Indeed. That didn’t stop racist knees jerking wildly in the OP yet again.
Anyway to fill in some blanks:
The ruling ANC already at its previous conference in December 2017, resolved to amend the constitution to allow for expropriation without compensation, if such expropriation did not affect food security or the economy. This is a pretty restrictive caveat.
Section 25 of the Constitution already allows for expropriation, but with compensation. The amount of compensation is determined by considering a number of factors, of which fair market value is only one.
Despite this, since 1994, land reform and redistribution has taken place purely on a “willing buyer, willing seller” model. Government hasn’t been unwilling to pay vast sums - over R1 billion (about 80 million dollars i think) was paid to Mala Mala game reserve alone in 2013 in a land restitution matter.
To me it seems a bit strange to push for a new stronger tool to tackle land reform when the current tools aren’t being used at full strength.
As such, and IMO, this is a populist measure to cover up government’s dismal performance in this area and to deprive the opposition EFF of one of its major platforms ahead of the April 2019 elections.
There is still a long process to follow. What has happened so far is that a motion was passed in the National assembly to begin the process of amending the constitution to allow for expropriation without compensation. That’s it.
First, the proposed amendment it is considered by the Constitutional Review Committee, followed by a draft for public comment. The support of 2/3 of the National Assembly and 6 of nine provincial delegations in the National Council of Provinces is required. And we haven’t even gotten to the legislation and regulations which will give effect to the constitutional amendment, nevermind the inevitable legal challenges from other opposition parties and civil society, no matter what form it takes. (and I probably missed out a few steps too - my memory of conlaw class is a bit rusty)
The problem is that this move will undoubtedly make many South African whites fearful of black people, or at least angry. The current setup is entirely based on a previous incredibly institutionalized racism. Some reverse racism is probably the only way to make things more equitable. But leaders should take care not to do it in so ham handed a fashion as to make an ugly situation uglier.
I won’t comment on the issue, since all I know about it is contained in this thread and the link, and I’m very skeptical that this info accurately encompasses the entirety of the issue.
Well, I think this is probably a pretty important issue for the people of South Africa and southern Africa in general, so it’s unfortunate that this thread got moved to a forum which allows you to ignore it and focus on the poster instead.
I’d love to hear from the board’s South Africans. In my experience on the board, they have by far the best understanding of South African issues, and almost always end up majorly correcting the OP and others who express repeated skepticism about the ability of black South Africans to govern.
“Land Reform” i.e., take land from the rich land owners and distribute it to the poor people who work it as tenants and share croppers- has a long sad history of failing; and yet because it intuitively seems as if it ought to work that time and again it keeps getting tried by people who insist that market forces are artificial and can be set aside by fiat. In Latin America it goes back to the wars of independence from Spain.
The main problem is that control of the land is really placed in the hands of the government officials, bureaucrats and military leaders who set up a politicized spoils system whose primary purpose is to keep the land redistributors in power. This is what happened in Zimbabwe.
Exactly. It is certainly possible to make land reform that produces more equity and less race based wealth, but that is rarely the goal of people setting the policy. It’s almost always a political move to say “See? We fixed that racist problem! Now vote for me!”. You can’t jump into a new world, you have to work slowly enough to bring all the stakeholders along with you. And if any governing party has no excuse for not using a long view approach, it’s the ANC.
You dodn’t just criticize what is objectively a poorly conceived proposal; you expressed your concern specifically on the impact of “white South Africans” rather than to the country as a whole. The entire line of, “Na huh, you’re the racist!” is some pretty pathetic shit-throwing from a gibbonous trollster who knows exactly what he is doing and the attention-grasping response he seeks.
There are a lot of important issues that could be discussed about the diverse cultures and problems of the various nations on the African continent, most that are derived from the history of European colonialism and virtually none of which have easy solutions. Unfortunately, the o.p. decided to poison the well right out of the gate by starting with the premise that the only issues of consequence are those facing “white South Africans” (his words).
Four posts - none of which even come close to proving your hypothesis - out of the many many thousands of posts I’ve made here.
If I were to criticise a policy of Trump’s, say his putative imposition of trade tariffs, would you accuse me of racism? I’m British and he’s American, after all.
I suspect many people feel that’s not the topic the OP wants to discuss. The topic may not be “Is this change in South Africa’s constitution a bad idea?” It could be “Look at how much white men suffer.”
That’s the thing, I don’t think he poisoned the well just by stating where his sympathies lie. He’s right, this will definitely make many white farm owners look for the exit sign. How could it not?
You probably would have no idea if I was right. That’s the thing about unconscious bias – it’s unconscious. Based on multiple posts of yours, including those cited and some just from my memory, I think you have some significant unconscious bias.
Not an attack in any way. I welcome anyone pointing out unconscious biases that I still have. I want to be a better person and continue to get rid of these sorts of biases – and I almost certainly still have some of my own. I presume you also want to be a better person, and recognize that there’s a possibility that you might have some biases you don’t know about. If so, just consider that you might – you don’t need to take my word for it. Just consider how you approach issues related to race, and how you treat and act around others of different backgrounds, and the like. And most importantly, seek out the opinion of those with very different backgrounds from yourself. Unconscious biases are usually driven by culture, and those in your own culture are far less likely to see those biases that are strongly influenced by that culture.
And hopefully you won’t be so defensive if others share my opinion. Defensiveness hinders the possibility of being a better person.
I think there’s a possibility, this late after the end of apartheid, that the time for a nuanced response has passed. Land redistribution ain’t ever easy, and elected officials drag their feet, and often find a way to profit.
Someone needs to step up, to do the unpopular, controversial thing and find a solution that resolves this issue once and, if not ‘for all’, for generations going forward. The citizens deserve as much after decades of assurances.
Is everyone going to be happy? Seems unlikely. There exists no perfect solution. But it’s still has to get done. And the only way through, is through. If you want to avoid an eventual return to open conflict this issue needs to be addressed.
Seizing and the redistribution of wealth is not rare. Scapegoating and disparate treatment based on racial/ethnic divisions is not rare either.
Of course it’s mentioned on occasion. So it’s not as if those who read about international affairs are ignorant. But the scale of media coverage is quite often disproportionate. Be right back, I have 20 editorials to read about Trump’s latest tweet.