The recent actions of US President Donald Trump against South Africa and comments by AfriForum suggest the issue of land and expropriation will once again dominate our politics — but not as intensely as when the ANC was divided on the issue.
Even though many members of our national coalition government may wish to focus on what they see as progress in resolving some of South Africa’s economic and infrastructure problems, those who want to argue about land expropriation are likely to get much airtime.
First, US President Donald Trump is likely to keep up the pressure on South Africa.
Despite the almost touching belief of President Cyril Ramaphosa and others in government that facts can change Trump’s mind, we should make no mistake — Trump wants to end Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
Those three words define South Africa.
From the first words of our Constitution, “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white” (words taken directly from the Freedom Charter which was drafted by people who reflected our diversity), the very idea of South Africa is that everyone should be included.
Trump, and those around him, including Elon Musk, oppose this.
That is why those, such as Tony Leon, who argue that we are paying a price for supporting opponents of the US are wrong.
This is not just about our foreign policy decisions which make it easier for Trump to take this stance. His antipathy towards South Africa is deeper than just geopolitics.
He opposes the very idea of a successful, diverse society, led by black people, that is trying to reduce inherited privilege and racialised inequality.
He will use his position and legal authority to oppose what South Africa stands for.
Then there is AfriForum. For it, there has never been such a moment.
It has public backing from the president of the US. In South Africa, the coalition government includes at least two parties (the DA and the FF+) that oppose the Expropriation Act in its current form.
As a result, AfriForum has every incentive to push as hard as it can.
Same debate, different time
Considering that the basis of our racialised inequality is that white people took land from black people through violence during the colonial and apartheid eras, issues of land, restitution and expropriation will be with us for a long time.
The intensity of the debate around the issue will increase or decrease from time to time.
In the years leading up to 2018, “expropriation without compensation” was one of the proxy issues between factions supporting former president Jacob Zuma, and now President Cyril Ramaphosa.
This issue divided the ANC and eventually, during a closed-door debate that saw some people being removed from the hall, a motion was passed that would allow expropriation without compensation.
But there were crucial caveats: “We must ensure we do not undermine future investment in the economy, or damage agricultural production of food security. Furthermore, our interventions must not cause harm to other sectors of the economy.”
Despite the shouting now about expropriation, it is unlikely the debate will reach the intensity it did in that case.
The debate then was an internal one within the ANC. Also, the ANC dominated our politics; it governed alone and had the power to work with other parties to change the Constitution.
Now the debate is not confined to the ANC. Rather it is between the ANC (in which there is broad support for the Expropriation Act) and parties which generally represent white people who oppose it.
The ANC cannot make changes to the current Act (which actually strengthens the position of landowners compared to the previous Act) without support from other parties.
To try to make any radical change in favour of stronger powers of expropriation could bring down the coalition government, and thus the ANC would run the risk of losing the power it has now.
Pro-expropriation voices diminished
Voices that have previously argued strongly in favour of expropriation without compensation are now much weaker.
Zuma is leading a party in which his daughter has told the secretary-general he expropriated from the EFF that he “is the worst thing to ever happen to MK” (among other, more spicy language).
MK has also weakened its position through a monumental lapse in judgment.
When Trump took office just three weeks ago, MK said: “The MK party views President Trump’s leadership as a beacon of hope for dismantling systems of exploitation and oppression that were perpetuated under previous administrations. His administration’s vision signals a transformative shift towards addressing long-standing global injustices.”
Apart from what appears to have been knee-jerk support for another strongman in international politics, it is hard to imagine what MK thought was going to happen.
It had no understanding of Trump and what he represents.
At the same time, Julius Malema’s EFF is riven with divisions and departures and is still adjusting to its status as only the fourth-biggest party in Parliament.
Much of the debate will be between those who support the current Act and those who want a diminution of the government’s power to expropriate.
There aren’t many voices with political power who are arguing for the position of landowners to be weakened.
As a result, the debate around land is likely to be less intense than it was previously.
Support SA to challenge Trump
There are signs that other parts of the world are finding South Africa to be a useful prism through which to oppose Trump’s agenda.
Tuesday’s statement by the president of the EU Commission, António Costa, that the body supports South Africa as a “reliable and predictable” partner, in the context in which Trump is imposing tariffs on EU steel imports is a demonstration of this.
While many countries and groups may not wish to challenge Trump directly, they can show their opposition to him through support for South Africa.
It has sometimes been observed that in totalitarian states the more oppressive the regime, the more gestures there are to show opposition. In Burundi joining a running club was once illegal.
Because Trump’s strategy to “flood the zone” includes so many measures (from removing the Associated Press from the Oval Office for using the name “Gulf of Mexico” to “unbanning” plastic straws) there are many gestures available to show opposition to him.
For leaders of many countries, a gesture of support for South Africa could now be one of them.
Considering that Mexico and Canada have a huge amount to lose from Trump, they might make gestures of support for South Africa (in return, we can continue to use the name “Gulf of Mexico” on our maps).
All of this suggests that while once again we are discussing expropriation internally; externally, South Africa could occupy a complicated and interesting position internationally.
Despite our best efforts, it could become the focal point of the international discussion about Trump.
This article first appeared in Daily Maverick on 12 February 2025.
