Since the late 19th century African people in South Africa have employed various strategies to reclaim the land they lost during the colonial period. These strategies have primarily involved the imposition of community-wide levies to buy land and the coming together of individuals to collectively buy land, commonly referred to as land-buying syndicates. These syndicates were made up mostly of small groups of between three and 15 people and often large groups of between 50 and 100 or more.
The Bafokeng people were one of the earliest communities to embrace reclaiming land they lost by buying it back. In their book, People of the Dew, Bernard Mbenga and Andrew Manson noted that between 1866 and 1931 the Bafokeng purchased 33 farms, 22 of which were bought before 1905. In contrast, the Bapedi people, having been defeated by an army of British, Boer and Swazi forces in 1879, were unwilling to buy back their land until the 1920s. The Bapedi argued for popular repossession of land from the colonial regime and believed the purchase of land was against their custom. It was only in 1922 that they made the decision to institute tribal levies to buy back their land, and by the early 1950s they had purchased 29 farms.
Because of their early and aggressive campaign to purchase land, the Bafokeng bought their land with the mineral rights mostly intact. The Bapedi bought back their land without mineral ownership owing to the 1924 discovery of platinum on the Mooihoek farm, which was historically part of Sekhukhuneland. After the discovery, landowners in the region were willing to sell the surface rights but not the mineral rights. The retention of mineral rights, not land ownership, led to the economic prosperity of the Bafokeng Nation today.
What started in the late 19th century, with communities purchasing land mostly by the imposition of community-wide levies, led to individuals forming themselves into groups to buy land. The desire for tenure security and the scarcity of land in the native reserves drove the purchase of land by African communities and individuals.
The scale of the land purchases was meaningful. In his book, Our Land, Our Life, Our Future, Harvey Feinberg estimated that between 1905 and 19 June 1913, Africans in the Transvaal bought about 430 farms. Between 1913 and 1936, the then governor-general approved 3,295 purchases of farms and plots by Africans throughout the country. Of those, about 45% of the transactions were in the Transvaal. Besides certain parts of Natal, the drive for land acquisition in Transvaal was unparalleled anywhere else in South Africa. The number of farms and plots bought between 1905 and 1936 is substantial, given that African people bought and registered only 63 farms between 1877 and 1904 in the Transvaal.
While land-buying syndicates have land, limited investments over the past century have been made into these communities to increase the productivity of their land or develop business enterprises. Regrettably, very few of the communities that purchased their land in the early 20th century are now better off because of land ownership. What went wrong? Why haven’t land-buying syndicates achieved economic prosperity?
First, land-buying syndicates continue to use land in limited ways, primarily for subsistence farming, grazing for their livestock and residential purposes. This is a legacy of our agro-pastoralism heritage. Rural residents still associate farming with providing for subsistence, and this has disincentivised young people from pursuing opportunities in the agricultural sector. A mindset shift and concerted effort are vital to build the next pipeline of agricultural entrepreneurs among land-buying syndicate communities. The transition to commercial farming or entrepreneurship is crucial since subsistence farming is declining in areas controlled by land-buying syndicates.
Second, while these syndicate communities have effective control over their land, formal ownership often rests with the state. The lack of formal ownership is the result of the Six Native Rule, which prohibited more than six Africans from purchasing or holding land in their own names. From the 1880s, if more than six Africans wanted to buy land, they had to register it in the name of a public official or agency to be held in trust on their behalf. Alternatively, they could also buy land by affiliating with a neighbouring tribal community. The land would be registered in the name of the tribal community and not the land purchasers.
The Six Native Rule was formalised in the Natives Trust and Land Act of 1936. Some land-buying syndicates circumvented this rule by choosing to register only six people among themselves even though those who contributed to the purchase price were more. Some chose to find sympathetic missionaries and register the land in their name. Section 25(6) of the South African Constitution requires the state to remedy the complex and insecure legal arrangements that land-buying syndicates find themselves in because of the Six Native Rule. But alas, the government continues to fail to pass the necessary legislation. The failure of the state has constrained the ability of land-buying syndicates to leverage their land to access capital for development purposes.
Third, rural residents are perceived as lacking the funding to develop entrepreneurial ventures. However, there are considerable funds in rural communities in South Africa, as demonstrated by stokvels (informal savings groups for various purposes); the National Stokvel Association of South Africa reported that there are more than 800,000 stokvels in the country that collectively save about R50-billion annually. In addition, many rural communities impose levies on residents for various purposes, including burial costs, maintenance of basic community infrastructure and the provision of some basic services in failing municipalities. However, we haven’t seen the pulling of these and other resources to provide risk capital for community members who are entrepreneurially inclined. Addressing the barriers to rural entrepreneurs’ access to capital could lead to meaningful local economic growth.
Last, the state has provided limited support to help transition communities from subsistence-based farming to small-scale commercial agriculture. However, no support has been provided to transition syndicate communities into other business opportunities. Supporting viable and competitive businesses and developing human capital among land-buying syndicates would result in transformative outcomes for these communities.
To transform the rural economy, the state needs to address the legally insecure tenure of land for land-buying syndicate communities. Moreover, incentives, market access and support need to be provided to help transition from a legacy of agro-pastoralism to the development of sustainable enterprises that address the needs of rural communities. DM
Empower land-buying syndicate communities to transform the rural economy
While land-buying syndicates have land, limited investments over the past century have been made into these communities to increase the productivity of their land or develop business enterprises.
Categories: