Chapter 7 Conclusion
7.2 Main Findings
7.2.1 The Nature of the Process of Relocation
The full story of the relocation is given in Chapter 5 and will not be repeated here. However, the main points are extracted from the analysis in order to comment on the process of relocation.
The farm dwellers were relocated from the farms on which they lived in order to make way for a private game park. The study revealed that the farm dwellers had not been adequately informed about their situation. They were confused about their rights, and had no clear image of their rights in this situation. They did not understand the proceedings of the court, and they ended up with a lawyer who was not seriously invested in the case. The farm dwellers had also developed a bad relationship with the farm owner, Adriaan. During the mediation between the farm dwellers, the DLA and Adriaan, Adriaan acted to deliberately erode the livelihood of the farm dwellers through intimidation and the impounding of their cattle. Together with what the farm dwellers experienced as a confusing and frustrating
mediation process, Adriaan's actions and those of both legal representatives appeared to make it difficult for the farm dwellers to exercise agency.
On the one hand they experienced their lives on the farm as increasingly difficult to bear due to the conflict with Adriaan. They were therefore eager to reach a conclusion of the land dispute. On the other hand, they experienced a feeling of powerlessness through the whole process. Their lawyer, who was supposed to keep them informed about the proceedings and explain their rights, turned out to be a hindrance rather than a help. He was not consistent in his recommendations to the farm dwellers, and would go from advising them on a relocation option to telling them that they did not have any rights at all. In other words he assigned them the role of being 'out of place'. This did not provide the farm dwellers with a feeling that the mediation was being done on a fair and equal basis. Rather, they were left with a feeling that the farm owner's interests were being prioritized at the cost of their own well being. In the end, the modern capitalist world dictated the outcome. The temptation of obtaining economic benefits from a private game park far outweighed the continuation of the farm dwellers’ lifestyle, which was not even considered. The farm dwellers thus went from living in a marginal landscape to occupying an even more marginal place in South African society.
This thesis has highlighted the confusing and unorganized nature of the process of relocation. The main parties involved in the process were the farm dwellers and their lawyer, the farm owner and his lawyer, and the DLA. When the process started, in 1997, the initial disputes were related to the status of the farm dwellers. The farm owner refused to acknowledge their status as labour tenants. It took several years for this issue to be settled, something which impacted on the slow pace of the process. The defining feature of the whole process was the bickering between the parties. The two lawyers and the DLA could not establish a constructive dialogue. A lot of time, which otherwise could have been used to inform the farm dwellers about their case, was completely wasted by accusations going back and forth between the lawyers and the DLA. The farm dweller's low status in the social hierarchy prevented them from being heard and taken seriously. Through negotiations an outcome was reached, but one that the farm dwellers were not happy about.
7.2.2 The State as a Protector?
The DLA was appointed to mediate between the land owner and the farm dwellers after Adriaan decided he wanted to evict the people who lived on his farms. The DLA was mainly speaking to the two parties’ lawyers, as the relationship between the farm owner and the farm dwellers had turned sour. The DLA was supposed to be an unbiased ‘middle man’ who could help the parties reach an agreement within the law. However, it soon became clear that the farm dwellers’ lawyer did a poor job trying to protect their rights. He did not make it clear to them what their rights were, and he also failed to defend their wish of remaining on the farms. The DLA knew that the farm dwellers did not get the help that they required, but they did not do anything constructive about this. Even though ESTA was drafted with the intention of providing farm dwellers with security of tenure, the DLA did not follow though to put meaning behind the words.
Obviously, the farm dwellers were the weakest part in this case. They stated their reluctance to relocate, but were not taken seriously. If the DLA had taken the time to listen to the farm dwellers and to question them about their attachment to their land the outcome of the case might have been different. The fact that they did not try hard enough to gain insight into the farm dwellers’ attachment to their land resulted in their inability to evaluate the value that the place held for the farm dwellers. Ultimately it resulted in the relocation of the farm dwellers and their dissatisfaction of the outcome. The new land legislation designed to protect farm dwellers, did not act to prevent the removal – indeed, the landowner was able to use the legislation to gain an outcome favorable to himself. The painful conclusion has to be reached here that the state failed to protect the farm dwellers’ rights.
7.2.3 The Land as a Container of Values and Meanings
The thesis found that the farm dwellers had strong place attachments to their original home place. Their attachment is not something which can be measured or quantified, and it is hard to describe. This is because their attachment incorporates a psychological aspect of their bond to their land. The attachment has roots in their gardening activities, their relationship with their ancestors and their ownership of cattle. It has roots in their experience of their land that has developed over generations. Their attachment to this land is intricately
connected to their growing up at the place and to the wish to be buried at that same place.
The land is a source of food, it is the container of a way of life, and it is the home of their ancestors. The values and meanings that the farm dwellers attach to their land are multi- faceted and complex, so that it is necessary to look at all the pieces in a holistic manner. The farm dwellers have an intimate relationship to their land; in Tuan's words it constitutes “... a psychological need, a social prerequisite, and even a spiritual attribute” (Tuan 1977:58).
This thesis found that the farm dwellers have given meaning to their land through their activities and their living in the place. They have used their experiences, values and emotions to transform the farmland into place (see Tilley, 1994). The farm owner on the other hand does not have a long history on the land and has not developed the same attachment to it.
Adriaan saw the development potential of the land, and thus viewed the landscape as a source of potential wealth within a capitalist framework (see Winchester et al., 2003). The farm dwellers on the other hand saw the landscape as place. For them, this land – the particular farms on which they lived – could not just be easily substituted for any other piece of land.
There is a fundamental contradiction here between the imperatives of a capitalist market system, and the life worlds of farm dwellers. In South Africa’s ongoing conflicts about land, development and social justice, it is important that perspectives of the disempowered also form part of the debate. At present, the lived experience of people like the farm dwellers interviewed for this thesis, are not part of the equation.
7.2.4 The Socio-Economic Impacts of Relocation
In the first part of Chapter 6, Cernea's (1997) 'risk and reconstruction model for resettling displaced populations' was used to evaluate the material impacts that the relocation caused.
Cernea (1997) identified eight impoverishment risks that any relocated population is at risk of experiencing. These risks include: landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, marginalization, increased morbidity and mortality, food insecurity, loss of access to common property, and social disarticulation. This thesis has used Cernea's framework to explore the realities of the relocation on the two farm dweller communities identified by the
authorities in the process of the removal. The study revealed that the farm dwellers had received insufficient funds and assistance in their task of re-establishing a home off Adriaan’s land. The results of the interviews showed that although none of the farm dwellers has become completely landless, they have less land at their disposal after the relocation than before. The outcomes were different for different groups of farm dwellers. The
‘Mbekizweni group’ was given title deeds to their new plot of land. This gave them a stronger feeling of ownership to the new land compared with what the ‘Zondo group’
experienced. The Zondo group was relocated in the middle of an already occupied area where land is already a marginal asset, and placed under the power of a chief whom they do not know. While the Mbekizweni group seems to have received the best deal out of the two, both communities are still struggling with the consequences that the shortage of land is causing. The loss of cattle was a crucial aspect of the removals which appears to have been underestimated by all negotiating parties.
In both of the two communities joblessness is rife and their status as marginalized groups has not changed. While none of them are homeless at the moment, there was a period between their relocation and the rebuilding of their new houses when homelessness occurred. The availability of food has decreased, something which might well lead to increased morbidity and mortality. Overall, too many of Cernea's impoverishment risks have taken place. This could have been avoided.