Posted on 09/27/2005 6:06:53 PM PDT by Flavius
WHITE South African farmers are watching with mounting unease as the Government finalises plans to take over a white-owned farm and hand the land to descendants of its original black owners.
The seizure, which follows the failure of talks lasting more than two years between the authorities and an Afrikaner family, will signal the end of the willing seller/willing buyer policy. Other white farmers fear that it could mark the start of a far more aggressive land redistribution programme.
Land ownership is a sensitive issue in a country that has been spared the violent seizures without compensation of neighbouring Zimbabwe, where more than 4,000 white-owned farms have been taken over since 2000. The Government has faced growing criticism of foot-dragging over the politically explosive issues and recently changed the law to allow expropriation to take place without court approval. Most of South Africa ’s 40 million people live in rural areas, and they are overwhelmingly black and poor.
Eleven years after the end of apartheid, the Government has transferred slightly more than 3 per cent of agricultural land previously reserved for whites to black owners. Another 27 per cent must follow to meet the official target of 30 per cent black ownership by 2014.
Thoko Didiza, the Land Affairs Minister, said at the weekend that she would submit plans to the Cabinet next month to make the pace of land reform ten times faster.
She said: “The quicker we deal with this land issue, the better for all of us. It creates an uncertainty, not just for South Africans, but for others who want to develop partnerships with us and who keep asking when this will end.” She added that the target was not negotiable and that “policy, not the deadline, will have to change”.
The compulsory purchase of Leeuwsprit Farm in Lichtenburg, about 160 miles west of Johannesburg, which reignited the debate, was approved by Blessing Mphela, the North West Land Claims Com- missioner. He said that it was the last option after negotiations with Frans Visser, 82, and his son, Hannes, 47, had failed.
The Government had offered 1.75 million rands (£154,000) but the Visser family was holding out for R3 million for two adjacent farms totalling 500 hectares (1,235 acres).
The Vissers, who bought the land from other Afrikaner farmers in 1968, maintain that they should also be compen- sated for improvements that they have made. They argue that the Government is offering them only the value of the land rather than the value of the entire venture.
The family has pledged to fight the order. Lizanne Burger, 51, Mr Visser’s daughter, said: “We have yet to receive the papers, but we have been told they are on the way.” Her brother, Hannes, said that he would appeal against the order and fight it in the courts. He said: “I do not recognise the claim and cannot be forced to sell at the Government’s price.” He added that he had invested R3.4 million in the cattle and sheep farm as recently as 1994-98, for which he should also be compensated.
Thousands of black families were forcibly removed from their land during white minority rule. Some sold under pressure, but title deeds show voluntary sales. Others were forced out of areas that were suddenly designated for whites only.
Mr Visser’s black neighbours successfully argued before the Land Commission that the land on which Leeuwsprit Farm is located had been taken from them against their will in 1939.
I certainly agree.
Ya think?
Sounds a lot like Louisiana.
It would be like a Nanticoke or Powhatan Indian surfacing to claim land my ancestors bought from both the Nanticoke and the Powhatan (same land, two different claimants--which meant I found a lot of arrowheads as a kid).
i've heard it called "ethno-fascism" because it had the appearance of free-market capitalism on the ground level, but most corportations were controlled by the government and the government's resposibilities to the people were determined by people's official racial and ethnic classifications.
I agree
I hear ya,cyborg.I can't believe how so many people on this board criticize-and often rightfully so-the abuses going on currently in Zimbabwe and SA under black rule but then completely destroy their argument by waxing nostalgically about Apartheid or the old Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia.
To me it would be the same as a Cuban condemning the tyranny of Castro's dictatorship but then blowing their logic by wanting to bring back a scoundrel and theif like Bautista!
I'm actually glad to see some one post this. If the land was stoled originally, then it seems they should have a claim of action. And they certainly were not better off under an apartheid government.
That said, there are 2 very important issues that appear to be lacking here. First, what is the standard of proof that the land was originally stolen? You would have to show, first, that it was legitimitely owned, and secondly, that the transfer was involuntary. The article glosses over those points - for all I know, they were properly shown - but I somehow doubt it. If anyone knows more, I'd be interested in hearing it.
The second point, though, is one that we're seeing increasingly in this country too, a lack or disregard for any statute of limitations. At some point, we should take ownership as a given, and void old claims, simply to keep basic order. We see this a lot in any dealings in antiquities (witness the current brouhaha about the Getty Museum, or the American Indian claims in upstate New York.) Is 60-70 years long enough? It's even more complex, of course, as the previous owners would have been prohibited from advancing a claim under the old South African government.
Suffice to say, not a simple situation. From the (admittedly) little I know of the situation, I'm inclined to think the current South African government is wrong in this situation, for the reasons given earlier. Any other links, though?
Drew Garrett
The Oneida claims in the Syracuse area are different than the case in SA and most other cases in America because it's not a civil case or criminal case, but rather an international case rooted in the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua.
also, interesting post.
welcome abord riverman. you're with a unbelieveable small group in the debates over apartheid.
The land will be returned but the end will probably be the same as it has been in other areas. Sad, they just don't seem to realize they are destroying themselves.
My guess is that alot of SA "white" capital is flowing out of the country as we speak. Everyone can guess the timeline here...by 2015...this will be in full swing and most of the SA agriculture will be subdivided amongst the locals. The downward trend of the economy there will start around the same timeperiod. And by 2020....alot of folks will be asking why the economy has suffered so much, with no answer from the leadership of the country. Most whites will have left by 2020. It will be a very different place...with civil war very likely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.