Lesego Mahlangu
Researcher at the City of Tshwane
President Cyril Ramaphosa’s introduction of the Land Expropriation Act places South Africa at a pivotal juncture where competing ideologies and aspirations clash.
This legislation has sparked a debate that demands continuous engagement and advancement.
The struggle over land transcends mere policy disputes; it is the foundation upon which South Africa’s historical injustices rest and the battleground where future equity must be achieved. I assert that our challenges, as they exist today, are deeply rooted in the issue of land expropriation without compensation.
This perspective underpins political movements like the Economic Freedom Fighters’ Students Command, whose rallying cry, “Accommodation is Land,” aptly connects the student housing crisis to centuries of systemic land theft.
This is not an exaggeration. The dire conditions faced by students experiencing homelessness on campuses are not isolated tragedies.
They are microcosmic symptoms of the working class’s inherited suffering. These students are victims of a generational plight, forged by apartheid’s spatial violence and perpetuated by economic exclusion. Addressing their housing needs requires dismantling a hierarchy of dispossession that extends far beyond campus boundaries.
The Economic Freedom Fighters’ land policy offers a viable solution to eradicate landlessness through state custodianship.
Custodianship implies the state assuming rights on behalf of the people to implement actions beneficial to the public interest.
Here, the state acts as a steward, safeguarding public interest by promoting responsible management and distribution while preventing exploitation for personal gain.
It’s crucial to differentiate nationalism from custodianship. Nationalism often involves fearmongering and suggests total resource ownership, which verges on capitalist attributes like commodification, fostering superiority complexes among those who own, buy, and sell.
In contrast, state custodianship allows the state to facilitate public ownership and control of resources such as land for the public good.
Critics of the Economic Freedom Fighters’ policies, particularly its unwavering stance on land, are often countered by historical precedents.
For instance, the Schubert Park Social Housing Development Scheme from 1970 to 1976 aimed to house young professionals and families in the inner city through state-led social housing interventions.
This initiative was legislated using British post-World War II policies, challenging private land ownership. The Addison Act of 1919 permitted councils to manage housing for public benefit, reflecting the principles seen in South Africa’s recent expropriation bill, which acknowledges the need for land reform in the public interest.
Although the Schubert Park model seemed progressive, it ultimately failed due to apartheid’s racialized capitalism, where housing was manipulated to control labor and segregate communities. The project’s inability to transition into post-apartheid Tshwane resulted in resident evictions in 2011, leaving a ghost town symbolizing a failed utopian vision.
Despite the post-apartheid government’s failure to prioritize urban renewal through social housing, the Townlands Social Housing project in Tshwane highlights that social welfare programs can be hindered by poor execution However, the promise to leave no one behind urges us to build state capacity and confidence in delivering such programs.
Recently, Cllr Godwin Ratikwane Rabotoakana, the MPAC chairperson in Tshwane, conducted a pre-inspection at the Townland Estate in Marabastad.
This establishment is a significant low-cost social housing project offering 1,200 units, priced between six hundred and twenty-five rands to five thousand two hundred and fifty rands, depending on affordability and family needs.
These Townland Social Housing initiatives exemplify the necessity for socialist interventions through state-led decommodification of basic needs, special redress, and economic participation for the historically disadvantaged majority.