the government should focus their emergencial actions there.

 

[Wilhelm Kaleva]

I bet the transformation the SA government is seeking will resemble the "transformation" of JHB and Pretoria. Oh look how they are "fourishing" under their newly liberated New South Africans. Read the blog and leanr for instance how the second highest skyscraper in Johannesburg has been abandoned few years ago when the neighbourhood became too dangerous. it is now inhabited by black squatters. Sharing the same faith as the world renowed Carlton Hotel.

http://deathofjohannesburg.blogspot.com/

Why does every mistake always have to be repeated again and again...

From the comments page:

" Swedish dissident said...
Terrible, absolutely terrible. South Africa is lost forever, now it can only serve as a warning example to the rest of the world. "

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=30988156&postID=115265009142113478

 

[amadeus]

Even Helen Suzman thinks South Africa has gone down the toilet by the way of the ANC.

 

[Rambuchan]

^ How many more times are you going to defer to that trophy of the Telegraph's as the ultimate authority on all things South African?

luiz: Good post man. I'll get back to you later, when I'm not in such a lazy mood .