Johannesburg – South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa has recently signed into law the Expropriation Bill, a landmark piece of legislation designed to tackle land inequality.
This comes as Zimbabwe’s chaotic land reform continues to cast a long shadow over the region, raising critical questions about how South Africa can avoid the mistakes that plunged its northern neighbor into economic collapse and what the reforms mean for the poor majority.
Zimbabwe’s land redistribution, which began in 2000, aimed to address historical land ownership imbalances.
However, its abrupt and often violent implementation devastated the nation’s agricultural sector, drove hyperinflation, and led to widespread food insecurity.
South Africa, now on a similar path, has an opportunity to deliver a fairer, more sustainable reform process—one that prioritises the poor, who stand to gain the most if done correctly.
Zimbabwe’s Missteps
Under Zimbabwe’s program, white-owned farms were seized without compensation, often redistributed to politically connected elites with little agricultural expertise.
This left many poor Zimbabweans, for whom land meant survival and economic independence, worse off.
- Economic Collapse: Agricultural output plummeted, wiping out Zimbabwe’s status as a breadbasket of Africa.
- Hyperinflation: The economy spiraled into one of the worst cases of hyperinflation in modern history.
- Persistent Poverty: Despite owning land, many beneficiaries lacked resources and technical knowledge to make it productive, leaving them trapped in deeper poverty.
The poor became collateral damage in a process intended to uplift them.
What Land Reform Means for South Africa’s Poor
For millions of landless South Africans, land reform represents a critical lifeline.
Land is not just a resource; it is a means of achieving food security, economic independence, and social dignity.
Yet, history has shown that simply transferring land without adequate support fails to lift the poor out of poverty.
South Africa’s poor stand to gain if the government implements reforms that address their immediate needs:
- Access to Resources: Beneficiaries need seeds, equipment, and training to make their land productive.
- Market Integration: Small-scale farmers must be supported in accessing local and international markets to sell their produce.
- Security of Tenure: Land must be allocated transparently, ensuring that it reaches those who need it most and not just the politically connected.
If handled correctly, land reform can empower the poor to break cycles of poverty and dependency.
Global Comparisons: Lessons for the Poor
While Zimbabwe’s reform marginalised the poor, other countries offer examples of how redistribution can be pro-poor:
- South Korea and Japan: By redistributing land to tenant farmers with subsidies and technical support, these nations created a thriving class of smallholders, dramatically reducing rural poverty.
- Rwanda: Land reforms ensured that small-scale farmers received secure tenure and support, boosting agricultural productivity and livelihoods.
However, failures in Kenya and Brazil reveal how corruption and lack of support can leave the poor excluded or worse off.
South Africa’s Challenge and Opportunity
South Africa’s Expropriation Bill emphasises negotiation, fair compensation, and support for beneficiaries, setting the stage for a more inclusive process. Still, implementation will determine its success.
“The poor must be at the center of this process,” said a rural development advocate. “Without targeted support and resources, land reform will only serve to perpetuate inequality.”
For the poor, land reform is not a political exercise—it is a matter of survival.
Done right, it can empower millions to achieve food security, economic independence, and a stake in the country’s future.
Done poorly, it risks repeating Zimbabwe’s mistakes and widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
As South Africa takes its first steps under this new law, the stakes for the poor could not be higher.