We need a better land policy: iLIVE

I find what the Honourable Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries said quite interesting as a young man who is fanatical of the debate about land distribution, redistribution and restitution in our beautiful country.

It is also interesting that this information becomes apparent to the public at a time when the country is witnessing the champion of land expropriation without compensation facing troublesome difficulties in his party.

I must say that I have found it interesting that the ANC led government has placed Dr. Mulder in this specific office especially because he is a member of the opposition.

I am not sure if the Deputy Minister made this statement in his capacity as a deputy minster or as the head of his party. Either way it is a statement that makes the debate around the land issues more intricate and further gives momentum to it.

I hold the view that is in favour of a more aggressive land policy, one that incorporates four aspects: youth, previously disadvantaged, skilled/ educated management and government subsidy. Any agricultural and land plans should be driven towards the youth: black, Indian, coloured and white. This policy should be mindful of two things - our history and our future.

The second aspect is the previously disadvantaged must be catered for. Those who were previously not afforded a chance to partake in agricultural economic activities by law, that is blacks (for the most part), coloureds and Indians must be given a chance to do so even if it means the intervention of government is needed to achieve this goal not through ownership but facilitation and regulation.

Aspect number three of skills and education is vital to the sustainability of economic agriculture. Those that claim land should not be given ownership of that land until sufficient skills and education of the trait i.e. cattle farming, poultry farming etc. have proven to be within the claimants capacity to sustain the entity. This will make sure that failed farms and others e.g. game reserves do not occur and cause irreparable damage to the economy of the country.

The fourth aspect is that government subsidy applies across the board for agriculture. Thus whoever's land is by law expropriated with/without consent of the owner must be compensated by the current owners through government subsidies. The existing agricultural landscape must be boasted by government through subsidies for the purpose of food security.

Therefore, Dr. Mulder, the issue of 40% of the land in South Africa not being historically owned by blacks does not underestimate the legitimacy to claim land due to the discriminatory legislature that prevented the previously disadvantaged an opportunity to acquire land in those areas.

The inability to allow other races an opportunity to own land anywhere within the borders of South Africa qualifies the previously disadvantaged to claim land. Although these claims cannot be of heritage, they can be made from unequal opportunities afforded to one group and not the other. When it comes to voting we believe in equal opportunity - why not when it comes to land? The rights of the minorities must always be protected but fairness must prevail.

I believe South Africans should move away from wanting to prove one race having more a legitimate claim on the land than the other, as this takes away from the importance of a sector that contributes over 4% of the country’s GDP.

We should rather strive to share the land and its wealth in accordance to the democratic system in which all South Africans believe, proportionality. It is from this point on that we will allow the market free space to dictate its own direction, with influence of course coming from the government.

Those who are in parliament today must realise that they will not benefit from the fruits their cultivating but their children will.

Honourable Deputy Minister Mulder, take note that proving that certain areas of land do not historically belong to a certain group you must be mindful that the opportunity to own that land and land which was theirs historically allows room for compromises to be made.

The argument of historically-owned land is only but a factor to the land issue debate and does not constitute the enormity and importance of the land debate, but rather equal distribution, redistribution and restitution complete the argument. Therefore we should always be mindful of the ideals of the freedom and not interpret them through the eyes, knowledge or rhetoric of one group of people.

This South Africa is not a South Africa of the black, or white, but rather a South Africa for South Africans who are in it and live in it and share it.