Abstracts

39 policy. Assuredly, EWC classifies as a radical economic policy that would resonate with landless Africans economically, symbolically, and spiritually. In accordance with Zuma’s typical political response, Zuma persuaded Dlamini-Zuma to “tack left” and endorse EWC in order to offer previously unpromised “radical economic transformation” into her election platform at the 2017 Conference (Johnson, 2019, p. 56). Dlamini-Zuma’s public support for EWC posed a serious threat to Ramaphosa’s candidacy. Since the implementation of black economic empowerment policy, Ramaphosa earned tens of millions of dollars from the shares and board positions he received from white-owned major corporations that hoped to capitalize on his political clout (Tangri & Southall, 2008, p. 713). 2 This made Ramaphosa an easy target for Zuma-ites to cast as white monopoly capital’s frontman. During the 2017 Conference, “the Ramaphosa forces argued passionately against the EWC resolution…but in the end the Ramaphosa faction decided to give way, contenting itself merely with adding a number of conditions that EWC should only be carried out if it did not endanger food production or food security or the rest of the economy….Their concern was that if they failed to concede it might even lead to an attempt to overthrow Ramaphosa’s presidential win” (Johnson, 2019, p. 57). Ramaphosa’s victory at the 2017 Conference, which made him President of the ANC, effectively secured Ramaphosa’s current position as President of South Africa. Simultaneously, however, it cornered Ramaphosa into a monumental electoral promise with which both he and his most fervent political supporters ardently disagreed. Consequently, Ramaphosa is obliged to deliver an EWC amendment in spite of awareness that it may critically damage several important goals of his administration. This awkward political predicament largely explains the unclear fate of EWC in ANC policy. Before EWC becomes policy, not just a policy consideration, numerous constitutional and political conundrums will have to be addressed. 2 See the article by Buonasora in this volume for discussion of black economic empowerment. EWC Legal and Political Pathway The opinion that EWC is implicitly legal stems from Section 25(8) of the Bill of Rights, which grants the national government supreme power to resolve the land question, despite limits that cast doubt on this assumption. Section 25(8) states, “No provision of this section may impede the state from taking legislative and other measures to achieve land, water and related reform, in order to redress the results of past racial discrimination, provided that any departure from the provisions of this section is in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1)” (Constitution, 1996). Section 25(8) enables the government to take measures beyond the limits of Section 25 in order to achieve land reform, but within the limits of Section 36(1). Section 36(1) stipulates ways in which the Bill of Rights may be limited, including “that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity” and that the government could not have pursued “less restrictive means to achieve the purpose” (Constitution, 1996). Thus, Section 25(8) restricts the national government to pursue legislative measures and other actions that are reasonable and not overly restrictive. Many would argue that EWC is not reasonable and extremely restrictive. The first half of Section 25 exhibits clear intent to make expropriation and compensation inextricable from one another. Section 25(1) prohibits the “arbitrary deprivation of property.” Section 25(2) states that property may be expropriated if it is in the public’s interest (i.e., historical redress), but “subject to compensation.” Section 25(3) outlines the factors which affect “the amount of compensation.” Sections 25(1-3) are thus meant to act in proportion to and balance with Sections 25(5-8), which are the legal foundation for all forms of land reform. Section 25(5) enables the redistribution of land. Section 25(6) provides the state with the legal right to enact legislation to promote tenure security. Section 25(7) grants the state authority to adjudicate land restitution claims. Uncertainty about whether the constitution implicitly empowers the national government to conduct EWC led to a Joint Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) review on EWC’s current legality.