The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

The Young Communist League of South Africa (uFasimba) notes the announcement of a new policy by government's Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, whose thrust will be to limit tenure of land ownership for foreigners and locals.We applaud this move as part of the implementation of the National Land Summit resolutions which was held in June 2005.
We note the opposition by the DA on the already compromised position presented by the Minister, and proves that the DA remains a protector of the laager and the spokesperson against land redistribution.
The YCL is disappointed, however we had expected that government would not have been able to meet the target of land redistribution by 2014. This is mainly due to the huge costs related to redistribution, and according to government, more than R72bn will be needed to reverse the imbalances of the past. This cost is also inflated by white land-owners who continuously distort the cost of land and thus stall redistribution. It is clear that the policy of "willing buyer willing seller" is being failed by the same people it has meant to protect-in this instance, white farmers.

The skewed ownership of land-a huge gap of 13% black owned and 87% white owned-remains unsustainable and if not corrected, would result in civil unrest in order to force government to accelerate redistribution. The land hunger in South Africa has perpetuated inequality, poverty and has sustained one of the major injustices of Apartheid, which was land dispossession. Land ownership lies at the heart of the property clause in the constitution, and continued inequalities means that the constitution protects the minority land owners and excludes the landless majority. Resolving land ownership will also mean resolving the question of mineral ownership, marines and many other issues which hinges on land ownership.
The total costs of land redistribution also exposes how expensive, for the state, the nationalisation of mines through compensation will be for the state, and may mean that we review this position closely. It is also sad that our people are still dispossessed of land through the issuing of mining licences in occupied areas, where these communities are poorly compensated by the mining companies.
We contend that the failure of land redistribution is not as a result of budgetary constrains by government, but as a result of lack of co-operation by the landowners, and that future policies should be punitive especially to those who do not co-operate.

In our view, land redistribution is at the centre of breaking the past with Apartheid injustices, and will set the pace for economic transformation. In this regard, we therefore propose that above all other new proposals from government, we consider the following:
· Expropriation of land of farmers who distorts the cost of their land;
· Expropriation of unused productive land;
· Extending the limit on tenure to also extend to the limit on the size of land that can be owned by both locals and foreigners, especially productive land; and
· Convening of a National Land Summit similar to that of 2005 to review progress made on the resolutions of that time.
The future of sustainable livelihoods, sustainable peace and democracy in our country lies in a successful land redistribution strategy that favours mainly the historically dispossessed. In as much as we should not go the Zimbabwe route, we should also accept that we cannot remain in the same position as we are. "The land [should] be shared amongst those who work it."