INTERVENTION BY
PRINCE MANGOSUTHU BUTHELEZI MP
CHAIRPERSON OF THE HOUSE OF TRADITIONAL LEADERS
(KWAZULU-NATAL)
TRADITIONAL PRIME MINISTER OF THE ZULU NATION
 

It gives me great pleasure to participate in this important Conference.
I pride myself in having been one of the main participants in the complex and tortuous process of policy formulation which led to the Communal Property Land Rights Act.

It was remarkable that at the outset the new black government was ideologically and politically opposed to the very notion of communal property and was committed to eliminating it. I find it absurd that the first black government of South Africa would be against African traditions more than any one of its undemocratic predecessors.

In parliament, in cabinet, and in a variety of other policy formulation venues, I spoke endlessly to convince the new government that unless communal property was preserved as an institution, the poorest people of South Africa would become landless.

The new government was fixated with the notion of land title which they saw as antagonistic to that of communal land. I knew that was an erroneous contradiction because communal land and land rights are not a contradiction in terms. In fact, my own history proves it. Perhaps, no one more than myself has been such a strenuous advocate and defender of communal property.

Yet, I was the one who in my former capacity as Chief Minister of the KwaZulu government passed the most progressive legislation to promote land rights within the context of communal property. In KwaZulu-Natal, we were the first to give the permission to occupy land issued by traditional leaders in the form of a recordable deed. We were also the first to enable such deeds to be sold and bought between equally qualifying members of the same community.

Therefore, we created market value within the institution of communal property without undermining communal property, whilst at the same time, addressing the needs for the marketability of land. This experience will be invaluable when attention is focused on the constitutions and other regulations which will have to be drafted to regulate the administration of land within the parameters of the Communal Property Lands Rights Act.


In fact, it will be important to ensure a certain degree of flexibility and marketability of the right to possess land, whilst ensuring that the land cannot be separated from those who are members of the community. As far as I am concerned, today's debate brings me back to where we were in1989. I regret that so much time was wasted, but I am glad that we have finally caught up.

I am also pleased that the Communal Property Lands Rights Act was amended, as compared to the initial deal, which was fiercely opposed to traditional leadership in its final formulation. In fact, communal property is at the very foundation of a complex system of social organisation, which includes the laws which governing the daily life of the community and the governance laws of traditional leadership.

Correctly the function of land administration of traditional leadership was not vested with the traditional leader himself, but rather in a traditional council. Therefore, I am pleased that great progress has been made in preserving our traditions. In a few other places in the world outside of Africa, people have the right to a piece of land to support themselves and their families.

For us Africans, this is an important measure of our individual dignity.
This is reflected in the fact that land for us is not a possession, but, indeed, a human right, albeit one that regretfully was not recorded in our Bill of Rights. For as long as this fundamental human right is respected, no African will be poor because he or she will always be able to have enough land to produce food and eat.

This is an element on which we must base the development of our society into a modern and efficient new one. Only the institutional communal property can guarantee that this will be the case. Passing the CLRA was perhaps the easiest step in the complex process of launching a new dimension for communal property in the 21st century.

I am concerned to see this process becoming excessively bureaucratic. I know that there are pressures on communal land. This requires administration to come up on par with land administration requirements usually set out in zone laws, master plans and land use regulations.

Until now, the administration of communal property has focused mainly on the land allocation hinging on the choice of who gets what. As we move forward, the administration will need to place a greater emphasis on the issue of land use in order to combine the choice of who gets what within a framework that will decide what one can do with the land one acquires, for instance whether it can be built on, farmed, or used for other purposes.

In this respect, the challenge of communal property will be that of existing within a new environment of wall-to-wall municipalities, which will technically require wall to wall zoning and master planning conducted in the same manner and with the same criteria.

It would be a disaster for traditional communities, if land use functions were exercised exclusively by municipalities. Unfortunately, the constitution seems to suggest that this should be the case.
Nonetheless we know that for communal land to work, traditional council must have competence both in respect of land allocation as well as land use.

This is one of the many examples of the challenges ahead. More could be mentioned and will undoubtedly be addressed during this conference, which makes it unnecessary for me to address them now. But I wish to remark that I am aware of these difficulties and I hope that I will remain a pivotal interlocutor in the dialogue to move this process forward.

I really hope that this dialogue will give traditional leadership the important role that it deserves and that it will allow it to make the crucial contribution that it alone can bring to bear to make this process a real success.