Suchergebnisse

The so-called "land question" is a well known theme in South African political discourse. Much has been written on the subject in recent times, but also in the historical development of South African politics. This article articulates thoughts concerning the political meaning of land by way of framing the land question as a space of political contestation in South Africa, simultaneously discussing it against a wider international background, acknowledging that the land question is not unique to South Africa and that it also relates to many historical and contemporary political struggles. It is suggested that such an approach possibly may contribute to contextualise the matter and to shed some of the emotional baggage that often pertains to it. The article contextualises land as political contestation while suggesting an interpretation of what politics is. Attention is afforded to the understanding of politics as conflict, but also as reconciliation and compromise against an underlying context of power and its purposes. The latter determining in what kind of country political actors would want to live and relating to interests and values that political actors hold in common. The possibility exists that if reconciliation and compromise are not possible, politics will come to an end, which will not contribute to a sustainable democracy or a solution to the land question. The broader conflicting nature of positions and understandings of the land question in South Africa is further highlighted within the context of political contestation, after which attention is afforded to the positioning of political actors within this contestation.The position of the government and political parties is highlighted within this conflict based framework, noting the different understandings of the land question as well as the commonalities that parties share. Reference is briefly made to non party political actors (formal and informal) which represents the same conflictual positions, but which also alludes to other factors relevant to the land question whereafter these factors are highlighted. These include the broader social and economical issues (which are also understood as political), as well as an agricultural and rural bias in the land question, while it is also a matter of political and socio-economic rights within an urban context. The question is also asked whether solutions to the land question should not be found in a forward looking manner, rather than a romanticised understanding of land. The article concludes with a discussion in regard to the land question, when it is viewed from the perspective of political contestation, as defined in this article, as well as considering the possible outcome of the land question. A suggestion is made that consideration could be given to a re-negotiation of this space of political contestation, as land reform will remain unsuccessful if the politics thereof is not addressed; although this would also entail its own dangers for a democratic South Africa where democracy is not yet fully consolidated. OPSOMMING: Grond en die sogenaamde "grondvraagstuk" is 'n welbekende tema in die Suid-Afrikaanse politieke diskoers. Heelwat is reeds hieroor geskryf in die hedendaagse tydsgewrig, maar ook in die historiese verloop van die Suid-Afrikaanse politiek. Hierdie artikel artikuleer gedagtes rondom die betekenis van grond as politieke stryd (en ook binne die konteks van 'n bepaalde begrip van politiek) in Suid-Afrika, maar plaas dit ook teen 'n wyer internasionale doek. Moontlik kan so 'n benadering bydra om die saak te kontekstualiseer en te ontdaan van die emosionele bagasie wat dikwels daarmee gepaardgaan. Die benadering van die artikel is dat grond as politieke stryd hanteer word, waarna aandag geskenk word aan hoe politieke akteurs hulself posisioneer binne hierdie stryd. Daar word ook kortliks verwys na ander faktore wat 'n rol speel in hierdie politieke stryd. Die artikel sluit af met 'n gevolgtrekking ten opsigte van die grondvraagstuk, wanneer dit vanuit die perspektief van politieke stryd, soos in hierdie artikel omskryf, beskou word en die moontlike uitkoms van die grondvraagstuk oorweeg word. ; http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_issues&pid=0041-4751&lng=en&nrm=iso

There has for many years been legal recognition of Traditional Leaders in South African laws, such as the Black Administration Act 38 of 1927 and regulations and proclamations issued in terms of other legislation. Recently legal recognition was confirmed in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996. Additional recognition of Traditional Leaders and the institution of Traditional Leadership is found in the various provincial legislation providing for Provincial Houses of Traditional Leaders and the establishment and functioning of the National Council of Traditional Leaders. Yet the institution of Traditional Leadership has over the past few years given rise to much controversy. There are those who argue that the institution is outdated and others who regard Traditional Leaders as custodians of customary values and the only leaders who are truly responsible for the well being of communities historically and religiously entrusted to them. Traditional leaders fulfil a variety of functions in rural society, including that of presiding officer in customary courts, mediator of disputes, advisor in agricultural and family matters, guardian of young, old, infirm and abandoned. They perform legislative, executive and judicial functions according to the wish of the majority of the members of the tribe. It became apparent, that de facto Traditional Authorities are the only existing form of local government in rural areas in South Africa. It seems unlikely that, in the foreseeable future, it will be financially, politically or practically possible to replace this form of rural government with a comprehensive and sustainable alternative. The future role of Traditional Leadership in the development process is significant in that in addition to the recognition afforded by the Constitution and other legislation, the development law, unfolding in modern day South Africa under a new development paradigm, distinctly provides for Traditional Leaders to play a significant role in rural development and development planning at local government level in rural areas. The role and function of the Traditional Leaders of South Africa in the rural development process unfolds as the Integrated planning process comes into operation as envisaged in section 10 of the Local Government Transition Act 209 of 1993 read with the .principles contained in the Development Facilitation Act 67 of 1995. The development principles and the regulations prescribing the process of formulating land development objectives, provides for an inclusive process in which all role players and stakeholders are to be involved. In practice this means that communities, community organizations and institutions, as concerned role players in civil society, are also the concerned and key role players in the development planning and development process at local level. No plan and development strategy will therefore meet the prescribed legal requirements of acceptable development planning standards, if the rural communities and their leaders are not directly and actively involved. Much of the confusion and conflict between Traditional Leadership and Customary Law Councilors on the one hand and elected Local Government Councilors on the other, arose as a result of a misunderstanding of the valuable support role which Traditional Leaders can play in the development process. The difference in the nature and scope of the tasks of elected and traditional community leaders provide a rich multi-facet basis on which a successful local governance system can be developed within the context of the current constitutional-legal framework in South Africa. In many other countries in Africa it was only realized after repeated failures of rural development experiments, that Traditional Leaders and Traditional Authorities constitute a most valuable asset in the rural development process.