Professor Deborah James from the LSE gave a talk on Rights Responsibilities and "Cultural Citizenship" in South African Land Reform this last Thursday, 20 November at SOAS. I went along for the fun of it.
I tried to follow her train of thought and what she was going on about. She started talking about land identity, anthropology of citzenship, how in the Middle East citzenship was based more on kinship, that citizenship can also be seen in cultural terms, etc. All in all, hers was a befuddling train of thought to follow.
I mean this is one of the slides she put up -
Citizenship is i) modelled on other forms of identification ii) contextual. (Whatever the heck does that mean or did i just not take good notes?)
Land is a potent symbol that can unify but also represent cracks and hierarchies.
In South Africa, citizenship was based on the struggle against apartheid but has also now been linked to land restitution. She listed the set of land reform legislation starting with 1984 to 2004. These acts of legislation were to return land to those who owned land and it was stolen from them or, those who claim informal rights.
The case study the Prof presented was of Doornkop. A farm was bought there by missionaries and converts (I guess they'd be converts). Some of the owners of the farm were living in the city while others had rented it out. It was seized in 1974 like a lot of other land had been seized and was only returned to the titleholders (the original owners and tenants) in 1994. It was taken over by squatters in 2000. She had interviewed some of the owners and the squatters. I am not exactly sure what she was trying to do but i suppose trying to understand these people's association with the land. The owners were angry with the squatters but at the same time recognising their rights. squatters said they had voted for the new South Africa and were citizens and, had the right to be where ever there was available land. Henry Bernstein picked up on this during the discussion and said it was highly interesting that a squatter would say that defining citzenship in an all-encompassing and egalitarian way.
The Prof seemed to be intrigued by the overall lack of return of people to the land and start farming all over again. She seemed to imply that if history had taken its course, people would have left the land anyway because of the rural-urban migration. Because of the larger sense of hurt and grievance, people had made a symbolic association with land harking back to an idyllic past, a biblical return to the land. She said that apartheid had left a sense of entitlement. Moreover, the government had not gone about land reforms in the best and fair manner. Land restitution had been handed over to market forces, put under Trusts. Ownership was being forced onto beneficiaries. Black economic empowerment elites were more successful on the other hand.
All in all, I was highly unimpressed with her talk. She wasn't a good speaker to begin with and failed to provide a larger or a smaller picture of the land reforms or the meaning of cultural citizenship either. This was pointed out by the audience during the discussion. Moreover, it is it me or was she trivialising people's identity and link to their own land whether or not they were owned it or not.
Bernstein said during the discussion that South Africa is a country where before 1994 most of its inhabitants were not even citizens despite the fact it was a fully developed capitalist state. The black and other non-white population had actually experienced 100 to 150 years of capitalism and, therefore, the struggle against apartheid and in post-apartheid is also based on class conflict.
I tried to follow her train of thought and what she was going on about. She started talking about land identity, anthropology of citzenship, how in the Middle East citzenship was based more on kinship, that citizenship can also be seen in cultural terms, etc. All in all, hers was a befuddling train of thought to follow.
I mean this is one of the slides she put up -
Citizenship is i) modelled on other forms of identification ii) contextual. (Whatever the heck does that mean or did i just not take good notes?)
Land is a potent symbol that can unify but also represent cracks and hierarchies.
In South Africa, citizenship was based on the struggle against apartheid but has also now been linked to land restitution. She listed the set of land reform legislation starting with 1984 to 2004. These acts of legislation were to return land to those who owned land and it was stolen from them or, those who claim informal rights.
The case study the Prof presented was of Doornkop. A farm was bought there by missionaries and converts (I guess they'd be converts). Some of the owners of the farm were living in the city while others had rented it out. It was seized in 1974 like a lot of other land had been seized and was only returned to the titleholders (the original owners and tenants) in 1994. It was taken over by squatters in 2000. She had interviewed some of the owners and the squatters. I am not exactly sure what she was trying to do but i suppose trying to understand these people's association with the land. The owners were angry with the squatters but at the same time recognising their rights. squatters said they had voted for the new South Africa and were citizens and, had the right to be where ever there was available land. Henry Bernstein picked up on this during the discussion and said it was highly interesting that a squatter would say that defining citzenship in an all-encompassing and egalitarian way.
The Prof seemed to be intrigued by the overall lack of return of people to the land and start farming all over again. She seemed to imply that if history had taken its course, people would have left the land anyway because of the rural-urban migration. Because of the larger sense of hurt and grievance, people had made a symbolic association with land harking back to an idyllic past, a biblical return to the land. She said that apartheid had left a sense of entitlement. Moreover, the government had not gone about land reforms in the best and fair manner. Land restitution had been handed over to market forces, put under Trusts. Ownership was being forced onto beneficiaries. Black economic empowerment elites were more successful on the other hand.
All in all, I was highly unimpressed with her talk. She wasn't a good speaker to begin with and failed to provide a larger or a smaller picture of the land reforms or the meaning of cultural citizenship either. This was pointed out by the audience during the discussion. Moreover, it is it me or was she trivialising people's identity and link to their own land whether or not they were owned it or not.
Bernstein said during the discussion that South Africa is a country where before 1994 most of its inhabitants were not even citizens despite the fact it was a fully developed capitalist state. The black and other non-white population had actually experienced 100 to 150 years of capitalism and, therefore, the struggle against apartheid and in post-apartheid is also based on class conflict.
I think the land reform only started in 1994 not 1984 as you have it
ReplyDeleteLand restitution is a highly contentious issue in South Africa where a small majority still own about 80% of the arable land. Add to this the forced removals of whole communities during Apartheid and you a serious problem.
The present land restitution is based on the willing buyer, willing seller principle where the state buys land back on behalf of land claimants. This is a very slow and cumbersome process and all presidential targets have already been missed. This needs to get sorted soon to avoid violence by claimants running out of patience!
Please ingore the previous comment...
ReplyDeleteI think the land reform only started in 1994 not 1984 as you have it.
Land restitution is a highly contentious issue in South Africa where a small minority still own about 80% of the arable land. Add to this the forced removals of whole communities during Apartheid and you have a serious problem.
The present land restitution is based on the willing buyer, willing seller principle where the state buys land back on behalf of land claimants. This is a very slow and cumbersome process and all presidential targets have already been missed. This needs to get sorted soon to avoid violence by claimants running out of patience!
Maybe I didn't take good notes. I was also puzzled - reforms would have only started in 1994. Yes, I understand it is a highly contentious issue. The talk itself was highly boring and I didn't really learn anything, only very dispassionate way of looking at the whole thing.
ReplyDeleteThe heading of this quite interesting when you consider that people from various races, ethnic and cultural groups claim a South African identity.
ReplyDelete...pity the lecture was so dry an boring which is in contradiction to the passions that land ownership, cultural heritage and cititzenship evokes!