Issued by Ministry of Agriculture and Land Affairs
27 February 2001
Madam Speaker
Deputy President
Honourable members
Dr. M. Scott in his book, The Different Drum for guidance says, "Community is like marriage. It requires that we hang in there when the going gets a little rough". He goes on to say, "As members of a community become vulnerable and find themselves being valued and appreciated, the wall comes tumbling down, the love and acceptance escalates, the healing and converting begins."
As a South African, this is a profound statement which epitomise how a number of us seated here in this house felt post 1990 and subsequently during the negotiation process and thereafter.
The route we chose as this country was captured in the phrase I made in my introduction. All of us decided to hang in there; for better or for worse, we were South Africans.
We put in place processes that sought to deal with our past in a manner that ensured protecting and defending the rights of all, while we attend to issues of social justice.
This is a choice we made.
We could have chosen another way, which could have had terrible consequences for all of us in this country and the region. However we chose peace, negotiation and compromise. This we did in order to rebuild and reconcile. It is therefore critical that such experiences are shared with many people in a manner that seeks to build.
We created an environment around which every South African felt they belonged to this country. No one said it was going to be easy. A number of challenges we still face are part of the process of being born again as a new society.
The environment we created meant that our own people could find each other, learn to accept without shame who we were and what we did in hurting some of us. The acknowledgement in the Constitution of dealing with land reform was just but one element where we had to face our past and move on in order to build this community.
Today's debate therefore should enable us to seek ways in which we can work together to find a solution to a number of issues and challenges facing the people of Zimbabwe.
As the President said in his address at a Trade Fair in Bulawayo last year May:
"Inevitably, therefore, both of us have a responsibility that extends beyond our borders and have to respond to these, basing ourselves on the regional solidarity and unity in action we achieved during the difficult years of struggle for liberation."
Today's debate calls on all of us to re-examine what it is we can do to assist the processes for transformation in Zimbabwe in such a way that we address the needs of the Zimbabwean people.
As a member of the Southern African Development Community, we belong to this regional community. Somehow it is not even a matter of choice that we should be a part of it. Rather the geography, the common history and heritage bind us together.
In the current age of globalisation and as part of the global community, we are increasingly engaging with each other as regional blocks on a variety of matters. It therefore becomes more and more important to appreciate that the actions of one member within that block has a profound impact on the region. It therefore follows that where problems arise, the solution should not have a destabilising impact on the future of the region.
A close study of the land issue in Zimbabwe will reveal that among the chief reasons for the failure to resolve the problem has been the inability of participants brokering the situation to put the interests of Zimbabweans at the centre of their efforts.
Consequently, any future efforts to assist in the process that does not put the Zimbabweans at the centre of their efforts are destined to fail.
The land question in Zimbabwe dates back to the subjugation of the Shona and Ndebele indigenous people of the country through military conquest at the hands of the colonial settlers after the major wars of 1884 and 1886. It was "resolved" through the political and constitutional settlement negotiated at Lancaster House in Britain in 1979.
The fact that land was the most central issue in the liberation war is well known and is not a matter for debate.
However, as Thomas Ohlson, Stephen John Stedman and Rob Davies point out in their book The New Is Not Yet Born: Conflict Resolution in Southern Africa:
"The terms of the Lancaster House agreement dealt with only one aspect of the conflict in Zimbabwe: the political domination of whites over blacks. The Lancaster House settlement clearly changed that. Racial reconciliation however was bought at a high cost. The Lancaster House agreement increased black political participation only in exchange for constraint of economic demands for redistribution."
Furthermore, the Lancaster House agreement entrenched this by placing a market-based land reform process within the constitution itself, which placed a constraint for fast-tracking this process in the first 10 years of independence.
The consequence of these decisions is that in Zimbabwe two important constituencies lost, namely the land-poor Africans and the guerrillas who fought the war.
The current situation as regards the land issue in Zimbabwe is therefore the direct consequence of the Lancaster House constitution and its implementation in April 1980.
While not denying that the issue deserves attention, the current debate on Zimbabwe, however, arises because some South Africans may have inherent fears about our resolution of the land issue. Consequently, it is important to reiterate government's position in relation to resolving the issue of land redistribution in South Africa.
South Africa's land reform process, as well as its legal instruments, is well known. It is a market-based land reform process, which allows for negotiations between parties, appeal through courts where there is no agreement and an expropriation element, which can be undertaken in the public's interest.
Its strengths lies in the transparency around which negotiations for acquisition involve both the claimants and the current landowners.
However, in order to avoid such unacceptable developments such as land invasions taking root in our country, we must continue to insist upon and implement diligently, an orderly and well-planned process. Our government has worked very hard to ensure that in our country we have such a process and system.
The success of our land reform programme depends not only on the efficiency of government, but also and equally crucial, on the positive role that must be played by all.
As elders engage in resolving a troubled marriage we do so through dialogue as families and friends, including the negotiators and the parties to the problem. Clearly our interest is to build rather than destroy.
It does not mean we do not acknowledge that there are problems in Zimbabwe, which needs to be resolved. However, any superficial solution, which looks at the short term, will be insufficient in bringing about a meaningful and lasting resolution of the problem.
Like in South Africa, government is committed to finding a real, meaningful and sustainable solution to the problems confronting the government and people of Zimbabwe.
In Zimbabwe, in particular, we believe the land redistribution process can be implemented in a more orderly way and with success. A critical factor in this regard is, of course, that Zimbabweans themselves as well as the international community must play their roles in resolving this problem in a co-operative and honest manner.
As South Africa, we will do our part. I thank you.