It is as curious as it is crafty that the recently enacted legislation is simply titled the “Expropriation Act”. This disingenuity makes the Act sound relatively innocuous compared to what it should be called: the rather more alarmingly ominous “Expropriation Without Compensation Act”.
That is some impressive spin-doctoring! In various media (print and video) there have been further instances of Machiavellianism. In their overzealous drive to soften the Act’s explicit brutality they avoid focusing on the actual meaning (as is clearly spelt out) and thus the effects, regardless of whether they are intended or not, of expropriation of land or other property without compensation.
In the midst of these shenanigans Mbuyiseni Ndlozi, the former EFF MP, cleared away the cobwebs to succinctly drive the point home with remarkable honesty for a politician: “Who would have thought that Ramaphosa would sound like Robert Mugabe; that he would read in terms of expropriation of land from the script of the EFF? Who would have thought that those ideas would be in parliament today?”
Source: Supplied. Temba A Nolutshungu is a director of the Free Market Foundation.
Much to the chagrin of the biggest of the political parties, it is quite clear that the EFF tail has been wagging the dog. Let us be clear about that the government will not be expropriating its property, but property that is in private hands – without compensation. That is explicitly stated in the Act.
Studying the socioeconomic consequences of expropriation of property without compensation, two contemporary examples should persuade SA policymakers to repeal this Act in its totality, without any silly amendments. The case of Venezuela is insightful. About 7.7 million Venezuelans have left their country since Hugo Chavez and the current Maduro regime implemented such a policy in the context of socialist nationalisation. Within a decade the country’s GDP has shrunk 80%.
From the time of Robert Mugabe onwards, Zimbabwe also experienced calamitous socioeconomic fallout when the country embarked on a disastrous policy of expropriation of property without compensation. Millions of desperate Zimbabweans have been fleeing their country, with estimates ranging between 1 million and 5 million in SA alone. The World Bank report stipulates that 50% of Zimbabweans languish in extreme poverty. What a tragic irony for a country that was considered the breadbasket of Africa during its colonial era.
Unanswered questions
Several questions loom large. Will the crucial policymakers take heed of this clear and irrefutable evidence and abrogate this legislation, especially now that the country is in the throes of an unprecedented and seemingly intractable socioeconomic mess?
Will the government desist from its neo-socialist, statist policy path? Is government not conscious of the threat posed by expropriation without compensation to the social fabric of the rainbow nation of Mandela, Tutu and de Klerk? Does the government not realise the mere existence of such a policy may seriously deter foreign direct investment, on top of putting a damper on domestic investment?
These questions can be taken as rhetorical since the government is riddled with statist ideologues and downright control freaks who might even be ideologically neutral. This latter category of policymakers is obsessed with piling regulation upon regulation, not as a means to an end but as an end in itself. They are particularly dangerous in the economic arena because the regulations they implement constrain the spirit of enterprise and the liberties of people like a boa constrictor, thereby progressively negating economic growth, wealth creation and employment generation.
In addition, there should be a move away from perpetually indulging in the eternal scapegoats of apartheid, colonialism and imperialism. These are used conveniently to hoodwink sectors of the SA population and deflect attention from the dismal policy failures of the Zuma and Ramaphosa administrations.
Ad hominem attacks on those who are critical of expropriation without compensation are often intended to obfuscate what ought to be the real debate – the discussion around the effects of such a policy, rather than the intentions behind the policy. When all is said and done the bureaucrats will be in charge of implementing this policy. With the endemic levels of corruption in SA it is more than conceivable that they, their masters and their connections will have the first bite at the cherry.
