The premise of land rights and economic justice for black people in South Africa is contingent upon the forceful dispossession of black-owned land after the arrival of Europeans and the subsequent implementation of the Natives Land Act of June 19 1913.
This singular far-reaching encroachment over the land rights of black people; a legacy of colonialism and apartheid, completely eroded the dignity of black Africans and has since created the historical inequality between races; triggering the current agitation for the expropriation of land without compensation mainly among the black group.
Lest we forget that African cosmology is implicit on the African identity and cannot be divorced from the “being” who traces his origins to the land; to the dead, who once lived and worked the land; who have become ancestors now dignified as passages to deities.
The African connects spiritually to his origins and places high spiritual significance on land.
To the African, land is everything; it defines his individuality; the totality of his humanity is summed up in the land, rendering it a highly emotive issue.
This philosophy is reechoed in a speech delivered by President Thabo Mbeki on the passing of the new constitution in 1996.
Ex-President Mbeki began by defining the African ideology of the “being”: “I am an African. I owe my being to the hills and the valleys, the mountains and the glades, the rivers, the deserts, the trees, the flowers, the seas, the ever-changing seasons that define the face of our native land ... ”
These views contrast the Euro-American or colonial perspective on land as a rivalrous tradable asset exclusive to the individual.
The commoditisation of land is a Western ideology novel to the African, pre-colonialism. Colonial modernity obviated this ideology on land from the African perspective.
It becomes obvious why Africans fail to comprehend the emphasis on the economic and productive use of land when land redistribution is brought under the spotlight.
Both reasonings on land are divergent and have been the source of friction.
The current debate about land in South Africa is more about equality and dignity.
Democracy in 1994 brought about political freedom and minimal gains within the economic space for indigenous black South Africans.
It is about taking ownership of the country back from the white minority who wield economic power.
The satisfaction of total liberation from the claws of apartheid is not fully covered; therefore, the last tool to be deployed in bringing about the much-needed change is land redistribution.
Admittedly, as valid as the above arguments may appear, the discomforting truth about expropriation of land without compensation is seen from the experience of South Africa’s revolutionary counterpart across the Limpopo.
Zimbabwe implemented its policy of expropriation of white farm lands without compensation in 2000; which resulted in a complete paralysis of the economy in the form of lost export revenues and economic growth.
Zimbabwe has since taken heed of the ugly experience and now constituted a compensation committee under its Land Acquisition Act to allow for the compensation of white farmers whose land was dispossessed at the time.
This is seen as a bid to lure white farmers back and help with reinvigorating the economy. It becomes disturbing, further, that South Africa does not deem it worthwhile to learn from its northern neighbour.
Furthermore, it is envisaged that the implementation of land expropriation without compensation will bring along some very difficult technical hurdles for the government to contend with.
Most farm lands constitute only about 10% of the actual value of the property.
The farms have undergone improvements and contain fixed, mobile and capital assets.
In addition, these farm lands in some instances are held by financial institutions as collateral against loans that were taken out in the past.
Given the scenario, the government must either pay out the farmer for the improvements on the land or choose to pay the banks for the loans that were hitherto granted to the farmer.
In the absence of either option, the government will have to deal with an avalanche of litigation.
This will be so overwhelming that it will be left with no other choice than to go back to the drawing board to further amend the constitution to enable it to compel the banks to erase the loans in question.
Considering the foregoing, it means, therefore, expropriation of land without compensation cannot be absolute.
It entails that someone somewhere has to pay the compensation directly or indirectly in the same manner the Zimbabweans did during her cumulative years of economic depression brought about by the seizure of farm lands.
Now that it has become official that the government will press ahead with this policy , our focus is turned to the constitutional technicalities that will be deployed by our policy makers to ensure that the experience of Zimbabwe is not repeated in South Africa.
The success of the government’s decision will rely on how much we have learnt from the Zimbabwe experience.

Fabian Ali is a freelance writer..