The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), founded by the current President and Commander in Chief: Julius Malema and his current Deputy President: Floyd Shivambu in 2013, has a mission to upset the current post-94, “post-apartheid” economic status quo. According to them and many other South Africans, the current economic situation in the country benefits the few at the expense of the many and, in this case, they argue that this relationship is represented in the populace on a racial basis. The black population being the economically disadvantaged many while the few benefitting the most being the white/non-black minority populace.
Since their arrival, they have exhibited a stern, no-nonsense approach to the issues plaguing mainly the black populace and will take no prisoners in their fight for black people’s economic upliftment. We take a look at their 2019 election manifesto for a clear indication of the type of South Africa (SA) this party wants to build; breaking it down to a practical level not mixed in with slogans and political rhetoric.
The EFF’s 2019 election manifesto focuses its general stance on black people’s economic upliftment regarding land and jobs. Criticizing the concessions made during the Convention for A Democratic South Africa’s (CODESA’s) negotiations in 1991 – 1992 by the Patriotic Front (a coalition of 92 political organizations, led by the ANC, in opposition to apartheid), the EFF argues that political power without economic power is no power at all; referencing the failures of the current ANC government in uplifting black people since they took over governance.
“It is our considered view that the political change-over in 1994, did not bring true liberation. It was a bluff which continues to subject black people to economic and social apartheid.”
2019 Election Manifesto; page 6; 2019
NOW, the party seeks to use this “meaningless” political power attained through the CODESA negotiations to also attain the economic power it deems rightfully owed to black people as both a correction to the negotiations’ outcome and a way forward for the black population hence, in their view, SA as a whole. Prescribing economic payback and freedom for black people, the EFF presents itself as a surgeon ready to gut SA’s current economic system; cutting out of it the cancer that is “economic apartheid” as treatment to save its life and redirect its fate towards prosperity, primarily, for black people.
Economic apartheid, says the EFF, is the oppression thus marginalization of the many (in this case, black people), on economic terms, in favour of the few (in this case predominantly white people). This type of apartheid is seen to lead to other forms of oppression expressed as a systemic and chronic disadvantage.
“…economic and social apartheid remain a stark reality, evidenced by the fact that poverty is associated with blackness and wealth with whiteness.”
2019 Election Manifesto; page 8; 2019
To cut out this cancer, the EFF has made promises as representations of its plans going forward should you allow it to govern. Plans which it deems a collection of black people’s demands due to the feedback it obtained from many of them via oral and written submissions in public meetings and from social media platforms. These promises are made as part of the EFF’s call-to-action to every person, particularly black people, who can relate to this experience of economic apartheid – that they stand up and have, not just their voices anymore but their demands heard, and their actions also experienced.
It’s a time for action NOW! Says the EFF, which will direct said action in accordance to its seven cardinal pillars, namely:
-
- Their most publicized intention to expropriate land without compensation.
- Nationalization of all strategic sectors of the economy, that is, without compensation.
- Free quality education, healthcare and housing.
- Re-industrialization of the country’s economy by resurrecting long-dead industrial sectors then protecting them from foreign competition to ensure the jobs they create are permanent.
- Reducing the government’s heavy reliance on tenders for projects across the country by increasing its own capacity to implement projects; this, with the ultimate goal to completely shut down the tender process.
Point 5 stands out to me: it entails expanding the size of government even further – a size-increase which will lead only to more internal factionalism thus corruption. Considering the ANC government’s current single biggest problem and the cause of its every inefficiency and inefficacy: corruption, due to its sheer size. An EFF government alongside this associated problem, in my estimation, would dwarf it. Either way, I guess what the party proposes is not at all different from the current tender system, which shares the spoils of corruption with the private sector; the EFF government seems to want that pie all to itself. Same corruption – similar mechanism.
I considered leaving out two of them, seeing them more as forms of political rhetoric than actual plans of action. These include:
-
- Establishing a corrupt-free government overseeing a society wherein whistle-blowers do not have to fear victimization from governmental agencies.
- A major push to help develop all African countries currently disadvantaged by their history of colonialism; this, with a focus on justice rather than reconciliation.
Reading point 2 above concerns me: what does the EFF mean by “justice” here? Considering that the party claims to stand for those formerly politically oppressed by apartheid and currently economically oppressed by, as they call it, ‘private monopoly capital’: essentially what they see as apartheid by other means: poor black people – the EFF seem to be the ones empowered to determine the contextual definition of the term ‘justice’ as they, being representatives of those considered ‘historical victims’, prescribe it to their ‘constituency’. I call the determining of justice by the victim – revenge; and, you know how the saying goes about seeking revenge. Meaning, buying into their perspective of the solutions to South Africa’s current problems may involve embarking on a mission of revenge: “to get back at the white man”; but, doing so will not appease the pain felt for generations by African blacks – it will simply lead to the continuation of a vicious cycle that ensures our mutual destruction.
“Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.”
– Confucius (504 BC)
What is made clear in the introduction of their manifesto is that the implementation of their plans, as their cardinal pillars, will so take place with the local conditions of each target community taken into consideration. Consequently, results will differ accordingly.
Land
The Eff wants to expropriate land without compensation FOR EQUAL REDISTRIBUTION; this, they say, will require that section 25 of the 1996 South African constitution be changed. Changing that section will effectively place all land in the country under the EFF government’s custodianship; meaning, the government will not own the land but will be responsible for it temporarily until it redistributes it to all of us, the citizens, equally. Considering that, according to Legalbrief in a story published on the 20th of August 2020, the bill changing that section was passed in parliament, SA is one step closer to being an embodiment of the EFF’s vision for it. Ask yourself whether this is a practical idea. Myself, I imagine a queue as long as the population of South Africa with each citizen waiting on their stake of land. The ANC government has struggled to supply the demand of land from a queue way shorter than that. Not to mention the lack of efficiency in which RDP houses have been distributed among applicants. In addition, will each South African citizen own their piece of land? Is this what the party means by “all South African land as owned by all South African people”?
My understanding of that expropriation bill—officially enacted as the Constitution Eighteenth Amendment Act in February 2022—is that it makes the following changes to the property clause in South Africa’s 1996 Constitution: Whereas before the amendment, stakeholders involved in a land-expropriation engagement could negotiate any compensation amount or, failing that, take the matter to court for a determination, the amended clause retains those options but adds a specific provision for land reform. In cases where expropriation is for purposes of land reform, if stakeholders cannot agree, the courts may now determine that the compensation is zero. This effectively means that, if the government wants to take your land and fixed properties build on it and offers you an amount you feel Is too low – you can take them to court. However, in doing so, you are risking having the land taken and you not being paid anything. So, in your effort to gain more money for your property, you risk losing the amount offered by the government –
if they offer anything at all.
Your land can still be taken, that is a given under the updated framework—legal contestation concerns the amount of compensation, not the right of expropriation itself. If the government offers you a sum for your land and you believe it’s insufficient, you can go to court. However, in doing so, you risk receiving no compensation at all, especially if the court deems your land subject to expropriation for land reform under the specific conditions now allowed. The updated amendment gives the legislature significant power in setting the guidelines by which the courts must operate, meaning the rules are written—and can be changed—by the same parliamentary majority (most likely the ANC) that executes the expropriation. This places citizens in a position of legal vulnerability and shifts the weight of power toward the state in all land-related disputes.
The EFF does not support the bill in its current state: one that still allows for those whose land is expropriated to receive compensation as determined by the courts, saying that all land expropriation should be done without compensation – full stop. Another challenge important to us as citizens, brought forward by the Democratic Alliance (DA) speaks to the definition of the word “land” as not being well-articulated thus too open to interpretation. One of the troublesome interpretations foreseen by the DA, should this law be enforced by the authorities, is that of land as property. See below one of the amendments to 1996’s SA constitution’s Property Clause (section 25):
“Provided that in accordance with subsection (3A) a court may, where land and any improvements thereon are expropriated for the purposes of land reform, determine that the amount of compensation is nil.’’
Constitution Eighteenth Amendment Bill, 2019, page 3
My understanding, here, is that what concerns the DA on the interpretation of the term “land” in this amendment, is that it also includes “any improvements thereon”. That is, any fixed structures built on the land to improve it will be expropriated together with the land itself. This means it is no longer just land being expropriated (taken) – it is property. For those who share these concerns, you need to ensure that your anxiety in this regard is adequately quelled: if the EFF is pushing for, primarily (if not only), expropriation without compensation – common sense tells me that all structures developed on said land when expropriated will not be paid for.
Now, the EFF does state in its manifesto that it will be drafting legislation regulating the expropriation process under its administration; it names the Land Redistribution Act and the Agrarian Reform Act. My opinion on this is that they should use the ANC government’s mistakes in implementing land reform to put on the table these legislations they propose. This would give us a better idea of their solutions to the problems currently experienced; instead, they, presumably, choose to wait until they’re in power. To the EFF, I say – draft these legislations now – there is enough information to be aware of the challenges present in the current expropriation hegemony.
This, together with establishing an ombudsman, a People’s Land Council (PLC) and Land claims courts (LCCs) – all legal instruments ensuring the fair and just reform of access to land rights in SA. Based on my experience in the insurance industry, my understanding here is that the PLC (in partnership with traditional leaders where applicable) will be responsible for actioning the two acts mentioned above; if stakeholders are not satisfied with the manner in which the PLC has handled a specific expropriation case, they may approach the ombudsman to raise their grievances. If still unsatisfied with the resolution put forward by the ombudsman, they may approach the LCCs for a final decree on the outcome of the disagreement. Just an informed guess at this point. Again, the EFF does not offer enough information regarding their solution: they need to spell out the legal relationship between the PLCs and traditional leaders – who will have seniority – the final say?
With the 2 acts as legislation and the supporting legal instruments, part of the PLC’s mandate will be to ensure that 50% of all redistributed land is so done to women and the youth. This, it says, is in line with its aim to redistribute land in a manner demographically representative but – is it? According to Countrymeters.info, the current population of SA consists of *49.5% male and 50.5% female citizens for a total population of 57,624.074. Of that, the youth makeup just under a third (Stats SA.gov.za – however, they counted the total population at 58.8M), comprised of 50.7% males and 49.3% females. If I am understanding the EFF correctly: the youth (both male and female) are to share 50% of all redistributed land with females aged 36 and upwards. On the other hand, males aged 36 and upwards will have the other 50% to themselves. Does this setup mirror that of the demographic makeup of SA to you?
*Note that all percentages taken from Stats SA are applied to the total population figure taken from countrymeters.info since their population tracker seems to be live.
So, under the EFF government,
Every SA citizen will have access to land for residential, agricultural and industrial use at no cost: ‘Access’ to land – that word does not necessarily mean ownership. This statement does not tell me how the ownership of land will practically work. I estimate that citizens will own land allocated to them by the government but will be restricted in how they use it. E.g., land allocated as residential land, although now owned by its recipients, cannot be used for other purposes. The ANC government currently has people residing on communal land they do not own, it is under the ownership of trusts that are controlled by the government, not the communities – those communities have access to it but can any one individual member of those communities use his/her land as collateral for further economic prosperity? The way I understand it, none of them even know the size of their allocations on those plots of land. What is the point of ownership if the value of what’s owned cannot be leveraged to exploit opportunities?
Allocated residential land can be passed to loved ones as an inheritance: Considering that inequality is the EFF’s primary political target, this may run counter to its mission. Families are not going to be of equal size; some will have more children than others. When implementing the above point with regards to ownership of land for ‘everyone’, meaning, every individual – families with more members will thus own more land. Those families will, in my opinion, eventually replace ‘private monopoly capital’ and become the equivalent of the private sector today. I mean, what is the private sector if not a collection of entrepreneur families? In that sense, the same shared corruption between government and private sector may continue – nothing changes for the better.
Rental of land activities to be abolished by the EFF government: Since, as I understand it, all land is initially to be expropriated without compensation before being returned to us via equal redistribution wherein we’re all given ‘access’ to or ownership of it. White people are the real target of expropriation without compensation due to our country’s history of oppression at their hands (or that of their ancestors – either way); so, any of them who own land should expect that the EFF government would most likely take it – automatically. Black landowners, on the other hand, who have amassed success and its usually associated multiple land ownership trait should be worried. Would they be ‘allowed’ to keep what they own when mass expropriation takes place? I would imagine not since the point of expropriation, again, is to ensure equal – equal ‘access to or ownership of land. There are just too many questions around whether what the EFF is aspiring to achieve is even physically possible.
All game reserves will be nationalized under the EFF government: Land ownership questions that apply here have been addressed in the points above. Here, I worry about jobs: so, all employees working in game reserves will now work for the government – okay. However, will their salaries remain the same when they transition? For those who may be affected by such an event, ask yourself: how confident are you that government will not lower your salary? Considering the EFF wants to increase the size of government from its already huge current size, I imagine that its efficiency in spending tax-Rands will become worse from where the ANC government would have left it. I understand that the current government has a lot of unfilled positions in, probably, all departments; what is the probability that the EFF government may need to downsize those game reserves once it has overtaken them? Increased corruption may lead to the need to retrench a few people.
What about the tourism industry? Let’s say the EFF government succeeds in nationalizing all game reserves across South Africa. As of now, the country has 21 national parks managed by SANParks and an estimated 9,000 to 10,000 private game farms. If the state were to take ownership of these assets, the question becomes whether it could run them profitably and efficiently enough to sustain current employment levels, let alone improve them. Would salaries remain competitive? Would tourism standards and conservation efforts be upheld? Given the EFF’s broader plan to significantly expand the size and reach of government, there’s a credible risk that the increased centralization and bureaucracy would worsen inefficiencies. Add to that the possibility of deepened corruption—as has plagued current and past administrations—and the practicality of this vision becomes even more doubtful.
It is clear that this manifesto serves to simply entice voters, like us, using relevant dreams of impracticalities. The issues which compose these dreams are those of the day and we care about them – we want them solved! However, we should stop voting for parties for simply ‘singing’ the right tune by speaking on our issues when their solutions seem to focus on the exploitation of these issues for ‘profit’, whether materialistic or power based. Is this what the EFF is doing? Make up your mind.
