green paper on land reform

SUBMISSION OF SURPLUS PEOPLE PROJECT ON GREEN PAPER ON LAND REFORM, 2011

INTRODUCTION

In our opinion, an analysis of the green paper supports the following contentions:

1.       The land reform programme has failed the poor and black people in general, especially women.

2.       Government is aware of this failure, but refuses to adopt fundamentally different policies for fear of upsetting white farmers/commercial agriculture and their allies, backers and advocates among the elite of the global capitalist system.

3.       The interests of the black poor and specifically that of the landless, demand that the green paper be scrapped completely and a new one be drafted by the landless masses themselves through a process of direct democracy.

4.       Civil society organisations would do well to devote the bulk of their resources towards supporting that section among the landless people that have run out of patience with the state and the market, and have started to occupy land they believe are rightfully theirs.

Our analysis and views draws on decades of experience of working with land hungry and farm dwelling communities, as well as on three workshops specifically called to the discuss the green paper with the emerging farmers and farm dwellers we work with. We were also privileged to exchange views with fellow civil society formations including AFRA, PLAAS, SCLC and the BRC, who all made early drafts of their submissions available to us. We see our submission as supplementary to theirs, without denying the possibility of different views on some of the issues.

Our views will be presented under the following headings:

·         Justifying land reform versus justifying land ownership

·         Land reform and neo-liberalism

·         Land reform, food security and food sovereignty

·         Land reform and agriculture

·         Landless people – active contributors or passive recipients?

JUSTIFYING LAND REFORM VERSUS JUSTIFYING LAND OWNERSHIP

The introduction to the green paper, with its historical overview of the racist dispossession and exploitation that colonialism and Apartheid perpetrated on black people in South Africa, seeks to provide a moral justification for land reform. 17 years after the 1994 elections, this should not be necessary but apparently it is. The take of the green paper on this overriding issue, leaves us with more questions than answers.

It is not clear, for example, why land restitution should be constrained by the cut off date of the passing of the Native Land Act of 1913. People dispossessed before that date, and by different methods, suffer the historical consequences of their dispossession the same as those affected by the act. Morally, they have the same claim to restitution as the victims of the 1913 Land Act. If government has a different view to this, as it apparently has, then it should be argued, not just stated in the way the green paper does.

The most important question, however, was left unasked and therefore unanswered in the green paper. It is not whether land reform is justified, but whether the ownership rights of white people are justified. Given this history of colonialism and Apartheid, and given the fact that it is these historical processes that has made land ownership a white privilege in present day South Africa, what is the moral justification for this privilege and ownership? Why should land reform make concessions to the interests of white land owners, as is assumed by the green paper? If black people are supposed to get 30% of the land, why are whites entitled to 70%? Nowhere is this explained, but the assumption runs not only through this green paper, but through the government’s land reform programme as a whole. The claim of the dispossessed to what they have lost is argued, but the claims of the beneficiaries of this dispossession are just assumed.   

LAND REFORM AND NEO-LIBERALISM

The green paper makes no attempt to locate land reform within the context of government’s policy direction as a whole. It therefore cannot identify the underlying causes of the failures of land reform over the past 17 years. These causes have all to do with the commitment of the government to neo-liberal capitalism.

Much is made of the supposed failure of the farms of land reform beneficiaries. Are these the only farms that ‘failed’? The truth is that the liberalisation of South Africa’s agriculture in keeping with the extremist ideology of neo-liberalism, led to the commercial failure of the majority of white farmers in South Africa, whose farms ended up in the hands of mega rich agribusinesses that can prosper because they can manipulate the world’s food system and exploit economies of scale. The green paper overlooks this completely. One is left with the ugly racist impression of black incompetence.

The other question concerns the very way we understand failure and success in agriculture. Neo-liberalism understands success in terms of profit. A farm that grows its profit is successful even if its actions lead to greater poverty and hunger. This is exactly how government understands success in farming, despite weak protestations to the contrary. Subsistence farming is therefore almost inherently seen as a failure, despite its proven record as a weapon to combat hunger.

Neo-liberalism also constrains land reform by its commitment to cut corporate taxes and social spending. As a result the budget available for land reform is simply too small, making government put too many beneficiaries on any given piece of land, with too little support, which in turn also leads to farm failure.

But perhaps the ultimate constraint that neo-liberalism places on land reform is in its commitment to the protection of property rights. A land reform programme that succeeds from the point of view of the landless must of necessity disrespect the property rights of the current land owners. The green paper, with its mention of unspecified restrictions and conditions on freehold tenure, falls far short of this.

Fixing land reform therefore requires that government abandon its commitment to neo-liberal capitalism.     

LAND REFORM, FOOD SECURITY AND FOOD SOVEREIGNTY

In the green paper there is the refrain that government will make sure that land reform in no way compromises food security. This is an unjustified concession to the position of organised commercial agriculture that says that land reform is a threat to food security, and conversely that commercial agriculture is good for food security. Government needs to think this through and take a clear position.

The rural poor do not have food security, even when working on and living close to profitable commercial farms. In fact for the rural poor, land reform offers the only hope of attaining food security. At the same time commercial agriculture and food security have a far from mutually supportive relationship. Commercial farmers do whatever is profitable, not what promotes food security. Therefore thousands of hectares of the best land are devoted to wine and game farms that do nothing for food security, but actually undermine it for the poor. Or they cover fertile soil with single crops like oranges that does little for food security, or they grow feed for animals instead of food for humans. The latest growth area many commercial farmers are looking into is the production of bio-fuels, which will be a food security disaster for millions.

The green paper uses the concept of food sovereignty without defining it. This is a pity as more diligence in researching the meaning of food sovereignty might have given a more accurate appreciation of commercial farming. La Via Campesina, the global movement of peasant farmers and agricultural workers, developed the concept of food sovereignty during their struggle against the devastating effects of commercial farming dominated by giant business corporations on the livelihoods, job security and tenure security of the rural masses. They therefore understand that smaller farms owned by those that work it, producing for local communities with environmentally friendly agricultural methods are crucial to the achievement of food sovereignty. The agribusiness corporations that are the main advocates and beneficiaries of neo-liberal policies in agriculture are the enemies of food sovereignty. 

LAND REFORM AND AGRICULTURE

Land reform is firstly about land ownership and access, about land redistribution aimed at ending racist and sexist discrimination. However, the chemical-industrial model of farming pursued by current land owners make land reform also about responding to the environmental degradation caused by commercial agriculture. The green paper is silent about this and one can only assume that it supports the continuation of the current dominant model of agriculture.

We believe this is a big shortcoming. Land reform also needs to include a vision of the type of agriculture desired on redistributed land. Specifically it needs to support agricultural methods that do not damage the environment and concentrate land and wealth in the way that the chemical-industrial model does. We believe Agro-Ecology needs to be part and parcel of land reform, and that state support should be biased in favour of this type of agriculture that values social equity and environmental health.

LANDLESS PEOPLE – ACTIVE CONTRIBUTORS OR PASSIVE RECIPIENTS?

The green paper proposes a series of new institutions – a land management commission, a land valuer-general, and a land rights management board with land rights management committees. These institutions do not propose to give any new powers or resources to landless people. Instead it would create a national network of forums where land reform activists can sit down and talk to state bureaucrats and white farmers, trying to persuade them to act with some concern for the landless. Unfortunately the record of such sit-downs is rather dismal. From the beginning of land reform landless people and their supporters in civil society have made countless submissions and had endless meetings arguing for the same thing. The pathetic failure of land reform and the relentless growth of rural misery is testament to the ineffectiveness of dialogue between those with power and money and those with nothing.

The truth is that land reform will only succeed to the extent that landless people are able to organise themselves into movements strong enough to defy, challenge and overthrow the oppressive power of the present neo-liberal state capitalist system. Every successful land reform programme in the history of the world has been driven by such movements. A key tactic that they used was to simply occupy and use land they felt entitled to. This is already happening in South Africa. If the green paper was serious about land reform it would recognise this and declare it legitimate. In Brazil, for example, the right of landless people to occupy unused land is officially recognised. In South Africa land occupations by the poor, though not officially recognised, is nevertheless justified in our view as long as racism, sexism, poverty, inequality and violence prevail as it does.

Lutzville protest against Monsanto GMOs

*press release – for immediate release* 

5 October 2011

FOOD SOVEREIGNTY CAMPAIGN

MONSANTO GMO EXPERIMENT REJECTED BY LUTZVILLE COMMUNITY

EMERGING FARMERS MOBILISING RESIDENTS FOR ANTI-GMO PICKET

The Lutzville Emerging Farmers Forum and the Food Sovereignty Campaign are mobilising residents of the West Coast town to come together this Friday and reject the experiments with genetically modified maize conducted by Monsanto, the giant American agribusiness corporation, in collaboration with South Africa’s Agricultural Research Council (ARC). This is the latest round in an ongoing conflict that sees marginalised, poor emerging farmers pitted against a corporation with a global reputation for practically limitless wealth and ruthlessness, loyally supported by a state owned institution. The ARC and Monsanto are experimenting with maize genetically modified to withstand drought, which local emerging farmers have opposed through a submission to the GMO council, community meetings and a march.

‘We have been talking to AfricaBio, Monsanto and the ARC,’ says Davine Witbooi of the Lutzville Emerging Farmers Forum, ‘but they take us for a joke. While we were still negotiating we saw in the paper they had already applied for a permit to extend the experiment. Why can Monsanto come from America, and with the ARC decide what this land should be used for, while the emerging farmers are starving for land? This is not America’s land; it is not the land of the ARC. The land should rightfully belong to the people, and the poor should have first option to feed themselves from the land. Now the land is being used for experiments that will serve to make some rich corporation even richer. This picket is a warning. We are still polite. The time will come when we will simply take the land.’

Genetically modified crops have long been rejected by many governments and food, land and environmental activists for its under-regulated and under-researched health and environmental negative effects, of which clear evidence are emerging. Monsanto is one of just six giant business corporations that have used their wealth to steamroll countries into allowing GMOs, because these crops allow greater control of the food chain for these corporations and, of course, greater profits. Higher food prices, bankruptcies among small farmers and rural job losses have been some of the social consequences of this drive to make the super rich mega rich.

On Friday 7 October the activities in Lutzville will start at 10h00 with an open educational session at the Uitkyk Community Hall. At 12h00 there will be a picket at Klipheuwel farm where the experiment is taking place. End

For more information contact

Davine Witbooi 0715922361 or Ricado Jacobs 0828907551

Fear and activism among farm dwellers

Researching fear and activism among farm dwellers in Citrusdal region

1.       Introduction – why this project

The farm dwellers that created the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum were dissatisfied with the living and working conditions of farm workers in the Citrusdal region, and with the previous and existing efforts to organise farm dwellers to fight for better conditions. Both the depressed living and employment conditions of farm dwellers and the difficulties in organising them are well known; the two are closely related. Farm workers are among the lowest earners and find it difficult to put money aside for organisational expenses. Low literacy and educational levels make for low organisational skills. Long working hours, alcohol abuse, and lack of meeting places also make organising more difficult. Most farm workers work only seasonal, with no job security, which make joining unions and similar organisations almost impossible. The permanently employed often live on the farm where they work and risk eviction should they risk their job. Added to this, farm owners often employ whole families, so rebels risk not only their own jobs and homes, but that of their families as well. Farm dwellers live in small, scattered and remote communities, difficult for organisers to reach and difficult for farm dwellers to reach meetings from. In addition, access is controlled by owners and organisers can be prevented from entering the farm. As a consequence of these and other factors, farm workers are among the workers with the lowest levels of unionisation, and those that do belong to unions are likely to find that the union leaders and officials find it difficult to represent and serve them properly.

The starting idea behind the Farm Workers Forum was to have a local structure that depend on local activists who are farm dwellers themselves to carry out its tasks, instead of unions that often depend on town based officials to represent farm workers, and who do not as rule mobilise farm dwellers beyond labour relations issues. This orientation made quick initial progress possible and the forum soon developed a regular membership of more than 100, a functioning structure and leadership, and a good reputation among farm dwellers in the area; which is more than many a union were able to manage. However, the general difficulties in organising farm dwellers were soon felt by the Farm Workers Forum, who found it difficult to grow beyond its initial membership and to mobilise supporters into the protest actions deemed necessary by the forum.

After discussion of possible tactics the forum membership felt research around the obstacles to movement building among farm dwellers. They approach the Surplus People Project, an NGO with which they had longstanding ties, to facilitate such research. On Sunday, 21 November 2010 a focus group of farm workers and dwellers from farms in the Citrusdal area met to discuss this research project with the Surplus People Project aimed at supporting the struggles of the farm dwellers in the area. There was about 60 people in the group, almost all employed in minimum wage jobs on farms, most being Afrikaans speaking Black people classified as Coloured during the Apartheid era, consisting of just more than half women with one or two transgendered persons as well.

At the time of the discussion the participants were very much focused on a protest action they were planning for about a month later. This was to take the form of a public speak out in the main street of the town at its busiest time, during which the farm dwellers planned to name and shame the exploitative White farmers in the region. Their experience while mobilising for this and other recent protest actions provided the immediate starting point for identifying the research they felt would be most useful to them.

The activist farm dwellers have come to see resistance, mobilisation and protest as main means through which to defend their well being and achieve favourable social change. They want to build a movement through which farms workers can effectively shape society in ways that do away with their poverty and oppression. The biggest obstacle to this, in their view, is fear. In general farm dwellers desperately want change, but most of them do not become involved in building the necessary movements to achieve it because they fear the reactions and punishments of the farm owners, the rich, the state, the Whites, the men and God.         

The group unanimously agreed that this fear should be the focus of the research. What is the nature of this fear? What are its causes, consequences and possible cures?

2.       The research process

The research process was a joint effort between the Surplus People Project and the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum. SPP took responsibility for the day to day implementation of the project, while overall control of both the content and process of the research was exercised by the Farm Workers Forum with some input from SPP. Professor Lungisile Ntsebeza and his PhD student Fani Ncapayi, both of the University of Cape Town, also offered valuable advice. The following is a timeline of the research process that includes some projections into the future:

21 November 2011 – A general meeting of the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum constitutes itself as a focus group facilitated by SPP in order to formulate the project. SPP then writes up the discussions and decisions of this group in the form of a research proposal.

April 2011 – A meeting between SPP and Professor Lungisile Ntsebeza and Fani Ncapayi, both of whom have read the proposal and are able to draw on their extensive experience in agrarian scholarship and activism to offer advice to the project.

16 April 2011 – SPP facilitates a general meeting of the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum in Elandskloof to formulate a research plan, including a set of questions that would form the basis for the questionnaire. Fani Ncapayi also participates. SPP uses the questions formulated by this meeting to draft a questionnaire.

27 May 2011 – SPP and the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum has a workshop with the fieldworkers for this project. Fieldworkers are trained in the overall nature of the project and the use of the questionnaire, the questionnaire is refined and finalised, and a test run of field interviews are conducted.

2 – 8 June 2011 – Fieldwork is completed, jointly managed by SPP and Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum.

June/July 2011 – Data is captured and collated.

23 July 2011 – A workshop of SPP and Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum discusses the collated data and gives guidance as to further analysis and the form of the research report.

6 August 2011 – A focus group of farm dwellers drawn from the farms where the research was conducted meets in order to share, discuss and triangulate the findings so far. The inputs of this focus group are to be part of the final research findings.

October 2011 – finalisation and publication of research report.

October/November 2011 – The research is presented to a public forum hosted by SPP and the Citrusdal farm Workers Forum in the Citrusdal area.

3.       Findings:

3.1 Membership of farm dweller organisations

40 people indicated that they are members of farm dweller organisations.  Of these 4 organisations can arguably be seen as specifically created to mobilise farm workers and dwellers for their rights. They are Bawusa, Citrusdal Farm Dwellers Forum, Fawu and Sikhula Sonke. In this group only the Citrusdal Farm Dwellers Forum is not a union. The unions have a combined membership of 28, with Sikhula Sonke having the highest number - 19. Added to the 2 members of the forum, this means only 30 of the 181 farm workers and dwellers interviewed belong to organisations mobilising for better working and living conditions for farm dwellers.

The reasons people put forward for belonging to these organisations focus mainly on the capacity of the organisations to represent farm workers in disputes with their employers. Another reason put forward is that membership in these organisations provides farm dwellers with knowledge and information.

136 people indicated that they do not belong to farm dweller organisations, which comes to 75.1%. 41 people, or 22.7% of respondents, gave their reason for not belonging to any organisations as simply not knowing of any organisation. This was by far the highest number. The next three biggest groups were the 13 people who said there were no organisations on their farm, the 12 who said they had not interest and the 11 who said they did not know why they were not members of these organisations. The group of 13, and probably some of the group of 11, could be added to the 41 whose reason was no knowledge. This group would then be more than 29.9% of respondents.

Only 11 respondents put forward fear of the employers as their reason for not belonging to the organisations.  To this we can probably add the 6 that gave as their reason being new or temporary workers. The rest of the responses focused on the performance, or lack of it, of the farm dweller organisations themselves. For example, 10 respondents said that the unions and organisations do not meet their expectations.

The vast majority of farm dwellers do not belong to mobilising organisations. Of the minority that does, most belong to unions. This would suggest that a focus on traditional union issues such as wages, working conditions and job security would assist the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum in attracting members. However, this does not mean other issues should be ignored. Certainly the issue of housing deserve as much attention as labour issues, with which it is closely connected in the case of farm dwellers.

More than 29.9% of respondents do not belong to organisations simply because they lack contact and information. This group can provide the Farm Workers Forum with a source of very quick growth. This growth can be even quicker, and be more sustainable, if the Forum manages to avoid the typical disappointments farm workers experience with regard to trade unions. These disappointments are not being contactable in the event of problems arising, not pitching up for meetings and disciplinary hearings, and not visiting the members regularly. Being a local group led by local farm dwellers, the Forum should be able to avoid these problems.

The issue of fear is important, but as far as recruiting members go, it seems that it is not the main obstacle. Where people have voice fear as a problem, this has been more pronounced among new and temporary workers. The fear is of being dismissed. This suggests that the Forum should focus on developing a strategy that would stop employers from dismissing workers simply because they belong to the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum.  

3.2 Speaking to white farmers, police officers and other people in authority

146 respondents indicated that they could speak freely to white farmers and other authority figures about any problems. Only 32 (17.7%) said there were serious obstacles in the way of conversations between them and white farmers about the problems caused by these white farmers. This was the only result of the survey that was vehemently challenged and rejected by the focus group of farm dwellers that met on 6 August 2011 to discuss, analyse, add to and, where called for, call into question the research results. They felt the figures were all wrong; there are many more people with problems with regard to speaking to authority figures. In fact, the focus group went so far as to unanimously agree that the vast majority of farm dwellers are unable to speak effectively to white farmers about the social problems caused by the white farmers.

One participant told a story by way of an example. A woman went into labour on a farm late one night after the owner had locked the access gate. Someone had to go tell the farmer what was happening and insist that he unlock the gate and assist with getting the woman to medical help. No one in that farm dweller community was prepared to do so for fear of the farm owner’s reaction. They rather telephoned the participant, who was on another farm and was known as a strong leader. He then had to contact the farmer in question and insist on the necessary arrangements.

The position of the focus group is supported by what we know about racism, its prevalence in South Africa, especially in the rural areas, and how it encourages interpersonal relations of white domination and black submission, often without overtly insisting on it. Their position is also supported by the discussion that took place at the meeting of the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum on 21 November 2010 where this project was first agreed to and elaborated. On that day the discussants noted a possible obstacle to the project: fear is also a source of shame, men especially are taught from an early age not to admit that they are afraid. How then would the project be able to discuss and understand fear if people do not want to admit that they are afraid? This dynamic would explain why such a high number of respondents said they were not afraid at all to speak to white farmers about problems.

With these qualifications in mind, let us nevertheless look at the survey results. Of those that indicated they could speak freely, the biggest group (75 or 41.5%) indicated that they could do so because they either knew their rights, or they knew the issues, or they belonged to an organisation. There were no such dominant group among people who said they could not speak freely, most of their reasons given differed from individual to individual or was shared by 2 people. Although we would argue that 14 of the respondents, which come to 7.9% of total respondents, indicated fear of some form of victimisation as their main reason for not speaking out. 

A compromised capacity to speak out about their problems to authority figures probably affects much larger numbers of farm dwellers than survey results indicate. The results suggest that part of the solution would be to combat lack of information and isolation. Those who speak out usually had some connection to sources of information about conditions, rights and organisations. The Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum can play a big role in this regard.

3.4 What support do farm dwellers want from the Farm Dwellers Forum?

Interestingly the biggest group (25 people; 13.8%) simply wants more information about the activities of the Forum and of unions and other organisations. Another group of 16 (8.8%) wants information about rights, legislation and policies. This means by far the biggest group among respondents, 22.6%, sees information sharing as the important support activity they would want from the Forum.

The next biggest group (22) wants help with unspecified ‘problems of farm workers.’ 19 respondents want help with labour issues such as sick leave and retrenchments, 14 want help with finances, loans and wages, and 18 want help with obtaining social services such as housing, electricity, sanitation and water. Only 1 said he/she wanted the Forum to help with access to agricultural land, and 6 said the Forum should assist with resisting evictions. Small numbers of respondents are pretty evenly spread between wanting help for farm workers to overcome oppression, addressing violence and drug abuse, and improving the general conditions on farms.

These findings suggest that the Farm Workers Forum must concentrate on providing information and on being present when farm workers confront employers about working and living conditions. The information must be about broad political and social issues that affect farm dwellers, and it must be about the activities, structures and strategies of the forum itself. In the conflicts between farm dwellers and farm owners, the owners derive great power from isolating and targeting particular farm workers and dwellers that the owners view as trouble makers. The presence of the forum at such points of conflict can go a long way towards neutralising this particular source of power of the farm owners. Both these tasks are well within the capacity of the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum, which suggests that it would be able to grow fairly quickly. 

3.5 Taking part in a lawful protest march and a protected strike

135 or 74.6% of respondents indicated their willingness to take part in lawful protest marches and protected strikes. A group of 40 gave their reason as simply doing something that they have a right to do. Another group of 19 or 10.5% said the reason they would participate is precisely because the proper procedures have been followed. 10 respondents said they would participate if they were properly informed. This collective group of 69, focusing on procedural issues such as rights, applications and information sharing, make up a group comprising 38.1% of the respondents.

The rest of the respondents that answered yes did not focus on procedural issues in motivating their answers. Instead, this group of 66 or 36.5% of the respondents focused on substantive issues – they were motivated by what they could gain out of such an action. Examples among this group include the 14 that said they would do it so they voices of the people could be heard, the 5 that said they would do it for better wages and working conditions and the three that indicated they would participate in order to stop evictions. There were no big subgroups among this group; they were fairly evenly divided into 20 small subgroups. Remarkably of those that said yes only 3 indicated that they had taken part in a lawful march or procedural strike before.

36 respondents (19.9%) indicated that they would not be willing to take part in a lawful protest march or a procedural strike. It is noteworthy that none of these respondents directly said that such actions do not achieve anything. Most people motivated their positions in terms of personal preferences based on their circumstances such as being too old, lacking information or not belonging to a union. An important minority of 13 (7.2%) ascribed their position to fear of violence and victimisation.

In the next question respondents were specifically asked to imagine negative things that could happen to them as a result of taking part in lawful marches and procedural strikes. It is perhaps important to note that responses to this question could give an exaggerated impression of people’s fearfulness as they are simply asked what they possibly would fear and not exactly how afraid they are. Despite this the biggest single group of respondents was the 30 that said nothing could happen to them. After this group there were four noticeable ones that said they feared being evicted (23 people), being dismissed (22 people), getting injured (20 people), and going to jail (10 people).

Respondents were then asked what must happen in order for them to take part in a lawful march and procedural strike. There is a noticeable consistency between their responses to this and earlier questions. Of the 160 that responded, 75 focused on procedural issues such as the proper procedure, arrangements, adequate information, food and transport. The rest of the responses focused on substantive issues such as stopping evictions and rights violations. The substantive issues were not dominated by big groups, the biggest being the 9 that said they would take part to stop evictions and the rest being small groups 2, 3 or 5.

Most farm dwellers are prepared to take part in lawful protest marches and protected strikes. To do so they require good information about their rights, assurance that proper procedures have been followed, and a clear understanding of how these actions would contribute to improving their lives. Those who do not want to take part do not necessarily believe that these actions are unnecessary; they either fear violence and victimisation, or they feel their personal circumstances do not allow them to participate. Among both these groups very few have actually taken part in lawful marches and procedural strikes, and it is perfectly possible that with more experience more people will be more positive about taking part in these types of actions. In the meantime, there is clearly a big base among farm dwellers if the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum would want to use lawful marches and protected strikes as part of a strategy to mobilise farm dwellers. However, the forum would do well to put serious efforts into convincing  people that they would not be evicted, dismissed, injured or jailed as a result of taking part in these actions, or alternatively that the potential gains justify these risks, or that these risks can be indeed minimised and managed.

3.6 Taking part in an illegal land occupation

Over the last twenty years countries such as Brazil, Zimbabwe and Venezuela have seen the transfer of thousands upon thousands of hectares of agricultural land from rich land owners to poor farmers and landless rural workers. South Africa has seen nothing of the sort, in spite or maybe because of an official programme of land reform. A key difference between here and there was the existence in Brazil, Zimbabwe and Venezuela of social movements of the rural poor strong enough to use land occupations as a tactic to force the taking of land from the rich. All indications are that South Africa’s extreme inequality in land ownership will persist until the rural poor are able to build movements of similar strength and tactical orientation.

A minority of 37 (20.4%) respondents indicated that they would be willing to take part in illegal land occupations. Among there in no particularly big group, the biggest being three groups of 6 each that respectively gave as their motivations that they believe the land belongs to them because it had belonged to their ancestors, that they really want their own land, and that it is a matter of justice. The rest of these respondents are divided into 14 groups of between 1 and 3 members, with 12 groups only having 1 member. The reasons they gave as their motivation included the greed of the white farmers, land that is not used productively, solidarity, bad conditions on the farms, not having a place to live, and seeking empowerment for farm workers.

As part of the preparatory work for this research, a test run was conducted on a limited number of farms with an early version of the questionnaire. The results showed an important pattern in the responses that are not shown in these results because not enough members and supporters of the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum were interviewed in the actual research. We nevertheless here include an analysis of this aspect of the results of the test run because of its potential importance.

The responses of the farm dwellers can be divided into two distinct sets, remarkably without exception. The first set is the majority who are adamant that they will not even think of taking part in land occupations. Asked why not, they do not put forward moral reasons, none of them think of illegal land occupations as inherently wrong and therefore not to be taken part in. Their reasons all have to with fear of violence and dispossession by the state and white land owners. This set of respondents consists of a comprehensive cross section of the total participants. There are union members and non-members, there are men and women, young and old, permanent and casual workers, in fact, apart from being people who either live or work on farms situated around the town of Citrusdal, they have only one thing in common – they are not members of the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum and have not participated in its activities.

The second set of respondents is similarly diverse except that they are all members and participants in the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum. This forum, in conjunction with SPP, has been conducting a series of popular education workshops on among other things land occupations. It included reflections on the causes and meaning of South Africa’s starkly racist land ownership patterns, critical investigations of government policies and programmes around land and agriculture, discussions of rural social movements and their tactics in countries such as Mexico and Brazil, as well as exchange visits with formerly land starved farmers that have benefitted from land redistribution in Mozambique and Zimbabwe.  These experiences have clearly given the participants a perspective on illegal land occupations that they otherwise would not have.

They have all declared a willingness to participate in land occupations, despite stating that they fear the same things that the first set identified as the factors turning them against participation completely. Popular education have given them the opportunity to question their society, their place in it, and the role of the own opinions and fears in keeping them in that place. They could therefore come to the conclusion that some risks are worth taking, especially if taken and mitigated collectively. Popular education has clearly contributed to establishing the beginnings of a base for a land occupation movement.  

The 124 (68.5%) respondents that during the actual research indicated an aversion to taking part in land occupations advanced reasons that were quite similar to those in the test run. Only 5 said that illegal land occupations were inherently wrong. The rest had instrumental issues that focused on likely negative consequences to themselves. The biggest group by far was the 49 (27.1%) that simply said they would not take part because it was illegal and therefore dangerous. To this group we should add, among others, the 4 that said they are afraid to get into trouble, the 8 that said they fear getting shot to death or going to jail, the 11 that said it was too dangerous, and the 5 that said it could have serious consequences.

In the next question respondents were specifically asked to imagine negative things that could happen to them as a result of taking part in illegal land occupations. Like with regard to participation in lawful protests and procedural strikes, it is perhaps important to note that responses to this question could give an exaggerated impression of people’s fearfulness as they are simply asked what they possibly would fear and not exactly how afraid they are.

170 people (93.9%) responded to this question. Most responses can be divided into two groups: those that most fear the responses of white farmers (77 people or 45.2% of those that responded), and those that most fear the responses of the state (67 people or 39.4% of those that responded). The other 26 did not specify who they think will assault or injure them (11 respondents), penalise them (1 respondent), damage farm products (1 respondent), fight (2 respondents), or cause accidents, arson and terrorism (1 respondents).

Among those that most feared the responses of the white farmers, the biggest group was the 36 respondents that said they feared dismissal and evictions. Among those that most feared the responses of the state, the biggest group was the 65 respondents that said they feared getting arrested. A significant group (31 or 18.2%) of those that responded said that they feared violence, either from the white farmers, the state or unspecified forces. These responses clearly reflect the intensifying racist marginalisation of farm dwellers over the last two decades, when two million were evicted by white farmers with impunity despite more than 99% of these evictions not being in compliance with the law.          

The next question asked respondents to specify what they thought should happen to bring them to appoint where they took part in illegal land occupations. A large group (55 or 30.3%) did not answer this question, or rather gave answers that meant they could not imagine taking part in such an action. The rest of the answers are spread over smaller group, although there are two significant composite groups. The first is the group of 31 or 17.1% that indicated they would take part in land occupation if they were evicted and had no homes. The second is the group of 37 or 20.4% that said they would require a good process in order to take part, a process that included support from unions and other organisations, unity and solidarity, adequate information, good planning, attention to safety, membership of an organisation, leadership from the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum, and spelling out the advantages and disadvantages.

Most farm dwellers are not prepared to take part in illegal land occupations at present, but a significant minority is. This minority can be enlarged through popular education that explains the reasons behind land occupations to farm dwellers. Fear of evictions, dismissal, arrest and violence are the main obstacles to participation. Importantly, those that face dismissal and evictions are among the most willing to consider land occupations. This suggests that should they get involved in land occupations the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum should target those farmers known for dismissing and evicting farm dwellers, and the forum should find people previously evicted from farms and recruit them to take part in these occupations. The importance of education, organisation and a collective response to threats of violence and arrest cannot be over-emphasised.

3.7 Fears holding farm dwellers back from taking action

The last question asked respondents to name the fears they thought were keeping farm dwellers from taking action for their own liberation. Its purpose was not so much to elicit new information, but to give respondents a chance to reflect on their earlier answers from the point of view of other farm dwellers instead of themselves as individuals. Maybe respondents would more readily admit to the fears of others rather than their own. In the event the responses were along the same lines as the earlier ones, no surprises or reasons for doubting its reliability.

161 people responded to this question. A big majority (105 or 65.2%) of responses are fairly evenly spread among the following 4 relatively large groups: 30 respondents simply said people were too afraid of the whites to speak, 29 said people feared being evicted most of all, 25 felt dismissals was the main fear, and 21 said farm dwellers feared violence and assault by farm owners. Some of the other, less frequent, responses were the 9 that said farm dwellers do not stand together enough, the 9 that said people feared the threats of white people, and the 3 that said the main fear was for humiliation and insults. Only 1 person identified fear of the police as the main problem, the other responses all focused on white farmers and their inclination and ability to discriminate and intimidate.

It is a well known cumulative effect of institutionalised racism that white superiority and black inferiority becomes internalised psychologically to the extent that it forms part of the basis for interactions between individual members of these groups. Overbearing arrogance becomes a default posture for whites when dealing with blacks, while at the same time blacks tend towards a position of fearful meekness in their dealings with whites. In rural settings, generally, circumstances tend to intensify this dynamic. The historic remedy for this is the overthrow of white power, the expropriation of white wealth, and possibly the dispersal of the white community as such.

The responses offer more than enough evidence of the presence of this dynamic in the Citrusdal area. What does this mean for immediate prospects? Given the deep historic roots of fear among farm dwellers, and given the continued operation of white power and wealth, how can this fear be sufficiently overcome to make possible the building of an effective movement of farm dwellers? Just as the results of this survey indicate the deep historical reasons for farm dweller fears and the consequent difficulties in doing away with it, it also offers rich guidance on how to proceed in the immediate.

Yes, the fears of farm dwellers are rooted in the general history of institutionalised racism, but it is also rooted in the experience of a specific set of vulnerabilities that are well within the capacity of the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum to address. Of these the main ones are:

·         Dismissals

·         Evictions

·         Assault

·         Arrest

·         Isolation

·         Disunity.

4.       Summary and conclusions

The vast majority of farm dwellers do not belong to mobilising organisations. Of the minority that does, most belong to unions. This would suggest that a focus on traditional union issues such as wages, working conditions and job security would assist the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum in attracting members. However, this does not mean other issues should be ignored. Certainly the issue of housing deserve as much attention as labour issues, with which it is closely connected in the case of farm dwellers.

More than 29.9% of respondents do not belong to organisations simply because they lack contact and information. This group can provide the Farm Workers Forum with a source of very quick growth. This growth can be even quicker, and be more sustainable, if the Forum manages to avoid the typical disappointments farm workers experience with regard to trade unions. These disappointments are not being contactable in the event of problems arising, not pitching up for meetings and disciplinary hearings, and not visiting the members regularly. Being a local group led by local farm dwellers, the Forum should be able to avoid these problems.

The issue of fear is important, but as far as recruiting members go, it seems that it is not the main obstacle. Where people have voice fear as a problem, this has been more pronounced among new and temporary workers. The fear is of being dismissed. This suggests that the Forum should focus on developing a strategy that would stop employers from dismissing workers simply because they belong to the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum.  

A compromised capacity to speak out about their problems to authority figures probably affects much larger numbers of farm dwellers than survey results indicate. The results suggest that part of the solution would be to combat lack of information and isolation. Those who speak out usually had some connection to sources of information about conditions, rights and organisations. The Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum can play a big role in this regard.

These findings suggest that the Farm Workers Forum must concentrate on providing information and on being present when farm workers confront employers about working and living conditions. The information must be about broad political and social issues that affect farm dwellers, and it must be about the activities, structures and strategies of the forum itself. In the conflicts between farm dwellers and farm owners, the owners derive great power from isolating and targeting particular farm workers and dwellers that the owners view as trouble makers. The presence of the forum at such points of conflict can go a long way towards neutralising this particular source of power of the farm owners. Both these tasks are well within the capacity of the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum, which suggests that it would be able to grow fairly quickly. 

Most farm dwellers are prepared to take part in lawful protest marches and protected strikes. To do so they require good information about their rights, assurance that proper procedures have been followed, and a clear understanding of how these actions would contribute to improving their lives. Those who do not want to take part do not necessarily believe that these actions are unnecessary; they either fear violence and victimisation, or they feel their personal circumstances do not allow them to participate. Among both these groups very few have actually taken part in lawful marches and procedural strikes, and it is perfectly possible that with more experience more people will be more positive about taking part in these types of actions. In the meantime, there is clearly a big base among farm dwellers if the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum would want to use lawful marches and protected strikes as part of a strategy to mobilise farm dwellers. However, the forum would do well to put serious efforts into convincing  people that they would not be evicted, dismissed, injured or jailed as a result of taking part in these actions, or alternatively that the potential gains justify these risks, or that these risks can be indeed minimised and managed.

Most farm dwellers are not prepared to take part in illegal land occupations at present, but a significant minority is. This minority can be enlarged through popular education that explains the reasons behind land occupations to farm dwellers. Fear of evictions, dismissal, arrest and violence are the main obstacles to participation. Importantly, those that face dismissal and evictions are among the most willing to consider land occupations. This suggests that should they get involved in land occupations the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum should target those farmers known for dismissing and evicting farm dwellers, and the forum should find people previously evicted from farms and recruit them to take part in these occupations. The importance of education, organisation and a collective response to threats of violence and arrest cannot be over-emphasised.

It is a well known cumulative effect of institutionalised racism that white superiority and black inferiority becomes internalised psychologically to the extent that it forms part of the basis for interactions between individual members of these groups. Overbearing arrogance becomes a default posture for whites when dealing with blacks, while at the same time blacks tend towards a position of fearful meekness in their dealings with whites. In rural settings, generally, circumstances tend to intensify this dynamic. The historic remedy for this is the overthrow of white power, the expropriation of white wealth, and possibly the dispersal of the white community as such.

The responses offer more than enough evidence of the presence of this dynamic in the Citrusdal area. What does this mean for immediate prospects? Given the deep historic roots of fear among farm dwellers, and given the continued operation of white power and wealth, how can this fear be sufficiently overcome to make possible the building of an effective movement of farm dwellers? Just as the results of this survey indicate the deep historical reasons for farm dweller fears and the consequent difficulties in doing away with it, it also offers rich guidance on how to proceed in the immediate.

Yes, the fears of farm dwellers are rooted in the general history of institutionalised racism, but it is also rooted in the experience of a specific set of vulnerabilities that are well within the capacity of the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum to address. Of these the main ones are:

·         Dismissals

·         Evictions

·         Assault

·         Arrest

·         Isolation

·         Disunity.

An action programme that firstly focus on support and solidarity for farm dweller activists, and secondly on identifying and neutralising farm owners guilty of dismissals, evictions and assaults, will make the furious growth of a farm dweller movement a certainty. In this sense the results of this research survey offers clear guidance to the activists of the Citrusdal Farm Workers Forum:

·         Indentify at least one farm owner guilty of dismissing, evicting and assaulting people.

·         Make the operation of that farm impossible until justice has been achieved. Block roads, damage crops, destroy equipment, occupy the land, encourage all farm dwellers to do the same.

·         Do not allow individual activists to be isolated.

For the oppressed the experience of winning through struggle is the antidote to fear.  

     

       

Making Women’s Charters in Egypt and South Africa – part 4

The lesson for the makers of the Egyptian Women’s Charter is that the South African charter came up short not for what it contained but for what it left out.  In capitalist societies such as Egypt and South Africa, the state concentrates power among few, capital concentrates wealth, and both these institutions play a crucial role in maintaining the patriarchal power of men over women, to the extent of nullifying legal victories as we have seen in South Africa. Historically the socialist movement fought to end capital as an institution, and anarchism fought to end the state, while feminism or women’s movements veered between taking on these struggles and maintaining neutrality. The South African Women’s Charter stayed silent on whether capital and the state are compatible with the liberation of women. The present role of these institutions in imposing increasing misery on women arguably indicates that such a silence in the Egyptian Women’s Charter would be a mistake.

Inserting into the Women’s Charter a commitment to struggle against capital and the state would not necessarily spell the end for these institutions in Egypt, and neither would it necessarily have done so in South Africa in 1994. However, this is precisely where the South African experience speaks the loudest. When the demands of the Women’s Charter became part of South African law and policy from 1994 onwards, the Women’s National Coalition disbanded and its leading members took up positions in political parties and the state. When from 1996 the neo-liberal onslaught came, there was no national women’s movement to oppose it. Up to today South Africa has no national women’s movement, which is part of the reason for the confidence behind the reassertion of patriarchy. So no, a declaration in a charter will not end capital and the state, and yes, such a declaration might scare of those activists with a strong attachment to capital and the state, but it will provide a rallying point for a women’s movement that cannot be neutralized by paper concessions. It is in such a women’s movement, and not in capitalist laws and policies, that women in Egypt will find the best protection against the marginalization the men in charge of the state and business surely have planned for them.   

Egypt today, being in a transitional phase, offers vast scope for a women’s movement not just to mobilize political pressure against patriarchy and its supporting institutions, but to launch direct actions and take over significant resources to dedicate to the liberation of women. With the police discredited and the military nervous about antagonizing the people, an action to take over, for example, a hotel owned by a multi-national or by the elite of the Mubarak era and use it as a women’s shelter, communal kitchen or feminist school has more chance of succeeding than at any other time in the recent past. It is such direct actions that will enable the Egypt women activists to transcend the dependence on the state that has proved so terribly costly for their South African counterparts. Of course women activists have to be prepared politically to take such actions. A giant step in such preparation would be to place the necessity for direct actions in a prime spot within the Egyptian Women’s Charter.

part 1

part 2

part 3

YOUTH COMMUNE PROJECT

What -

A project to start a youth commune dedicated to:

1.       communal living

2.       self-sustenance though agricultural production

3.       integrating education with work and play

4.       participating in youth activism for socialist change

When -

Starting in September 2011

Who -

A joint initiative of Children’s Resource Centre (Marcus Solomon) and Surplus People Project (Ronald Wesso) seeking collaboration of interested groups and individuals. The goal is to establish the youth commune as an autonomous body controlled by its members. Initially we need about 20 members.  

Where -

The youth can come from anywhere but for practical reasons the commune will be based in the rural areas around Cape Town.

Why -

·         To take action against the unemployment, marginalisation and alienation imposed on the youth by neo-liberal capitalism

·         To work in a manner that models the building blocks of a socialist society based on free co-operation and mutual solidarity between equals.

How -

·         Work out a written agreement on the nature of the project

·         Build up literature resources about youth communes and co-operatives. This must include a focus on indigenous practices and knowledge. Possible source: Patrick van Rensburg.

·         Recruit about 20 young people to take ownership of the project. This group must be balanced with regard to gender and ethnic/cultural demographics. There will be no ideological preconditions for membership, although the group will be encouraged to take strong positions against all forms of discrimination and oppression.

·         Produce a media booklet to promote the project.

·         Link up with staff co-operative of the Children’s Resource Centre.

·         Not wait until land is available but immediately start involving the youth in co-operative discussions, education, games and work. For example, combine the first educational workshop with cooking a meal.

·         Identify area for locating the project. Possible locations are Blackheath Rd, Citrusdal, Klapmuts. It should be outside of Cape Town to make security against vandalism possible, but it should also be easily accessible from Cape Town to make the work easier. Other possible spaces are on school grounds. Daniel Plaatjies can be of assistance.

·         Secure land access. At the moment we estimate that 10 hectares should be enough. This can be done through getting government help (land reform processes) or through land occupation, depending on the circumstances and the strength of the group.

·         Build spaces for living, meeting, recreation and a workshop.

·         Start agro-ecological production on the land.

·          Secure money to sustain commune members until the commune generates its own sustenance.

·         Bread production is another possibility.