While South Africans have until the end of February to share their comment on the draft national policy for beneficiary selection and land allocation, Prof Brian Ganson, head of the Africa Centre for Dispute Settlement at the University of Stellenbosch Business School (USB) argues that \u201cthe land reform debate largely remains a dialogue of the deaf”.<\/p>\n
He said that many spend their energy shouting about how they are right and others are wrong.<\/p>\n
Ganson proposes that conflict resolution and problem-solving skills of perspective-taking and bridging principles \u2013 proven in other long-entrenched conflicts \u2013 be applied in South Africa to shift heated public debate beyond opposing, one-sided arguments to \u201cmove the conversation forward and engender real problem solving\u201d.<\/p>\n
He said that land reform in South Africa is critically important in its own right: an unfinished promise to redress epic historic wrongs on the one hand, and on the other, a project that could easily have unintended negative social and economic consequences \u2013 in particular for the poor black South Africans it is most needed to serve \u2013 if poorly managed.<\/p>\n
\u201cHow we all go about land reform is also a bellwether of our ability to engage around the construction of the just, democratic, and united South Africa envisioned by the Constitution,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Ganson said research had shown that a key skill of people who help find solutions to exceptionally entrenched conflicts is perspective-taking: the capacity to view the world \u2013 even if temporarily \u2013 through the lens of other people\u2019s fears, hopes, rights, and interests.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf we want a satisfying meal of positive progress \u2013 rather than just the thin gruel of self-righteous indignation that all sides of the land debate seem to be enjoying \u2013 a starting point might therefore be to acknowledge where others are right,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
He invited those who react strongly against the phrase, \u201cgive back the land\u201d, to consider how there may be nothing remotely radical about such a demand \u2013 the principle is already contained in the Constitution.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe current Constitution \u2013 never mind any amendments under consideration \u2013 promises restitution to people and communities dispossessed of property as a result of racially discriminatory laws or practices going back to 1913. It gives Government broad latitude to carry this out. Any other proposed solution can and should be measured against \u2018giving back the land\u2019 to those who have legitimate expectations that it be returned.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ganson urged recognition that the mixing of questions on the principles of restitution of land with those of whether and how people to whom land is returned would put it to productive use, \u201cmust be hurtful and angering in the extreme\u201d to former black landholders and their descendants.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt reeks of the argument in favour of the Natives Land Act of 1913 by the President of the Chamber of Mines, who opined that it would end \u2018the surplus of young men \u2026 squatting on the land in idleness\u2019 \u2013 but in fact provided low wage workers for the mines as it destroyed families and communities for generations to come.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIn relation to those currently holding land that may be returned in the name of restitution under the provisions of the Constitution, we can concede that many of the issues they raise \u2013 even if immaterial to the fundamental right of dispossessed people and communities to land \u2013 are real,” Ganson said.<\/p>\n
He suggested that it need not be in contention that it would indeed be better for all South Africans if land reform is managed in a way that confronts the realities of the substantial bonds on many properties, minimises corruption, maximises food security, and improves the possibilities for people either to make their livelihoods from the land or to make their transition to urban life, each according to his or her choice.<\/p>\n
He said that such perspective-taking might in the first instance invite parties to let go of one-sided arguments that serve to raise hackles rather than engender any real problem solving.<\/p>\n
\u201cPutting tongue in cheek for a moment, the current owners of large plots in Bishopscourt and Sandhurst, or Plettenberg Bay and Umhlanga, might agree that the person to whom land is returned is entitled to do anything with it, or nothing at all \u2013 lest universal application of standards of idleness or lack of productive use put their own tenure in question.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cOthers might begin to realise that \u2018expropriation without compensation\u2019 is a wonderful rallying cry in the international press but fairly empty here at home. Property returned to its rightful owner is hardly being expropriated; and thus, the fundamental question that cannot be bypassed is not one of compensation, but one of just and rightful ownership consistent with the mandates of the Constitution for restoration and transformation.\u201d<\/p>\n
He argued that those who currently weaponise the concept of \u2018give back the land\u2019 to exclude any discussion at all might admit that the phrase might usefully be continued: \u2018\u2026 in ways that protect the poor and vulnerable from corrupt officials, dishonest businesses, and an economic system that makes it difficult for the person to whom land is returned to benefit from it or even keep it\u2019.<\/p>\n
He said that such perspective thinking might therefore remind each and all of us of our responsibilities.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs neither land claimants nor substantial landholders under threat, we may be happy to sit on the side lines of the land reform debate when in fact we are in a privileged position to help move the conversation forward. We can do so with another skill of exceptional problem solvers: that of constructing bridging principles, or the power of AND.\u201d<\/p>\n
He argued that at every available juncture, \u201cwe can be impatient with the failure to implement the land reform envisioned by our Constitution \u2013 AND be advocates for land reform that addresses the broadest possible array of social and economic interests.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe can insist that the interests of the poor, vulnerable, and dispossessed in land restitution and land distribution be put first \u2013 AND readily agree that we must have answers for those whose lives and businesses will be inevitably be disrupted.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe can state that no one should be asked to compromise their rights, values, or dreams around land reform or any other issue in a constitutional democracy \u2013 AND point out that endless posturing without reference to Constitutional principles or viable and just solutions is making the situation worse rather than better.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ganson said that such perspective-taking and bridging principles had proven in other conflicts to provide a starting point for transforming hearts, minds, and civic discourse. \u201cNo less is required to move forward land reform, and the country.\u201d<\/p>\n