Facts About Land Reform in South Africa
Dr. Izak Labuschagne - 8/26/2005
1. On 12 August 2005 an open challenge on the Internet containing extremely serious allegations regarding the governments land reform policy was made to South Africa’s President Mbeki. First at www.izak/letter%20to%20President%204.htm and as reported by The Foundation For the Development of Africa at http://www.foundation-development-africa.org/africa_development/other_africa_issues/index.htm and THE GLOBAL POLITICIAN at http://www.globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=1089&cid=8&sid=56
2. On 15, 16 and 17 August 2005 evidence of how the President’s office is trying to avoid the challenge and how the National Department of Land Affairs hurriedly destroyed records relating to the challenge were posted on the Internet at www.izak.co.za/LandReformWebPage.htm ; www.izak.co.za/NDAStonewall.htm and www.izak.co.za/Hi%20Robert.htm
3. On 19 August a report is posted that the President has admitted the Challenge was posted at www.izak.co.za/LandReformWebPage.htm; and at www.izak.co.za/Admission.htm
4. Instead of reporting on these extremely serious allegations made in the public and transmitted to most news agencies, the media concentrated on reporting on demands by far leftist minority groups demanding that all the land be nationalized as communal land for the whole population. See for example the following articles http://allafrica.com/stories/200508180348.html “Why Buy back stolen land?” There has been an overwhelming number of reports that allege that the Willing Buyer Willing Seller policy did not work when one of the very serious allegations in the challenge is that the government deliberately sabotaged that part of the program in order to justify expropriations. Neither does any agency report that the program worked when the previous regime bought some 40 Mil ha of land from White farmers to give tenure security to non-white farmers under the homeland policy. Not one agency wants to report that the Minister of Land Affairs is holding on to the title deeds of the land she inherited from the apartheid regime in order to manipulate the rural vote and to keep skimming profits off rigged to fail projects deployed there so as to justify implementing a government controlled communal land program where only their supporters will have access to land.
5. On Wednesday the 24th of August 2005 the ANC government confirmed the above allegations by announcing its intention not to transfer some of the 30 million hectares of state land it inherited from the apartheid era to a non-white community in terms of the laws governing the Land reform Program, but to implement a state run communal system, thereby acquiescing to the leftist demands by breaking their own laws on tenure security, transformation, empowerment and land reform. See www.izak.co.za/LandReformWebPage.htm and www.izak.co.za/LandReformWebPage.htm#_Toc112679459 ; They made it clear to the leaders of the Goodhouse community that it will be an ANC run project and that if they did not participate they would be run off the land. There is therefore no tenure security for non-ANC supporters, the law means nothing, neither does the democratic will of the masses in that area exercised under the transformation act that governs that process regionally mean a thing.
The above facts of course give rise to five simple questions: -
1. Why is it that certain media and political parties keep such important facts about such serious allegations a secret, while promoting the political allegations and aspirations of far leftist minority groups?
2. Do persons that make such choices share the same aspirations?
3. Is everyone satisfied that the ANC government gives its blatant, illegal and practical support to such aspirations even if it breaks most of the laws governing the Land reform process. ?
4. Will these developments continue to go unchecked and unreported on?
5. Will the victims, like the current multitudes in Zimbabwe also be left homeless, destitute, starving and without any hope of real intervention by the western democracies?
It makes one wonder whether these democracies do not also share the same aspirations.