Rural Development Programme (RDP)

It is important to note that the RDP was completed after the *interim constitution was written* and put its plans for land reform *within the confines* of the provisions on land contained within the constitution. Not surprisingly, the RDP did not go far beyond listing a lot of good intentions and wishes. It did not address difficult issues of how to avoid or deal with the consequences of disrupting existing commercial agriculture or the resistance to fundamental change that was bound to come from landowners and from international business interests. The intentions set out in the RDP would, had they been decisively acted on, have gone someway to bringing about a fundamental transformation of property relations.

The few intimations in the RDP of anything outside a narrow free-market ideology, such as statements like “increasing the public sector in strategic areas through, for example, nationalisation,” were soon vanquished from future economic policies and statements. The clause already revealed an uncertainty as it *fell short* of saying that there would be widespread nationalisation as part of building a strong state capable of driving economic transformation. Nationalisation, became a “for example” and is quickly followed by talk of purchasing shares in companies and joint ventures with the private sector. Talk of democratising the economy and involving workers in decisions about the economy have in practice *never gone beyond rhetoric.*

The constitution of South Africa[14] was a result of and a key part of the negotiated settlement that ended Apartheid. Section 25 that deals with land rights was hotly debated. The resulting compromise set the political direction for the handling of land reform and set the legal parameters within which land reform has to be dealt with. The sentiment, expressed in the preamble, “that South Africa belongs to all who live in it,” finds no place in the property clause. The constitution recognises existing property rights in sections 25(1) and in section 25(2) allows for expropriation only “for a public purpose or in the public interest” and with compensation being paid.

These sections oblige the state to deal with aspects of land reform while also recognising current property rights. Thus *the constitution is a constraint* to the changing property relations in as far as it protects existing property rights, requires compensation to be paid for land to be used for land reform and does not establish clear rights to property for all South Africans or even for those who work the land. On the other hand the constitution does create an obligation on the state to have land reform and leaves space for far reaching reforms if the state is willing and able to make available sufficient finances and to implement a programme that can make the most of the land reform possibilities within the constraints.