MK Party: Black South Africans ‘sold a dream’ in 1994 - IOL

MK Party acting deputy secretary-general Sifiso Mahlangu said the land question remained central to South Africa’s liberation struggle and should never be forgotten.

MK Party acting deputy secretary-general Sifiso Mahlangu says black South Africans were sold a dream in 1994, arguing that political freedom has not translated into the economic freedom that many had hoped for.

Speaking during an MK Party activation programme at the University of Pretoria on Saturday, Mahlangu said the land question remained central to South Africa’s liberation struggle and should never be forgotten.

“The battle historically is about land. And we should not forget,” he said.

Mahlangu said the history of land dispossession could not be ignored when discussing the country’s democratic achievements and the challenges facing black people today.

“The longer we ignore the fact that a dispossession happened, we are sitting on a time bomb,” he warned.

Mahlangu argued that South Africa could not simply move on from its past without confronting the consequences of colonialism and apartheid, which saw black people forcibly removed from their land and denied opportunities to own and benefit from it.

“The 1913 Natives Land Act restricted African land ownership to 7% of the country’s land. This was later increased to 13% under the 1936 Native Trust and Land Act.

“The government’s 2017 Land Audit also highlighted the unequal distribution of agricultural land registered to individual owners. White individuals owned 72% of these farms and agricultural holdings, while African individuals owned just 4%. Coloured individuals accounted for 15% and Indian individuals 5%,” he said.

Despite the slow pace of transformation and the challenges surrounding land reform, Mahlangu said black people should not lose hope.

He stressed that opportunities to access land still existed and encouraged communities to look beyond the national land debate. “It is not all lost,” was his message.

Mahlangu pointed out that many people did not know that municipalities had land policies which could provide opportunities for communities to access municipal land.

He encouraged residents to familiarise themselves with these policies and approach their municipalities to find out what land was available and how they could apply for it.

His argument was that people should not wait for national government alone to resolve the land question when there were also opportunities to explore at local government level.

He believes communities need to become more aware of municipal land policies and the processes governing the allocation of public land.

The availability of municipal land and the conditions for accessing it differ between municipalities, making it important for residents to establish what opportunities exist in their areas.

Mahlangu’s remarks bring the debate about the meaning of freedom back into focus, more than three decades after the country’s first democratic elections.

For many black South Africans, 1994 represented the hope of more than political representation. It was also about access to land, economic opportunities, jobs, housing and a better life.

However, unemployment, poverty and inequality remain major challenges.

Mahlangu’s argument is that the country must not forget the historical struggle that brought about democracy, particularly the central role played by land.

He believes that addressing historical dispossession is important to building a more equal society and ensuring that black people can participate meaningfully in the economy.

The land question is not only about returning land, but also about creating opportunities for people to use it productively, build businesses, establish homes and improve their livelihoods.

His reference to municipal land policies also raises the importance of local government in the broader land reform debate.

While national government remains responsible for major land reform programmes, municipalities have their own land assets and policies governing their management and allocation.

For communities, understanding these policies could open up opportunities that many residents may not know about.

Mahlangu’s warning about the consequences of ignoring dispossession is a reminder that the land question remains an important part of South Africa’s political and economic debate.

His message is that black South Africans must remember the history of dispossession, understand the opportunities available to them, and continue seeking ways to reclaim their future.

The question of land, he maintains, cannot be separated from the struggle for genuine freedom.