But its likely success in our 21st Century world is debatable. If we look around in most countries, we find that the land has been taken or stolen from the masses, and accumulated into the monopolistic possession of the elites, both private and conglomerates.
The small farmer and 'subsistance farmer' is no longer able to make it on their own, as they compete with the conglomerates.
Depriving the masses of the right to use, if not own the land, has, arguably, been a necessary condition for evolving from an agrarian to an industrialised, and, yes, probably more educated and enlightened society.
What is more, it is arguable that the traditions and mindsets which preserve such lifestyles, are not really compatible with, or conducive of the 'aspirational and forward-looking society which the 'liberation' and 'revolutionary' forces claim to want to bring about.
They tend to be more consistent with maintaining the forces of the past.
Still, the building or rebuilding a country is a process and not an end in itself. So, there is still room for Cyril Ramaphosa and the ANC to make their contributions.
Which they could begin by changing the ANC's name to 'The South African Congress', to denote inclusivism, and emphasise the collective we/us, as one country, one nation, and a common fate.
Secondly, they should be mindful of the true present and likely future costs and possibly deceptiveness of 'expedient options. '
Such as raiding the nation's reservoir of goodwill and accumulated wealth to place band aid over serious national wounds which require more thoughtful and difficult action to address them appropriately.
Having land is one thing. Having the means to make it productive is another.
And how do you decide who to give and/or sell the repossessed land to? While being equitable in your dealings with the dispossessed, and preventing the land becoming reacumulated into the possession of a minority later on?
No comments:
Post a Comment