Publications
Partners
Reflecting on last week’s state of the nation address again, and allowing my exuberance to settle after what I believed was an inspiring and brave speech by President Cyril Ramaphosa, I needed to come back down to reality and reflect on each aspect and promise he made.
I started this conversation with a friend over Facebook, which both confirmed my excitement, but equally left me uneasy by the president’s speech.
For the most part, I felt the reforms and opportunities he spelt out were bold, important, necessary and very difficult to implement.
However, one part left me uneasy – the land expropriation issue, on which I felt he missed the mark and primarily appeased white voters, local and foreign investors, and probably some minorities in the black middle class.
In essence, the president promised a “logical” solution for the “wrong problem”, which is entirely emotional and psychological.
The president said: “South Africa’s ‘original sin’ of black land dispossession would be redressed with land expropriation without compensation as part of the ‘collective action’ required to unite the country, but without damaging the economy, agricultural production or food security.
“The return of the land to the people from whom it was taken speaks to precisely what we need to do to heal the divisions of the past. Whether we like it or not, that pain persists. We need to interrogate the statement that expropriation without compensation on land is incompatible with a growing and flourishing economy ... The expropriation of land without compensation is envisaged as one of the measures to redistribute land to black South Africans.”
Land expropriation is not only about economic emancipation (that’s actually secondary, in my opinion) for many black people.
Taking a bulk of state-owned land and providing uncompensated land access in demarcated areas for black people in urban, peri-urban or rural settings actually misses the mark completely.
Some of that land might contain services and some of it may even have an economic value, but I don’t think many black people are going to buy into it, as opposition parties such as the EFF are going to emotionally tap into pain or difference between “the land on offer versus the land that was taken away from them”.
Dealing with issues of race (and gender) where large-scale exclusion and abuse has occurred over centuries doesn’t only require logic to provide a well thought through solution, it requires an emotional and spiritual intelligence that speaks to the very core of the issue, and provides a safe space where deep-seated anger, acceptance, forgiveness and reconciliation can occur alongside logical economic resolutions.
This is because we are human beings (not robots) with complex psyches and emotions hooked into a very sensitive nervous system, which carries our past with us into the present and our perspectives of the future.
A large portion of our population’s past and present is horrific, meaning that their self-confidence (and worth) has been shattered, and this influences how they perceive their life now and into the future.
Land for the black majority is emotional, and rightfully so. It’s about having been exploited, removed violently from their ancestral homes and forced unwillingly into locations that were barely liveable.
This process carries the “emotional wound” of that racial exploitation and demands reparation from white South Africans.
That reparation at one end of the spectrum could mean an unqualified apology from white South Africans, a “promise” to end structural racism wherever it exists, and land or economic compensation.
At the other end of the spectrum is a festering, angry boil of emotion, which seeks revenge by receiving the “actual ancestral land” that was taken away, even if it comes at an economic loss to the country.
There are probably many shades of opinion in between those extremes, which can be justified.
But the core of the problem is emotional, with a dangerous nexus of facing a painful life lived in extreme poverty alongside structural racism that still exists for many, and the consequential anger that is felt by millions of South Africans.
With the president offering promises of medium- to long-term economic reform alongside “logical” land solutions, there is no “silver bullet” here.
This pain and anger is not going anywhere unless we treat its root causes in a multipronged approach.
We simply dress the wound with a silky thin plaster, which falls off in a few months when the same pain resumes and people realise that, even after they receive land in what will be a slow, prolonged process, they are still as poor, and structural racism is still perceived at epidemic levels.
Essentially, Ramaphosa has kicked the can down the road and the short-term fix will unravel over time.
ANC factions, the EFF and others will not accept the current solution.
The emotional wound is open, ripe and will increase in intensity, in my opinion, when the current proposal at hand fails as an accelerated or quick fix.
I don’t quite know what the solution is and whether there should be a kind of Truth and Reconciliation Commission with a focus on racial reconciliation.
But it needs to occur alongside the long road ahead of economic reform, growth and inclusion.
Otherwise, we open ourselves up to the possibility that the wound will grow even deeper as people of colour (and women) face a barrage of continued racism (misogyny) and unconstitutional or inhumane living conditions.
Economic growth and inclusion takes time – perhaps a generation – to fully see the results. But we need additional short- and medium-term fixes for the country’s long-term vision to manifest.
It was ironic that a young black teenager was slapped in the face at a traditionally white school during the week Ramaphosa presented his state of the nation address.
Although one can’t be completely sure that the incident was racially motivated, the response by black people and the EFF is a reminder to all of us that racism is still deeply embedded in the hearts of many black South Africans.
To me, the EFF is an amazing innovation as its loud messages, whether in Parliament, the media or at rallies, provide a litmus test to what millions of black South Africans think and feel.
We need leaders who recognise the multivariant economic and psychological motivations of seemingly complex problems. I hope Ramaphosa is that man because I do believe his intentions are pure.
That said, his job is complex, but it must simultaneously address the psychological and socioeconomic damage at scale, which land and jobs cannot do.
Saying that opposition parties and more extreme groups like Black First Land First (with the Freedom Front Plus being its polar opposite) are simply populist groups or extremists using race exclusively for their own political gains is short-sighted.
As long as these groups tap into and stir the already angry psyche of many black South Africans, we know there is a big job to do.
We ignore it at our own peril. We already know that we live in a violent country that mobilises quickly in anger.
Pichulik is an impact investing professional with more than a decade of experience in driving access t calable, impact ventures in Africa o capital for scalable, impact ventures in Africa
TALK TO US
Do you think Ramaphosa is on the right track when it comes to land restitution?
SMS us on 35697 using the keyword LAND and tell us what you think. Please include your name and province. SMSes cost R1.50. By participating, you agree to receive occasional marketing material
