Over the past few months or so something significant, with the potential to change the course of our socio-economic and political trajectory, started to gain momentum among the youth section of our republic. I mean, what started as a youth-led movement against supposedly limited access to land for productive ends for this particular group has grown into a full-blown national issue. This has been illustrated by increased levels of disillusionment amongst the general population, especially those in areas around major cities and towns across the country, and the subsequent response of their political representatives to avert the situation. This instalment addresses the land question and makes suggestions for our political masters towards addressing this potentially divisive subject.
Land has always proven a complex subject in many countries around the globe. It is limited, yet we need it to sustain ourselves and the future generations. This point is ably captured by BOCONGO noting: “land is a very sensitive and emotional issue just like any other natural resource in the society. Land is very divisive…” (03/05/2013). In essence, land remains critical but equally divisive resource that needs to be addressed carefully.
Despite its somewhat complex nature, different countries, especially in the African continent pursued divergent routes to address the land question. Two approaches in particular dominate. First, some countries in the continent had to deal with the land issues the moment they gained self-rule or shortly thereafter. In here, these countries preferred to deal head-on with the subject by adopting much more radical measures in which everything inherited from the departing colonialists were to be dismantled. Others, such as Botswana largely remained immune to this approach. Rather, we chose a moderate path in which we preserved essential inherited features of our land administration policy. Hence, we pursued a largely non-violent approach towards addressing the land issue in our republic.
Unfortunately for other African countries, the way they addressed the land question has not been so impressive or to be frank, exemplary. The Zimbabwean case is illustrative in this regard, in which the political leadership opted for a rapid transformation of the colonial land administrative legacy in their negotiations for self-rule. When the British authorities somehow relaxed on its promise towards facilitation of land redistribution within the stipulated timeframe, the Mugabe-led government employed a radical approach in addressing the land question. A violent land grab ensued in which the minority white farmers who owned majority of productive land were dispossessed by angry blacks. In the process we witnessed Zimbabwe implode. And sadly, a once bread basket for southern Africa was reduced to a land of beggars overnight. We in Botswana are better placed to know the consequences of a badly instigated land acquisition policy.
But the imminent question before our political leadership and society in general remains: are we really prepared to deal effectively with the imminent land issue? And what is the most effective route to adopt in resolving this matter? From the current debates on the subject, I am afraid we are talking past each other. Rather than dialogue on the matter, we become emotional and, in the process, miss to get what the other party is saying. We are just shouting at each other, instead of finding a workable solution to a pressing matter that we can no longer be ignored. The sad reality was when parliament rejected outrightly MP Motlhale’s motion to reduce land allocation to a quota system that would reserve portion of land to local communities early this year. Mind you, he was talking as an MP on behalf of his constituents who, sadly, can’t get land to put roof over their heads. Despite parliament rejection of Molthale’s motion, President Khama brought the matter to surface when addressing some community in a kgotla meeting. We all know the reponce that followed from his critics!
The detractors of Motlhale and Khama would prefer and end on the quota debate. As far as they are concerned, we cannot risk the peace and tranquillity that remains the hallmark of our existence with the proposed quota system. BOCONGO, for instance, chose a hard stance against Motlhale’s proposal, claiming that, “Land is very divisive and if approached in a naive and piece meal manner currently sponsored by Motlhale, the peace we have long preserved would instantly burst into flames. Parliament was not being merely alarmist in rejecting the motion but realistic.” (03/05/2013). What an alarmist stance!
I should say that both camps have a point. What is not there, however, is appreciation of another one’s point of view. Certainly, Motlhale and his people suffer because they cannot get land to start life. Obviously, there would be numerous factors at play which makes it difficult for his people to get land. Perhaps the greatest contributor to the current reality consuming his constituents has its origins outside his area. I don’t think my fear will be farfetched to suggest that the principal contributor to the current challenges will be the inefficient land allocation by the Gaborone City council. Honestly, if GCC was doing its job there would be no need for people to find land in places like Ramotswa and Modipane. On the other side of the isle, they also hold invaluable view, warning us of the potential consequences of adopting such a motion; entrenching tribalism and related ills into our polity.
Although parliament did reject the motion, it is once again back before its floor for debate in its next sitting. The Minister of Lands has brought an amended land act that include the quota system in line with what President Khama promised some community couple of months back. This should offer our leaders an opportunity to dialogue on a complex matter that has been ignored far too long.
Undoubtedly, following a policy of active non-involvement in addressing the land issue in our republic will not help anybody. But we should guard against employing rapid and radical approach on this subject else we go the Zimbabwe way.
