A few days ago, we published an opinion piece by Alex Dyzenhaus, a lecturer in the School of International Relations at the University of St Andrews, titled “How white farmers still dominate land ownership in South Africa in spite of land reform.”
By Lebogang Mashala, editor at African Farming
Let me start by clarifying something important about African Farming: we publish diverse views. Publishing an opinion piece does not necessarily mean we agree or disagree with the views expressed. Our objective is to create a platform for debate, expose our readers to different perspectives and encourage meaningful conversations about agriculture and our country – within reasonable boundaries.
In his article, Alex presents his views based on research he has undertaken on South Africa’s land reform programme. According to him, more than 30 years after democracy, South Africa remains one of the world’s most unequal societies.
“The democratic transition has not produced the transfer in wealth and ownership from a white minority to black majority population that many had hoped for.
“Land is at the centre of this debate. Under apartheid, racist legislation severely restricted black South Africans’ ability to own land, limiting them to designated areas amounting to 13% of the country’s territory, despite black people making up the vast majority of the population.
“In 1995, government set an initial target of redistributing 30% of white-owned agricultural land to black farmers through a largely market-based programme. Yet, more than three decades later, estimates of the proportion redistributed remain well below that target,” he writes.
I am not writing this editorial to interrogate Alex’s research or determine whether his findings are right or wrong. Different research on land reform has produced different findings, depending on methodology, data and perspective.
What concerns me is how quickly the conversation about land and transformation becomes a racial confrontation.
Also read: ‘We want to do the right thing better’: The roots of Partners in Agri Land Solutions
Beyond the social media noise
A few weeks ago, I wrote about a Facebook post by a property agent advertising a farm for sale. The advertisement included the disclaimer: “No Land Bank buyers or dreamers.”
The post triggered a strong reaction, particularly among black farmers and aspiring farmers who interpreted the wording as deliberately excluding them. Before long, a discussion about property, finance and access to land had turned into a racial boxing match.
The reaction to Alex’s opinion piece has followed a similar trajectory, with many white South Africans dismissing or attacking his argument.
Why do conversations about land become conversations about race so quickly?
Social media has taught me to be cautious about assuming what I see online represents what is happening on the ground. Social media amplifies outrage and often reduces complex issues to simplistic arguments. But land reform and agricultural transformation are anything but simple.
Also read: ‘Build a business that lasts’: The values behind a flourishing family farm
Land reform is not one story
Take the often-repeated claim that the majority of land reform farms have collapsed because beneficiaries were unable to farm.
My experience through African Farming tells me this narrative is far too simplistic.
Since we started profiling farmers, more than 90% of those we have featured as successful farmers have been operating on land reform farms. This does not mean all land reform farms are successful. Many have failed, and many farmers continue to face serious challenges.
But there are also farmers who are producing, creating jobs, investing in their businesses and contributing to the agricultural economy.
Organisations such as Grain SA, through its Phahama Grain Phakama programme, and Red Meat Industry Services (RMIS), among others, continue to work with developing farmers on land reform farms. These farms may not always be operating at their full potential, but many are functional and productive.
Many of these farmers argue that greater tenure security, including access to title deeds, could help them unlock finance, investment and expansion.
That is a conversation worth having.
But we also need to be precise when discussing land reform. There is a tendency to lump all land reform farms together and declare the programme a failure. That ignores the differences between restitution, the Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy (PLAS), and the former Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development (LRAD) programme.
I agree that the restitution model has faced significant challenges, and that many restituted farms have struggled or collapsed. But that does not mean all PLAS or LRAD farms have failed either.
Many farmers on these farms are succeeding despite constraints such as limited finance, infrastructure, markets, technical support and tenure security.
To say that all land reform farms have collapsed is simply wrong.
Also read: Government must buy from the farmers it supports – Gauteng MEC
Tribal land is not a simple answer
There is another argument that concerns me. Whenever land ownership is discussed, some are quick to ask: “Why don’t black farmers just use tribal land?”
That may sound like a straightforward solution, but it reflects a limited understanding of South Africa’s history.
The so-called “tribal lands” did not emerge in isolation. Their existence is deeply connected to the history of dispossession, segregation and apartheid-era spatial planning.
We cannot use the consequences of that history as an argument for why black South Africans should simply accept their existing land circumstances.
We need a better conversation
South Africa needs a serious conversation about land reform. We need to talk about ownership, tenure, restitution, redistribution, productivity, finance, infrastructure, markets and the future of farming.
But we need to have these conversations with facts rather than slogans, evidence rather than assumptions, and maturity rather than racial defensiveness.
There must be room to challenge research, disagree with government policy and question whether particular land reform models are working. Equally so, there must be a room to question whether or not transformation programmes or models by private sector works. There must also be room for fundamentally different views about what South Africa’s land policy should look like.
But disagreement should not automatically become a racial battle.
Also read: SA agriculture beat the economy for a decade – BFAP’s 2050 outlook looks at choices farmers now face
Land reform is too important for that.
The farmers we meet through African Farming remind us the reality on the ground is far more nuanced than the arguments we see on social media.
Black and white farmers are not simply opposing characters in a land debate. They are farmers, business owners, employers, neighbours and participants in the same agricultural economy.
If we genuinely want to transform agriculture and build a more inclusive sector, we need to have difficult conversations without reducing them to black versus white.
We owe it to the next generation of farmers to do better.
Less shouting. More listening. And a much more mature conversation about land.
Also read:
Land reform must be measured by its productive impact
Women in agriculture need to move from participation to ownership, says Kagiso Trust CEO
Elevate Her | Are we making it too hard to access agricultural funding?
