Land custodianship: Nationalisation by other means

“When the owner of an asset is deprived of his or her ownership it is nationalisation”. This was the reaction of Free State Agriculture (FSA) president, Francois Wilken, after it came to light that ANC has conceded to the EFF’s demands on the issue of land custodianship.

According to Wilken, land custodianship will provide government officials the means to target and intimidate landowners and communities in an already corrupt public sector.

“Land custodianship is nationalisation in that it deprives the legal owner of an asset to buy, manage, and sell that asset without the threat of state intervention. Land custodianship or nationalisation seeks to make the state the final arbiter on the land ownership. If approved, we can expect this principle to be applied to all asset classes,” said Wilken.

Government has maintained that if the so-called land issue is not resolved chaos might erupt. Thus the following are important questions:

  • To date, protests have been waged for jobs, services, and housing – but why not for agriculture land?
  • Why do all land ownership proposals end with a form of state ownership and not individual ownership by black people?
  • Why is the issue of land ownership only urgent just before elections?
  • Will more chaos not erupt if we don’t have drastic economic growth and job creation because talks of land nationalisation and nil compensation continue to drive investors away from SA?

“FSA has warned in the past that the changes to section 25 of the Constitution as well as the Expropriation Bill only seek to extend government ownership of land”. Like mineral rights and water rights, the policy of custodianship opens the door to denying current landowners’ compensation for land expropriated. Custodianship will also deny all land occupiers ownership, or full title to their land.

The EFF is on record saying that it will only accept changes to section 25 of the constitution if it allows for full state ownership of land. This is nationalisation through custodianship. This automatically means expropriation without any compensation.

Custodianship is a failed socialist policy that has proved to spiral countries pursuing this ideology further into poverty.

FSA maintains our position that the most just and equitable system to drive real economic development and job creation, is to obtain land on the open market (and not through a state-controlled patronage system) and at a fair price that reflects the full value of the resources whether for agriculture, housing or other industrial development.

Grondvoogdyskap: Nasionalisering deur ander middele

“Wanneer die eienaar van ’n bate sy of haar eienaarskap ontneem word, is dit nasionalisering”. Dit was die reaksie van die president van Vrystaat Landbou (VL), Francois Wilken, nadat dit aan die lig gekom het dat die ANC aan die eise van die EFF oor die kwessie van grondvoogdyskap toegegee het.

Volgens Wilken sal grondvoogdyskap regeringsamptenare die middele bied om grondeienaars en gemeenskappe in ‘n reeds korrupte openbare sektor te teiken en te intimideer.

“Grondvoogdyskap is nasionalisering deurdat dit die wettige eienaar van ‘n bate ontneem van die geleentheid om daardie bate te koop, te bestuur en te verkoop sonder die bedreiging van staatsinmenging. Grondvoogdyskap of nasionalisering poog om die staat die finale arbiter te maak oor die grondbesit. As dit goedgekeur word, kan ons verwag dat hierdie beginsel op alle bateklasse toegepas sal word.” het Wilken gesê.

Die regering het volgehou dat chaos kan ontstaan as die sogenaamde grondkwessie nie opgelos word nie. Die volgende is dus belangrike vrae:

  • Tot op hede is betogings vir werk, dienste en behuising gevoer maar waarom nie vir landbougrond nie?
  • Waarom eindig alle grondbesitvoorstelle met ‘n vorm van staatseienaarskap en nie individuele eienaarskap deur swart mense nie?
  • Waarom is die kwessie van grondbesit net dringend net voor die verkiesing?
  • Sal daar nie meer chaos ontstaan as ons nie drastiese ekonomiese groei en werkskepping het nie, omdat gesprekke oor grondnasionalisering en geen vergoeding steeds beleggers uit Suid-Afrika verdryf?

“VL het in die verlede gewaarsku dat die wysigings aan artikel 25 van die Grondwet sowel as die Onteieningwetsontwerp slegs die regering se eienaarskap van grond wil uitbrei”. Net soos minerale- en waterregte, maak die beleid van voogdyskap die deur oop vir die ontkenning van huidige grondeienaars se vergoeding vir grond wat onteien word. Voogdyskap sal ook alle grondbewoners van grondbesit of volle eienaarskap van hul grond ontneem.

Die EFF is op rekord dat hy wysigings aan artikel 25 van die Grondwet slegs sal aanvaar as dit grondbesit ten volle moontlik maak. Dit is nasionalisering deur voogdyskap. Dit beteken outomaties onteiening sonder vergoeding.

Voogdyskap is ‘n mislukte sosialistiese beleid wat bewys het dat spiraallande hierdie ideologie verder in armoede nastreef.

“VL handhaaf ons standpunt dat die regverdigste en billikste stelsel om werklike ekonomiese ontwikkeling en werkskepping te dryf, is deur grond op die ope mark te bekom (en nie deur ‘n staatsbeheerde beskermingstelsel nie), teen ‘n billike prys wat die volle waarde weerspieël van die hulpbronne, hetsy vir landbou, behuising of ander nywerheidsontwikkeling.”