Land Expropriation Bill: Julius Malema’s No Compensation Versus African National Congress’s Approach to Negotiate

Description

Page: 1733-1738

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17828018

Mandla A Mubecua, Pfano Mashau, and Innocent Simphiwe Nojiyeza (Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa)

The debate on land expropriation without compensation has been a central issue in South Africa’s socio-political discourse, particularly between the ANC and the EFF under the leadership of Julius Malema. On January 24, 2024, President Cyril Ramaphosa approved a bill allowing land expropriation without compensation, years after the EFF had persistently advocated for its adoption. Notably, while the ANC initially supported the EFF’s motion to amend Section 25 of the South African Constitution, the amendment did not secure the required majority vote. However, in subsequent years, the ANC independently pursued and passed the same bill. This raises a critical question: Why did the ANC government, despite having the parliamentary majority, not utilize its power to amend the bill when it was first proposed by the EFF? Had the bill been approved at that time, it would have positioned the EFF as the primary driver of the land expropriation agenda. The key distinction between the two parties lies in their ideological and strategic approaches to land reform. The EFF advocates for a radical and uncompromising stance, arguing that land was historically taken from Black South Africans by force and should therefore be reclaimed by force. In contrast, the ANC adopts a more structured and diplomatic approach, emphasizing expropriation in the public interest to ensure equitable land redistribution, particularly for historically disadvantaged groups. Additionally, the ANC’s land reform policy prioritizes redistributing underutilized land to individuals and communities in need, to promote agricultural development, facilitate housing projects, and advancing economic transformation. While both the EFF and the ANC advocate for land expropriation, their policies diverge significantly in terms of implementation. This paper argues that despite their shared rhetoric, the fundamental difference lies in how each party envisions and executes land reform, reflecting broader ideological and strategic distinctions in their political agendas.