LAND reform has been a topical issue in African. In every election in Africa land reform takes a centre stage.
Zimbabwe is one if not the only African country which redistributed its land in a way which traumatised many whites, as it was done forcefully.
South Africa’s opposition Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema recently said Zimbabwe’s land reform is a model system for Africa as it empowered people to own property. SA media quoted Malema, who is championing a radical cause for the nationalisation of mines and land expropriation without compensation, effusive in praise of the Zimbabwean system.
He said: “There’s no system that has worked successfully for Africans, except the Zimbabwean system. Zimbabweans today can be hungry and poor, but at least they own property. You are eating pap and vleis here in South Africa, (but) you have nothing to show as proof that you belong to South Africa.”
He said whites should not be compensated for the land they will lose because the stalled land reform since the end of apartheid in 1994 should be regarded as compensation enough.
“The 20 years of not taking the land should have been regarded as compensation because the land should have been taken in 1994. So we have compensated them (white people) enough,” he said. This is not the first time that Malema, ex-president of the ANC Youth League, has urged South Africans to take a leaf from Zimbabwe.
Addressing the media last year at the launch of his party in Johannesburg’s Constitution Hill, he told South Africans to brace for a painful revolution, as happened in Zimbabwe with white capitalists punishing the country if it dared redress the land question.
“There will be a time when you will wake up without bread and that will be the day you will know how to make to your own bread at home and you will realise that you do not need these people,” he said.
South Africa is saddled with the land question as the minority white population continues to hold on to land at the expense of the black majority. A willing buyer-willing seller model of land reform has not been able to address the skewed land ownership.
Whites in Africa with the help of America and EU tend to protect their land in the name of human rights where they claim they have right to own property like the black majority. However, the willing buyer willing seller has proved to be useless therefore Africans should device their own means of taking back their land.
In South Africa, the black majority is suffering they have no shelter and food but their brothers and sisters fought and some died for land which whites still own. Malema is justifies when he calls for a radical approach because taking the land in democratic way has failed.
PRESIDENT Mugabe sent a strong message to his “enemies” in the West and America that he will not be bullied by them.
The European Union-Africa summit is a gathering of 90 countries from two continents attended by 65 heads of states and government.
On the agenda is trade and political relations but there will be some notable absentees.
The move has been condemned by many as they are citing that the Zanu-PF leader is wrong to deny the country representation at the summit over personal issues.
As much as people might fume, EU was also wrong to tell Zimbabwe who should attend. This is an internal issue which has nothing to do with them. It is well known that Zimbabwe and EU are not in good books hence the move to deny Grace a visa is a political which is meant to fix Mugabe.
Mugabe too responded in a political manner by telling them if they do not meet his demands he will then boycott the summit. For me, even if Mugabe was to attend the summit, he was still going to come back empty handed just like what Chinamasa did when he visited Europe in the hope that he was going to get aid.
EU used its power in issues that doesn’t concern them. In their invitation, EU had to choose which African countries were to attend. What is the hell is that? What is so special about them that they have to tell Africa who should attend and not.
South Africa has also joined other African countries in boycotting EU-Africa Summit. South Africa President, Jacob Zuma, is reportedly to have said the EU should not decide who attends the EU-Africa Summit.
Zuma is of the view that European Union is dictating the composition of Africa’s delegation.
Pretoria will be represented on a ministerial level.
“I think that time must pass wherein we are looked as subjects, we are told who must come, who must not come, we have not attempted to decide when we meet Europe; who must come and who must not come. It is wrong and causes this unnecessary unpleasantness. I thought the AU and EU are equal organisations representing two continents but there is not a single one of them who must decide for others,” says President Jacob Zuma
In support of Zuma’s message, it should be up to the African Union rather than the European Union to decide which African leaders are accepted or not. EU has no right to exclude particular African leaders.
It is actually clear that this summit was just for EU blue eyes boys and girls which include Botswana and Malawi ho have been relegated to mere EU bootlickers. African countries should stop to dance according to the tune of EU.
After all, there is nothing special about the summit, as the same countries who are hosting the summit are going to plot against African countries.
After all Mugabe’s boycott is a blessing in disguise, the country needs him because the economy is not showing any signs of improvement.
Malema, a former ruling party, African National Congress (ANC), youth leader was dismissed from the party for bad behavior.
After being shown the exit door, Juju formed his Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), which he said is aimed at giving the majority of South African power and control of their resources. His policies many have described as radically and they mimic the Zanu-PF ideologies.
During the launch of his manifesto, Juju promised people heaven on earth. The launch was indeed a red sea as thousands of people thronged Tembisa stadium to see their president. listen to their president. give support to their presidential candidate.
As election day draw nearer, I am eager to see whether thousands of people who attended the rally will still be behind Juju. There are some people who usually attend rallies for the sake of attending and let alone do not vote.
At his address Malema said: “Now is the time for real freedom.” He addressed contentious issues in South Africa including land ownership, the nationalisation of mines, education and corruption and the local economy.
However, many people have labeled the EFF a racist party as they are threatening to take land from whites. The party believes that whites are oppression black majority hence this is the time take what belong to them.
Clearly, EFF policies which were made crystal clear from their manifesto is that they are more like an extension of Zanu-PF. Zanu-PF is too singing on the same hymn book with Juju, as they took land and now they are taking over mines.
Recently, during the funeral of former South Africa President , Neslon Mandela, Mugabe received a thunderous applause in South Africa, this might be an indication that South Africans admire the oldest African leader, Mugabe. If Mugabe received such a warm welcome does this also imply that Malema has got a chance to win more votes since his policies and of those of Mugabe are the same?
Malema is addressing issues many South Africans have been complaining about for the past years. This might perhaps be the reason why he is commanding a large following at the moment.
If people who are attending rallies are to go and vote in their large numbers, surely Malema is going to cause problems in parliament.
For this election, Malema might not be able to get more votes but as years go by, people will certainly be tempted to follow the South Africa’s youngest Presidential candidate.
These coming general elections are meant to decide Malema’s future in the game of politics. I am one of those who wish Malema the best of lucky, i wish he can get some votes so that he can also be part of parliament under the system of proportional representation.