Hi, welcome to my Poliseries: an exploration of the vision each parliamentary party has for South Africa’s future. The topic I explore in this regard is land reform. In this video, I discuss the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP); a political party, founded in 1994, whose vision of a future South Africa is founded on biblical principles.
The ACDP’s take on land reform is similar to the DA’s policies on the same issue; this, in the sense that the former also focuses mainly on food security and rural community economic development as key areas of action against threats to property rights and inequality. Food security is a major concern here because of the centrality of the agricultural sector to the maintenance of many other complementary businesses in the industrial sector around it.
About 25% of our total industrial production sources basic raw material inputs from the agricultural sector.
More than 60% of total gross agricultural production is delivered to the manufacturing sector for further processing.
- ACDP’s Policy on Agriculture
In this light, the issue of Farm murders presents a problem on both fronts: as a form of land invasion which speaks to the abuse of property rights, and a threat to food security since farmers are being murdered – both of which also speak to God-given human rights abuses.
We should not tolerate the murder of innocent farmers to force them off the land no matter how the cause is justified.
- ACDP’s Policy on Agriculture
The party stands firm on restitution, redistribution and compensated expropriation in line with its ardent, biblically directed, support of property rights and their related security of tenure. It seeks to facilitate an environment in which citizens are free to own land and be provided proof of such ownership e.g., title deeds; as well as use that land however they wish – within legislative limitations of course.
The relationship its government will seek to foster with traditional leaders in respect to security of tenure seems to be based on affording them great respect: it aims to establish tenure security and guarantee biblically acknowledged individual sovereignty of those living under these authorities by negotiating, with them, for the laxing of their powers in favour of the biblical approach to ruling. An approach which sounds very much like the aforementioned (when discussing other parties) constitutional approach to governance aside from several differences sorely noted by the ACDP (not relevant here). This is where I feel this party differentiates itself: its take on the solutions provided by land reform does not acknowledge the constitution which tells me that it may not support it – at least in its current state. This does not say much, though, since most of the constitution can be argued to be based on Christian values/principles.
Unlike the DA, it seems the Khoi and San may be in the clear under the ACDP’s government; I am not sure whether this applies to their claim as the “first people” of South Africa (SA) but if their restitution claim is not heavily dependent on it, I am confident the ACDP government would strongly consider satisfying it. All outstanding land claims will be finalized if the ACDP takes power.
One of the party’s methods of developing rural areas is incentivizing industries to relocate to them and, to achieve that, its government will improve infrastructure in those areas to standards usable for commercial means. So, the party wants industrial businesses to either move or open branches in rural areas; I imagine that they’d need incentives additional to well-developed infrastructure since rural areas are situated far from urban centres so any incentives granted would also have to mitigate associated logistical costs to make the prospect viable and competitive.
This summary of the party’s agricultural and land reform vision may please many who read it, especially the interest groups most directly affected by it; what concerns me is their religious foundation. Should this party take power, which would also mean they’d have the majority in parliament – they would push for legislation closely linked to their interpretation of the Bible. Now, again, this summary shows that, at least concerning land reform, this interpretation seems inclusive of all stakeholders; and, the significance of food security is not lost on many. With this being considered, the Bible can be said to be adversarial to those who choose to not believe; look at the divisions within the protestant churches who all proclaim the truth in opposition to one another and the Catholic Church.
Let us hope that these divisions would not be evident in the manner in which the ACDP government implements its policies. Would this government allow for the setting up of non-Christian and/competing protestant and catholic churches in the country – that is, enable their members' access to land on which to worship another deity or in another way? Would they be considered second-class citizens/people? Would the expropriation process treat them equally and not target them for their religious identity? My take here is: politics is already complicated as it is, bringing religion into it just makes the recipe even more flammable thus potentially explosive. It would mean a declaration of its government as Christian thereby creating, in those like-minded, an expectation that it then partakes in the religion’s most important mission: bringing back into the fold, all the lost sheep – all non-Christians and competing protestants and Catholics.
I believe this mission would taint every aspect of the ACDP’s government: public processes may include disclosing religious beliefs for them to enable people to access resources e.g. tenders while denying those who do not ‘qualify’. What about receiving government grants for access to land; or even claiming land for restitution? All you would have to do is be born again and get baptised. I am not saying they will do this; I mean, protestant churches are known for cooperating amongst themselves and even with the Catholic Church – not to mention the many speakers, non-affiliated with them, they invite to give insight at their sermons. This does show a capacity for tolerance towards those who are ‘different’. Make up your mind.
Comments