Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:18:51.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Struggles with activism: NGO engagements with land tenure reform in post-apartheid South Africa*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2010

Elizabeth Fortin
Elizabeth Fortin*
Affiliation:
Centre for Development Studies, Department of Social and Policy Studies, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom
*
Email: e.fortin@bath.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 2004, a long-awaited piece of post-apartheid legislation, the Communal Land Rights Act – to reform the land tenure of those living in the former ‘homelands’ of South Africa – was passed into law unanimously by parliament. This unanimity, however, conceals the extent to which the process towards this moment was deeply contested. Exploring the efforts by land sector NGOs to secure legitimacy in their engagements with this process reveals the extent to which wider power relations and contestations have determined their positioning. Those within the non-governmental land sector who opposed the legislation pitted themselves against African National Congress politicians and high-profile traditional leaders. However, the adoption of a Mamdani-inspired discourse to contest such politics and oppose the proposed legislation contributed to reinscribing narrow readings of knowledge considered to be legitimate. Their engagements were also shaped by changes in the NGO sector. Reduced funding for land sector NGOs and an increasingly ambivalent relationship between them and government contributed to contestations between NGOs and among people working within them. Their strategic engagements in such wider and internal politics influenced both the frames within which such policy change could be debated and the ways in which individuals working for NGOs consequently positioned themselves in relation to their constituents.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Modern African Studies , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 383 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Ian Scoones, Barbara Oomen, Linda Waldman, Phil Woodhouse and Roy Maconachie for their comments and guidance in relation to earlier versions of this work, as well as two anonymous referees for their comments. I would also like to gratefully acknowledge the support of an ESRC Studentship (Institute of Development Studies, PTA-030-2003-00356) and Fellowship (Institute of Development Policy and Management, PTA-026-27-1924).

References

REFERENCES

Abel, R. 1995. Politics by Other Means: law in the struggle against apartheid, 1980–94. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Alcock, R. & Hornby, D.. 2004. ‘Traditional land matters: a look into land administration in tribal areas in KwaZulu-Natal’, Legal Entity Assessment Project, available online at: http://www.leap.org.za/File_uploads/File/con027.docGoogle Scholar
Bennett, T. 2008. ‘“Official” vs “living” customary law: dilemmas of description and recognition’, in Claassens, & Cousins, , Land, Power & Custom, 138–53.Google Scholar
Berry, S. 1992. ‘Hegemony on a shoestring: indirect rule and access to agricultural land’, Africa 62, 3: 327–55.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L.. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Claassens, A. 2000. ‘South African proposals for tenure reform: the draft Land Rights Bill’, in Toulmin, C. & Quan, J., eds. Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa. London: DfID, IIED, NRI, 247–66.Google Scholar
Claassens, A. 2003. ‘Community views on the Communal Land Rights Bill’, Research Report 15, Cape Town: Programme of Land and Agrarian Studies and National Land Committee.Google Scholar
Claassens, A. & Cousins, B., eds. 2008. Land, Power & Custom: controversies generated by South Africa's Communal Land Rights Act. Cape Town: UCT Press.Google Scholar
Claassens, A. & Ngubane, S.. 2008. ‘Women, land and power: the impact of the Communal Land Rights Act’, in Claassens & Cousins, Land, Power & Custom, 154–83.Google Scholar
Constitution 1996. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996.Google Scholar
Cousins, B. 2002. ‘Legislating negotiability: tenure reform in post-apartheid South Africa’, in Juul, K. & Lund, C., eds. Negotiating Property in Africa. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 67–106.Google Scholar
Cousins, B. 2005a. ‘“Embeddedness” versus titling: African land tenure systems and the potential impacts of the Communal Land Rights Act 11 of 2004’, Stellenbosch Law Review 16, 4: 488–513.Google Scholar
Cousins, B. 2005b. ‘Tenure reform in South Africa: titling versus social embeddedness’, Forum for Development Studies 2: 415–42.Google Scholar
Cousins, B. 2007. ‘More than socially embedded: the distinctive character of “communal tenure” regimes in South Africa and its implications for land policy’, Journal of Agrarian Change 7, 3: 281–315.Google Scholar
Cousins, B. & Claassens, A.. 2004. ‘Communal land rights, democracy and traditional leaders in post-apartheid South Africa’, in Saruchera, M., ed. Security, Land and Resource Rights in Africa: Pan-African perspectives. Cape Town: PLAAS, 139–54.Google Scholar
Cousins, B. & Claassens, A.. 2006. ‘More than simply “socially embedded”: recognizing the distinctiveness of African land rights’, International Symposium ‘At the Frontier of Land Issues: social embeddedness of rights and public policy’, Montpellier.Google Scholar
de Wet, C. 1989. ‘Betterment planning in a rural village in Keiskammahoek, Ciskei’, Journal of Southern African Studies 15, 2: 326–45.Google Scholar
Delius, P. 2008. ‘Contested terrain: land rights and chiefly power in historical perspective’, in Claassens & Cousins, Land, Power & Custom, 211–37.Google Scholar
Edwards, M. 2008. ‘Have NGOs made a difference? From Manchester to Birmingham and back with an elephant in the room’, in Bebbington, A., Hickey, S. & Mitlin, D., eds. Can NGOs Make a Difference? The challenge of NGO alternatives. London: Zed Books: 38–52.Google Scholar
Edwards, M. & Hulme, D., eds. 1992. Making a Difference: NGOs and development in a changing world. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Edwards, M. & Hulme, D.. 1996. ‘Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations’, World Development 24, 6: 961–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, I. 1997. Bureaucracy and Race: native administration in South Africa. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, J. 1994. The Anti-Politics Machine: ‘development’, depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Fernando, J. 2003. ‘NGOs and production of indigenous knowledge under the condition of postmodernity’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 590: 54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortin, E. 2008. ‘Arenas of contestation: policy processes and land tenure reform in post-apartheid South Africa’, DPhil thesis, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton.Google Scholar
Friedman, S. & Reitzes, M.. 1996. ‘Democratisation or bureaucratisation? Civil society, the public sphere and the state in post-apartheid South Africa’, Transformation: critical perspectives on Southern Africa 29: 55–73.Google Scholar
Gibbs, T. 2009. ‘From popular struggles to populist politics: state intervention and rural unrest in South Africa 1960–1999’, Third European Conference on African Studies, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Habib, A. & Taylor, R.. 1999. ‘South Africa: anti-apartheid NGOs in transition’, Voluntas: international journal of voluntary and nonprofit organizations 10, 1: 73–82.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, S. & Meer, S.. 2000. ‘Out of the margins and into the centre: gender and institutional change’, in Cousins, B., ed. At the Crossroads: land and agrarian reform in South Africa into the 21st century. Cape Town: PLAAS/NLC, 264–79.Google Scholar
Harries, P. 1989. ‘Exclusion, classification and internal colonialism: the emergence of ethnicity among the Tsonga-speakers of South Africa’, in Vail, L., ed. The Creation of Tribalism in Southern Africa. London: James Currey, 82–117.Google Scholar
Heinrich, V. F. 2001. ‘The role of NGOs in strengthening the foundations of South African democracy’, Voluntas: international journal of voluntary and nonprofit organizations 12, 1: 1–16.Google Scholar
Hendricks, F. 1990. The Pillars of Apartheid: land tenure, rural planning and the chieftaincy. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Hudson, A. 2001. ‘NGOs' transnational advocacy networks: from “legitimacy” to “political responsibility”?’, Global Networks 1, 4: 331–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, D. 2007. Gaining Ground? ‘Rights’ and ‘property’ in South African land reform. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiff, E. 2003. ‘The politics of land reform in Southern Africa’, Sustainable Livelihoods in Southern Africa Research Paper 19, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.Google Scholar
Letsoalo, E. 1987. Land Reform in South Africa: a black perspective. Johannesburg: Skotaville Publishers.Google Scholar
Mahar, C., Harker, R. & Wilkes, C.. 1990. ‘The basic theoretical position’, in Harker, Mahar & Wilkes, , eds. An Introduction to the Work of Pierre Bourdieu. London: Macmillan, 1–25.Google Scholar
Maloka, T. 1996. ‘Populism and the politics of chieftaincy and nation-building in the new South Africa’, Journal of Contemporary African Studies 14, 2: 173–96.Google Scholar
Mamdani, M. 1996. Citizen and Subject: contemporary Africa and the legacy of late colonialism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mitlin, D., Hickey, S. & Bebbington, A.. 2007. ‘Reclaiming development? NGOs and the challenge of alternatives’, World Development 35, 10: 1699–1720.Google Scholar
Mngxitama, A. 2006. ‘The taming of land resistance: lessons from the National Land Committee’, Journal of Asian and African Studies 41, 1–2: 39–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosse, D. 2005. Cultivating Development: an ethnography of aid policy and practice. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Murray, C. 1992. Black Mountain: land, class and power in the eastern Orange Free State, 1880s to 1980s. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Nauta, W. 2004. The Implications of Freedom: the changing role of land sector NGOs in a transforming South Africa. Piscatawy, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Nixon, R. 1993. ‘Of Balkans and Bantustans: “ethnic cleansing” and the crisis in national legitimation’, Transformation: critical perspectives on Southern Africa 60: 4–32.Google Scholar
Ntsebeza, L. 2005. Democracy Compromised: chiefs and the politics of land in South Africa. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Oomen, B. 2000. ‘“We must now go back to our history”: retraditionalisation in a Northern Province chieftaincy’, African Studies 59, 1: 71–95.Google Scholar
Oomen, B. 2005. Chiefs in South Africa: law, power & culture in the post-apartheid era. Oxford: James Currey.Google Scholar
Robins, S. 2001. ‘NGOs, “Bushmen” and double vision: the khomani San land claim and the cultural politics of “community” and “development” in the Kalahari’, Journal of Southern African Studies 27, 4: 833–53.Google Scholar
Robins, S. 2003. ‘Whose modernity? Indigenous modernities and land claims after apartheid’, Development and Change 34, 2: 265–85.Google Scholar
Vail, L. 1989. ‘Introduction: ethnicity in Southern African history’, in Vail, , ed. The Creation of Tribalism in Southern Africa. London: James Currey, 1–19.Google Scholar
van Kessel, I. & Oomen, B.. 1997. ‘“One chief, one vote”: the revival of traditional authorities in post-apartheid South Africa’, African Affairs 96, 385: 561–85.Google Scholar
Walker, C. 1994. ‘Women, “tradition” and reconstruction’, Review of African Political Economy 61: 347–58.Google Scholar
Walker, C. 2003. ‘Piety in the sky? Gender policy and land reform in South Africa’, Journal of Agrarian Change 3, 1–2: 113–48.Google Scholar
Walker, C. 2005. ‘Women, gender policy and land reform in South Africa’, Politikon 32, 2: 297–315.Google Scholar
Weideman, M. 2004. ‘Who shaped South Africa's land reform policy?’, Politikon 31, 2: 219–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wotshela, L. 2004. ‘Territorial manipulation in apartheid South Africa: resettlement, tribal politics and the making of the northern Ciskei 1975–1990’, Journal of Southern African Studies 30, 2: 317–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Archival documents

Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs (MALA). 2000. Parliamentary media briefing, 2.00, available at: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/learning/landrights/south.html

Ministry for Welfare and Population Development (MWPD). 1997. Draft White Paper on Population Policy, available at: http://www.info.gov.za/whitepapers/1997/popdraft.htm

Nkuzi. 2003. Submission to the Portfolio Committee, 14.11.03, available at: www.pmg.org.za/docs/2003/appendices/031114nkuzi.htm

Social Surveys and Nkuzi Development Association (SSNDA). 2005. The Evictions Survey, available at: http://www.nkuzi.org.za/docs/Evictions_Summary.pdf

Statistics South Africa. 2002. Census 2001: investigation into appropriate definitions of urban and rural areas for South Africa: discussion document. Report no. 03-02-20, available at: http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/Report-11-02-01/Report-11-02-012002.pdf

Statistics South Africa. 2002. Agricultural Census (Census of Commercial Agriculture), available at: http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/statsdownload.asp?PPN=P1101&SCH=3185