Publications
Partners
There was a buzz in the air on the second morning of the land reform dialogue at the swanky Gordon Institute of Business Science in Johannesburg.
People seemed genuinely excited to talk and discuss the emotive topic of land, or maybe it was just the coffee.
Either way the auditorium filled up, protocols were observed, pleasantries were exchanged and the obligatory Australian cricket team jibe was made. Then the business began.
Throughout the two-day event various people made submissions, suggestions and presentations – from someone who had their land restored to those who have struggled to get their land to someone who is a broker and works in a big building owned by a big life company in SA’s richest square mile.
Yet, despite the variety of voices, it fell short of diversity and representation.
It is important to note that on day two, there was not a single woman who presented or was a panelist, while youth representation was also at a minimum.
This was acknowledged by Professor Nic Binedell who was part of the organising team and apologised profusely for the oversight, while co-chair of the parliamentary review committee, Vincent Smith, promised that they will go to all nine provinces to get as much input as they can.
Read: Public to have a say as land expropriation discussion hits the road
The main bone of contention was clarification. Clarification on what exactly was meant to be debated and discussed, clarification on terms used as well as what was to be achieved through these dialogues.
Smith clarified this to some extent: “On August 30 we have to go back to Parliament and say ‘does the Constitution, Section 25 need to be amended? And if it does need to be amended what are those amendments,’”. He added that the review committee will also have to put forward proposals “beyond the amendments or otherwise, what are the best mechanisms to deal with land reform?”
Smith said that all submissions made will then be evaluated and on the strength of each argument a final recommendation will be made to Parliament.
When Smith opened the discussion to the forum, opinion leaned towards not tampering with the Constitution.
“It will be a big mistake to tamper with that section,” argued Thando, a member of the public works department.
“This is a chapter (where Section 25 is housed) that defines the identity of our country and tells everyone who they are. It is a chapter that is informed by the past; it is informed by the brutality of the past because it is trying to address it.”
The previous day, deputy public works minister Jeremy Cronin said that “while the ANC has not consolidated its position in this respect, the emerging view within is that the Constitution does not require an amendment”.
However, his reasons were a little different as he said that by “using the limitations within the Bill of Rights and within the property clause itself it’s possible in certain limited circumstances to expropriate land without compensation”.
Other voices agreed that the Constitution should not be amended but that implementation was paramount and that decisive leadership was needed for it to work in this manner.
Those in the banking sector stressed the importance of not tampering with the Constitution because it could lead the world to reject South Africa’s “star” sector.
The idea was that making amendments to one section would affect other sections and that these sections then would not fall in line with international acceptable standards.
“If you start tampering with that you will negatively impact on the standing of the banking sector (in South Africa) on the global (market) and our ability to raise money internationally,” said a member from the banking association.
However, it was immediately mentioned that South Africa’s sovereignty cannot be held hostage by foreign agencies and that it would decide what to do within its borders and let those agencies decide what they would do.
“I agree that no amendment is necessary ... those who think we need an amendment, I think it should be an explanatory one only,” said Theuns from the FW de Klerk Foundation.
There was also mention of the 2014 study by the Foundation for Human Rights which found that 54% of members of vulnerable and marginalised communities were not aware of either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Which begs the question: how will this factor into the committee’s decision to democratically ascertain whether the Constitution should be amended or not?
Nevertheless the commission will go to the people of South Africa and ask them what they think.
It is hoped that more voices will be added to this process and Smith emphasised that this session was just a trial and should be viewed as such.
“You are the pacesetters here because whatever we get from you is what we will take as a prototype when we go to the communities.”
But if this forum was truly a pacesetting one then clearly amending Section 25 is not what was wanted.
