The Inner Outer Conversation

Let My People Go…: another look at the sensitive land issue

The matter of nationalisation has been dealt with in this blog, yet simply writing about it can only go so far in addressing it. In my opinion and  the opinions of those that I have quoted, the nationalisation of specific resources and the effect it can have on the macro-economic landscape of Azania (South Africa) has more to do with certain leaders desire to own these sources of power rather than  distribute them equitably. To some this may appear as a subjective statement but as one reads through many serious journalists treatment of this issue, it becomes abundantly clear that this issue of nationalisation is bigger than Malema, the ANC and even the counter-arguments so desperately spouted by neo-liberal elites and opposition parties. The mere fact that this topic has been vexing and dividing the leading party along ideological lines is more than worrying, but what is at the heart of all this noise about nationalisation of mines and redistribution of land? One must necessarily look past the newspaper headlines and the stones being thrown around by leading ANC members at each other, we must look honestly at the history of our country and see just where it all went wrong. In order to gain a clearer and objective view of this matter, it also would help us to understand the objectives of the ANCYL and other unaffiliated youth led movements such as the September National Imbizo ( SNI ), the civil rights movement called Abahlali Basemjondolo, Black Wash and even to an extent the outer-national Rastafari community.

To understand these movements is to see through the majority of Black peoples eyes, to hear with our ears and to experience what we collectively experience. The differences in the organs I have just listed are clear, especially between the latter and the former. They can perceived as bodies existing beyond each others reach and possessing conflicting goals, but that is from the outside looking in. Although I have never been a member of the  leading parties Youth League, I have always supported their more positive and pragmatic moves and statements, that is until the presidency of president Malema who I have found charismatically ‘rude’, but then I’ve also defended him by saying that South African politics always requires an agitator, someone to rattle the old bones and stir people into action; I have however been a member of the Rastafari movement and a secretary/scribe in its Youth structures. Although not defined as a political movement and vocally opposed to most of what modern politics are about, the Rastafari movement is a cultural and intellectual force to be reckoned with, especially at community levels. The problem with both these formations is that although they are both superficially recognisable in the broader community, they are fatally misunderstood or at worst, just not sufficiently supported.

The reason I make the comparisons is because these movements appear to be all striving toward the transformation of our society, essentially we are all aware of the disparities caused by historical factors such as apartheid, colonialism, neo-colonialism and more acutely the inferiority complexes often exhibited by the general Black populace. We are all aiming to address these social ills via our own means, ignoring the facts that we are all liberation pioneers within our own fields, working weekly and yearly to emancipate ourselves from mental slavery. The issue of land reform is forever on the Rastafari agenda, but very few of the members ever engage meaningfully with the ANC Youth League, instead some of us have opted to be members of fringe social movements such as SNI, Black Wash et cetera in order to make our voices heard.

Needless to say, there are some Rasta’s who have been members of Umkhonto Wesizwe, the Pan African Congress and the Black Consciousness party, all in attempts to influence or add some spiritual or righteous dimension to the political battle for Black Supremacy* which is ultimately what is really in most of our hearts, the Marcus Garvey inspired cry for ‘Africa for the Africans…’. This is the reason why I said that we must look into our history in order to redefine our collective direction. There is a proverb in IsiZulu that goes ‘Abantu abayi ndawonye bengemanzi’, which roughly translates as; people do not go in one direction as they are not water’, which can be interpreted as, it’s in the nature of people to sometimes disagree. I have always found this axiom interesting in describing the nature of politics globally, so much so that it always made me think of the American political formation of Republicans and Democrats, just two oppositional parties whose agendas are clearly parallel. What I read about these two forces is that they are as their names suggests, they both rule the hearts and minds of most Americans and they only differ in the methods they employ, yet it always seems admirable to me that their system is simpler and adequately clarified to most people who care about politics. This brings us here, were people such as Marcus Garvey, Malcom X and Martin Luther King republican or democratic in thinking or action? Perhaps we should leave that for another day, instead we can focus on the immediate South African leadership by asking the same question. Were the Sisulu’s, Mandela’s, Mbeki’s and Plaatjie’s ideologically more democratic or republican in their attitude regarding matters of land restoration? It is clear that Mandela categorically denied ever being a leader of a socialist, communist or even a Marxist party, while acknowledging that there were certain favours and friendships established with such people as Fidel Castro and Colonel Muamar Qaddafi to name but a few, Mandela was not in the business of following them ideologically. But then understanding that within its structures there were/are people who strongly hold such East European ideals which had been given universal appeal by the actions and personalities such as Che Guevara, Samora Machel and others – and not to mention the support given to Umkhonto Wesizwe during the tough and complex decades of armed struggle, the ANC today has what is called the tripartite alliance consisting of a strong although seemingly neo-liberal communist faction. This sector of the leading party bears very little resemblance to the classic understanding of what communism and socialism is about, this has been majorly highlighted by ANC YL president recently to the humiliation of the autumnal leaders.

Yet before we join the troublesome media headlines and cry ‘Things fall apart and the centre cannot hold’ we need to find better and more practical ways to engage with the Youth League, the various community based movements and instead of complaining on newspapers and blogs, use our hard earned education in economics, communications, social sciences and other fields, to ingeniously lead our country from the precipice of crippling destruction. Perhaps the only reason I say that the league can be steered in the right direction even despite the rhetoric of its leaders is that I trust that they are serious in such statements:

The President of the ANC Youth League is expressing views contained in the ANC Youth League discussion document, which is inspired by the ANC 52nd National Conference`s observation which says "We have only succeeded in redistributing 4% of agricultural land since 1994, while more than 80% of agricultural land remains in the hands of fewer than 50,000 white farmers and agribusinesses. The willing-seller, willing-buyer approach to land acquisition has constrained the pace and efficacy of land reform. It is clear from our experience, that the market is unable to effectively alter the patterns of land ownership in favour of an equitable and efficient distribution of land". – (ANCYL National Working Committee statement on President Jacob Zuma`s comments about Land Reform and Nationalisation of Mines 12 May 2011)