Looking at South Africa in a contemporary context, one is forced to take a closer look especially at its economic and political struggles. Trying to grow out of its subaltern position and legacy of...Show moreLooking at South Africa in a contemporary context, one is forced to take a closer look especially at its economic and political struggles. Trying to grow out of its subaltern position and legacy of its past, South Africa yet remains to struggle with corruption and inequality in many dimensions. The heritage of land inequality has been formalized through the Native Land Acts in 1913 and 1936, which strangulated commercial farming activities of the black majority and thus, later gave incentives to change the hereditary constraint to South Africa’s economy. The Land Reform Act of 1994 was formulated to overcome the inherently unequal distribution of land in South Africa. As Ward Anseeuw states in his paper on the effectiveness of South Africa’s land reform, the African National Congress (ANC) during its ascension to power in 1994 promised a restructure of the economy through the redistribution of land; the growth, employment and redistribution program (GEAR). Its objective was to redistribute the land prior given to the white minority and fix the legacy of the past by making land available to the black population. However, taking a closer look at the “success story” of the countries’ ambitious program and recent heated debates and developments in South Africa, one comes to ask, if the country is heading the same way as Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe, a country in which land reform remains at the heart of its political and economic challenges, demonstrates that wrong and flawed implementations lead to a national hunger crisis, violence and the distortion of the country. South Africa, having a better political and policy framework should be heading towards a positive future of land distribution and agriculture. But, the complexity of the problem offers a difficult accomplishment of this task, especially when one observes recent violence against white-owned farms and escalating racial rhetoric in South Africa. Especially, Zimbabwe’s land occupations may have fueled fears of commercial farmers and breathed new lives in the demand for land reform elsewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa. South Africa’s land reform addressed and implemented as a process to redress the apartheid colonialism and the Native Land Acts of 1913 and 1936, to fuel South Africa’s economy and to reduce its stigma of racial and economic inequality. The question of the success of land reforms therefore identifies a wider and older issue South Africa is fighting with for decades. If it will follow Zimbabwe’s footsteps there remains speculation, but the succession of its land reform wont set sail towards a brighter horizon, if South Africa does not change its course in the debate on land restitution, land tenure and land redistribution and sets clear policies on the acquisition of land. The government, since 1994 has relied on its 1996 Constitution and on the 1997 White paper on Land Reform, but the land reform in its essence has failed and will continue to be unsuccessful in its implementation, if it doesn’t revise its land reform and if there are no actions taken to change its fate. This paper will therefore aim to identify, what after twenty-two years after the transition to democracy and the commencement of land, in South Africa is going wrong and if or how its land reform can possibly be saved.Show less
