{"id":721,"date":"2015-03-02T22:16:00","date_gmt":"2015-03-02T22:16:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/?p=721"},"modified":"2024-04-06T17:05:09","modified_gmt":"2024-04-06T22:05:09","slug":"plaas-seeks-to-influence-land-reform-policy-through-media-debate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/plaas-seeks-to-influence-land-reform-policy-through-media-debate\/","title":{"rendered":"PLAAS seeks to influence land reform policy through media debate"},"content":{"rendered":"

[Editor\u2019s Note: This article was written by\u00a0Rebecca Pointer<\/a>, Information and Communication Officer at the\u00a0Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS)<\/a>. PLAAS have developed efforts to influence land policy\u2019s discussion in the context of 2014 South African elections.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

During colonial times and apartheid, seizing the land of indigenous populations and giving the land to white settlers was a key to entrenching and enforcing racial segregation in South Africa. Since the end of apartheid and the first free elections in 1994, the government has promised to return land from the mainly white land holders to indigenous populations.<\/p>\n

However, land reform in South Africa has had negligible impact on the economy, with only about\u00a06.1\u00a0million hectares of land\u00a0having been transferred through land reform programmes since 1994. Still, many of South Africa\u2019s citizens are still hopeful that meaningful land reform will take place. While the ruling party, the African National Congress (ANC), has so far promised to transfer 24.6million hectares (or 30% of South African land) to black ownership, progress is painfully slow. The ANC promises are also not matched by\u00a0an adequate budget\u00a0to move things along more quickly.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, many South African citizens feel that real change to South Africa\u2019s racially divided economy cannot happen without meaningful land reform. Much political rhetoric is generated around the land issue, which is highly emotional. Indeed, many citizens argue that\u00a0if land is not delivered, they will not vote. Citizens expect government to act on making land reform happen, and so\u00a0ANC party congresses perennially promise to give priority to land reform<\/a>, the President often mentions\u00a0land reform as a priority in budget speeches<\/a>, statements about land reform appear in the party\u2019s\u00a0election manifesto, and the party gives priority to pushing through land legislation that seems to offer South African citizens a real chance at accessing land.<\/p>\n

At the same time, new parties entering the political terrain, cannot do so without having a clear agenda on land reform. And so, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), argue that citizens should not wait any longer for the ANC to make land reform a reality; instead, they argue, citizens should seize the land they need in order to make a livelihood. The EFF has underscored that if it were to rule,\u00a0all land would be transferred to the state, without compensation<\/a>, although contradictory, its election manifesto argues for\u00a0redistribution of land among all the people. During the run up to elections, it\u00a0incited people to occupy vacant land without paying compensation, and\u00a0thousands responded<\/a>, showing a growing willingness to act on the policy and practice vacuum in government.<\/p>\n

PLAAS\u2019 efforts to influence land policy\u2019s discussion in the context of 2014 South African elections<\/h2>\n

In this emotive, charged terrain, it is a challenge for research to have policy impact, because the appearance of doing something about land reform \u2014 the language of making overtures to popular sentiments about land \u2014 are more important than the details of policy implementation. This challenge is especially difficult in election years, when rhetoric and promises are high, with the ruling party trying to show that it is effectively delivering on citizens\u2019 demands, while other parties strive to show that the ruling party has failed and they would deliver better.<\/p>\n

The lead up to the 2014 elections in South Africa were no different in this regard; in an effort to convince voters that land reform is a priority for the ANC, the government\u00a0 \u2014 against objections from academics, communities and Community Based Organisations (CBOs)\u2014 signed in the\u00a0Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act of 2014, telling those who had not previously applied for restitution by the cut-off date, would have a second chance. The importance of land as a political marker was also emphasised by a raft of other government policies introduced just before elections, including,\u00a0Final Policy Proposals on Strengthening the Relative Rights of People Working the Land<\/a>, the\u00a0Extension of Security of Tenure Amendment Bill, a new\u00a0Communal Land Tenure Policy<\/a>,\u00a0 a draft policy on\u00a0Communal Property Associations and the Rural Economy Transformation Model, an\u00a0Agricultural Landholding Policy Framework, and the\u00a0State Land Lease and Disposal Policy.<\/p>\n

This sudden splurge on policies right before the elections came after years of a land policy vacuum, where the government made no progress in moving land reform forward, nor in coming up with policies that citizens strongly supported. Because of the suddenness with which these new policies were released in quick succession, PLAAS had to scramble quickly to study the policies and develop responses to them. For example, the\u00a0Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act\u00a0draft allowed only a month for comments and responses to be submitted to government, which was not enough time to bring different organisations together to develop a joint position. Nevertheless, PLAAS researchers\u00a0produced a response\u00a0and circulated it widely through social media. At the same time, working with another academic centre, the\u00a0Centre for Law and Society, we called together various non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and CBOs to hold\u00a0a workshop\u00a0to inform people about the implications of the new policies. The workshop underscored how new land policies are\u00a0further entrenching poverty and inequality, as was discussed in PLAAS blog and press release.<\/p>\n

PLAAS researchers found that the policies were not well thought out; some even contained logical flaws. So, in response, PLAAS researchers \u2014 through blogs, press releases, speaking engagements, and press interviews \u2014 sought to underscore that these policies were merely vote-seeking, and would not have the effect that the policy titles suggested. \u00a0The media was quite receptive to the messages around the flawed policies, and reiterated the researchers\u2019 messages.<\/p>\n

For example, after a book launch in October 2013 of a book about South African land policy, the\u00a0Daily Maverick<\/em><\/a>\u00a0picked up on Prof Ben Cousins\u2019 statement that: \u2018There\u2019s little doubt the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill is a vote catching exercise\u2019.The Mail&Guardian gave space to an\u00a0OpEd from two PLAAS researchers<\/a>, who opined that the ANC\u2019s election manifesto was \u2018good election rhetoric but the main problems dogging farm redistribution are not being addressed\u2019. The thrust of this article, and another one, featured by the\u00a0Financial Mail, is that despite pro-poor sounding words, the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment might in fact lead to further elite capture in the land sector. The government responded in a\u00a0Right of Reply<\/em><\/a>\u00a0OpEd, from the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform\u2019s Head of Policy Development, calling PLAAS\u2019s article a \u201csmear\u201d that is \u201cfar off track\u201d.<\/p>\n

In a PLAAS blog, one researcher sought to\u00a0highlight the distinction between the policy statements on the one hand, and the budget allocation for land reform\u00a0on the other\u00a0 \u2014 a frame picked up in the\u00a0Farmer\u2019s Weekly\u00a0<\/em>magazine<\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0Mercury<\/em>\u00a0newspaper. Similarly, using a blog and press release to argue that the government was using\u00a0smoke and mirrors in its farm worker policy, PLAAS researchers highlighted that the\u00a0Final Policy Proposals on Strengthening the Relative Rights of People Working the Land\u00a0seem to suggest radical change, but would likely have limited effect on farmworkers\u2019 lives and livelihoods. Again the media was receptive to the PLAAS frames, with the Business Day taking up the blog title as it\u2019s\u00a0newspaper headline, as does the\u00a0Agriculture News, while the\u00a0Mercury\u00a0highlights many of the problems raised by PLAAS researchers.<\/p>\n

While the ruling party seems hell-bent on pursuing its new policies, despite gaping holes in those policies, PLAAS never the less succeeded in generating debate around these policies. Newspaper editors proved highly receptive to PLAAS\u2019s critiques of the new policies, but given the politicised nature of the land debates, it is politics \u2014 not evidence that shifts land policy in South Africa.<\/p>\n

Post-elections, the ANC government has pushed ahead with pushing through weak policies, despite warnings. PLAAS continues to engage in debate about these policies, and our critiques continue to have traction in media spaces. Given a broad spectrum of outputs around the different policies, South Africans are becoming more informed about the problems with the policies, but whether this will lead to significant political change remains to be seen.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In this post Rebecca Pointer outlines the approach that the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) at the University of Cape Town uses to influence land reform policy in the 2014 South African elections. PLAAS’ approach emphasises media engagement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_relevanssi_hide_post":"","_relevanssi_hide_content":"","_relevanssi_pin_for_all":"","_relevanssi_pin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_unpin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_include_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_exclude_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_no_append":"","_relevanssi_related_not_related":"","_relevanssi_related_posts":"","_relevanssi_noindex_reason":"","footnotes":""},"tags":[184,318,181,319],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/721"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=721"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/721\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2842502,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/721\/revisions\/2842502"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}