Ons is nie almal dieselfde nie- Suid Afrika -
Twaalf jaar later woon ek weer n kongres van Vrystaat Landbou by. Ek groet ou vriende, gesels met groot geeste met wie ek sedertdien net op Facebook kontak gehad het, neem fotos saam met jong boere, en glimlag en waai stram vir die "ander kamp" wat ook as gaste bywoon.
Vrystaat Landbou was in n waardevolle vennootskap met Saai en Sakeliga in die hofsaak waarin die staat se monopolie in die besluitneming en bestuur van inentings teen Bek-en-Klouseer tot n einde gekom het, en daarmee saam die uitsluiting van sekere landboubelangegroepe op die ministriële advieskomitees. Agri-SA het as moederliggaam hom daaroor van Vrystaat Landbou gedistansieër, en sewe ander provinsiale landbou-unies se skriftelike mandate teen die hofsaak en ten gunste van sentrale staatsbeheer gepubliseer.
Vrystaat Landbou het ook al oor reaksie op die onteieningswet en die onregverdige verpreiding van risiko en wins in die waardekettangs met Agri-SA oorhoops gelê. Nou het die Vrystaatse boere hulle hakke ingekap en hulle ledegeld aan Agri-SA weerhou. Boereverenigings in die Oos-Kaap, Noord-Kaap en KwaZulu-Natal het ook al belangstelling getoon om by Vrystaat Landbou in te val omdat hulle hulself beter belyn voel met die standpunte en beleidsposisies wat sy leiers verwoord.
Anders as wat akademici soos Kirsten en Sihlobo in hulle boek "The Uncomfortable truth about Agriculture in South Africa" probeer weergee, het hierdie verskille niks met persoonlikhede, ongesonde ambisie of kompetisie tussen individuele leiers te doen nie. Die boere is n diverse gemeenskap in Suid Afrika, en eenheid in landbou is n hersenskim. Boere deel nie almal dieselfde belange, waardes of basiese behoeftes nie. Ons het n veelheid van landbou-organisasies omdat hulle verskillende, en soms selfs teenstrydige belange en waardes verteenwoordig.
Al die mees omstrede kwessies in die hedendaagse landbou-omgewing sny dieper as persoonlike belange en is ingebed in bewese teenstrydige mandate. Agri-SA, Graan-SA, RPO, RMIS en Agbiz het mandate van hulle lede gehad om die Landbou en Landbouverwerkingsmeesterplan (AAMP) af te teken en druk voortdurend dat dit meer aggressief geïmplementeer moet word. Saai, TLU-SA, NEASA, LWO, en WRSA, wat by die onderhandelinge oor die meesterplan uitgesluit was, se beswaar daarteen is dat transformasie 92 keer in die dokument hanteer word, maar daar geen verwysing na die winsgewendheid of volhoubaarheid van plase is nie. Vier jaar se spanning en drie omvattende vergaderings om te kyk of daar wedersydse begrip en gemeenskaplike belange gevind kan word, kon nog nie tot die wysiging van n enkele woord lei nie. Nie een van die twee kante kan op hulle mandate besgee nie.
Familieboerdery is noodsaaklik vir voedselsekerheid en familiewaardes.
n Soortgelyke spanning is opgewen tussen dieselfde groepe organisasies oor Minister Steenhuisen se publikasie van nuwe regulasies oor vleisanaloë, en die buitengewone regte wat aan plantgebaseerde, insekgebaseerde en laboratoriumgekweekte alternatiewe vir vleisprodukte gegee is. Hoewel Saai en die DA in ernstige beleidsgesprekke daaroor betrokke geraak het, het Steenhuisen tereg daarop gewys dat die RPO as grootste stem vir vleisboere op die regulasies afgeteken het. Saai se lede in die rooivleisbedryf het n teenoorgestelde mandaat gegee, en voel baie sterk dat vals vleis op dieselfde rakke, en met dieselfde name as vleisprodukte nie in hulle belang is nie, en met mening bestry moet word.
Vrystaat Landbou het n eie provinsiale rooivleisforum gestig wat in beleid en aksieplanne nader aan hulle eie waardes en belange geposisioneer is.
Niks het die belangebotsings duideliker na die oppervlakte gedryf as die hofsaak teen sentrale staatsbeheer oor die Bek-en-Klou inentingsveldtog nie. Die lede van Agri-SA en sy affiliasies het almal op 29 Januarie 2026 op skrif hulle mandate ten gunste van sentrale staatsbeheer gegee, buiten Vrystaat Landbou en Agri-NW. Agri-SA het by die Vrystaat Landbou-kongres verduidelik dat daar geen ander uitweg was as om hom van sy Vrystaatse boere te distansieer nie. Eweneens kon die leiers van Vrystaat Landbou nie buite hulle mandaat n staatsmonopolie op alle fasette van die inentingsprogram ondersteun nie.
Hoe gemaak as jy in een organisasie boere met botsende strewes, belange en waardes het?
Dieselfde het in 2018 in Agri-Limpopo gebeur toe elke individuele lid sy mandaat vir n hofsaak teen die onteiening van die plaas Akkerland gegee het, maar Agri-SA dit nie kon ondersteun nie. Selfs nadat Agri-Limpopo met die hulp van Afriforum,Solidariteit en TLU SA die saak gewen het, is die president en Hoof Uitvoerende Beampte geteiken en uitgewerk, waaruit Saai uiteindelik tot stand gekom het. Die rasionaal was dat kommersiële boere wat nie polities gekonnekteer is nie, n struktuur nodig het waaroor hulle nie hoef te wonder of daar kollektief in hulle belange teen die staat opgetree sal word nie.
Onderliggend aan die beleidsverskille tussen landbou-organisasies, lê n ideologiese vertrekpunt. Hoewel dit in die openbare domein dikwels in bar etiketterende skeltaal uitgedruk word, soos "regses en linkses", "Pro- en anti-ANC", "AfriMaga en woke" of "rassiste en staatstropers", is dit iets anders. Dit gaan waarskynlik ten diepste eerder oor n spanning tussen konserwatiewe boere (en in haas elke samelewing is boere die meer konserwatiewe deel daarvan) wat groter klem op plaaslik gewortelde tradisionele waardes lê, en die wat sin in n globalistiese, meer algemene identiteit vind waar oorhoofse strukture soos die staat, multi-nasionale en multilaterale strukture beheer neem en die algemene rigting, beginsels en pas bepaal.
Boere is in wese meer onafhanklike mense wat vir hulleself dink en kritiese vrae vra. Dit is nie altyd die kultuur in korporatiewe maatskappye nie. Wanneer groot maatskappye, banke, insetverskaffers en kooperasies saam met boere in een organisasie sit en gemeenskaplike beleid formuleer, is dit nooit die boere se stem wat deurkom nie. Groot maatskappye het nie n erfenis of tradisionele waardes nie. Hulle het direksies, aandeelhouers en doelwitte vir dividente aan die einde van die volgende finansiële jaar.
Niemand kon tot dusver antwoord hoe die Wette op Gelyke Indiensneming en Swart Ekonomiese Bemagtiging op n familieplaas toegepas moet word nie. Vir groot maatskappye maak dit nie saak nie - hulle voeg dit bloot as n klein lastigheid op die salarisbegroting. In n klein of mediumgrootte familieboerdery kan dit nie bekostig word nie!
In praktiese terme lê die lyn tussen die hoofgroepe landbou-organisasies die duidelikste tussen dié wat n mandaat het om die dominante transformasienarratief wat die afgelope drie dekades ons ekonomiese en sosiale omgewing oorheers het, te bevorder en te beskerm, en dié wat daarteen skrum. Die politiek korrektes en die wat uit pas is.
Die duidelikheid van hierdie lyn vind neerslag in die AAMP, in organisasies se ondersteuning van sentrale staatsbeheer in die verkryging van entstof, in die ondertekening van regulasies wat nie in die uiterste strek van verbeelding in boere se belang kan wees nie, en in die omarming van eregaste, sprekers, toekennings en temas by prestige geleenthede. As n sake-organisasie se kongres met die tema "Samewerking" deur iemand uit die hart van kaderontplooiīng toegespreek word, maar geen sakeman genooi word wat oor eiendomsreg, plaasveiligheid of kwotas by indiensneming n sterk standpunt inneem nie, stuur dit n boodskap. As n provinsiale landbou-unie sy sprekers uit die groep van 44 alternatiewe Afrikaners kies, gaan die kongres nie besluit om moue op te rol om Soltech of Akademia te versterk nie. Die NWKV en Agri-SA sal News24 se joernaliste trakteer, terwyl Saai eerder Maroela Media sal ondersteun. Andersom is dit ondenkbaar! Die mandate is botsend, want die belange en waardes is dikwels teenoorgesteld.
Dit is die gegewe. Francois Wilken het by Vrystaat Landbou se kongres gesê: "Ons deel nie almal dieselfde werklikheid nie". Dit is onsinnig om mekaar se werklikhede te misken, te ignoreer of te kanselleer, en te verkleineer. Die praktyk het al daardie benaderings teenproduktief bewys. Met die formulering van die landboumeesterplan was die strategie om alle teenspraak teen n streng rasgebaseerde transformasie-ideologie eenvoudig uit te sluit, buiten TLU-SA wat van die kommuniksie- en uitnodigingslyste verwyder is toe hulle op n defenisie vir "transformasie" aangedring het.
Dieselfde strategie is van die Didiza- na die Steenhuisen-era oorgedra toe dieselfde organisasies by die gesprekke oor vleis-analoë en die Bek-en-klou Industrie Koordineringskomitee uitgesluit is. Slegs TLU-SA se stem klink gereeld krities op teen die narratief van sentrale staatsbeheer, gefokusde ondersteuning aan die departement van landbou en belyning met die doelwitte en metodiek van besluitnemende staatsamptenare.
Minister Willie Aucamp verteenwoordig n welkome breek met hierdie polariserende strategie. Hy verwerp nie enige van die belangegroepe nie, sluit niemand uit nie en tree nie op asof daardie stemme nie bestaan of geldig is nie. Hy betrek almal en dwing die gesprek af. Hy roep die ronde tafel. Organisasies wat kerm dat hulle by die skikkingsonderhandelinge oor Bek-en-Klouseerinentings uitgesluit was, was nie partye tot die hofsaak nie, en die meeste het trouens harder teen die hofsaak standpunt ingeneem as die respondente self!
Maar vir die eerste keer in dekades roep die landbouminister inklussiewe gesprekke waar die verskille gedefinieer kan word, beleidstandpunte en mandate in die oopte gebring kan word, en daar vir konsensuspunte gemyn kan word. Vir die eerste keer in baie jare kan gemeenskaplike belange tussen die verskille uitgesif word om aktief daaroor saam te werk al verskil ons op ander gebiede.
Al beweeg ons stadiger, laat ons nie die kleiner en mediumgrootte familieboerderye agter nie. Al raak die gesprekke warm, is dit nie net groot besighede se belange wat seëvier nie. Soos in die Regering van Nasionale Eenheid, maak kleiner stemme ook saak. Die verskeidenheid van standpunte en belange moet gehoor word, want ons boere is nie almal dieselfde nie.
Elke boer moet self kan kies waar hy hom skaar, en weet dat hy daar getel kan word.
-Theo de Jager
Direksievoorsitter van Saai
ENGLISH
We Are Not All the Same – South Africa
Twelve years later, I once again attended a congress of Vrystaat Landbou. I greeted old friends, chatted with great minds with whom I have only kept in touch through Facebook since then, took photographs with young farmers, and smiled and waved awkwardly at the “other camp,” who were also attending as guests.
Vrystaat Landbou was involved in a valuable partnership with Saai and Sakeliga in the court case that brought an end to the state’s monopoly over decision-making and the management of vaccination against Foot-and-Mouth Disease, as well as the exclusion of certain agricultural interest groups from ministerial advisory committees. Agri-SA, as the umbrella body, distanced itself from Vrystaat Landbou over the matter and published the written mandates of seven other provincial agricultural unions opposing the court case and supporting centralised state control.
Vrystaat Landbou has also clashed with Agri-SA over its response to the Expropriation Act and the unfair distribution of risk and profits along the value chains. Now the Free State farmers have dug in their heels and withheld their membership fees from Agri-SA. Farmers’ associations in the Eastern Cape, Northern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal have also shown interest in joining Vrystaat Landbou because they feel better aligned with the positions and policy views expressed by its leadership.
Contrary to what academics such as Kirsten and Sihlobo try to portray in their book The Uncomfortable Truth About Agriculture in South Africa, these differences have nothing to do with personalities, unhealthy ambition or competition between individual leaders. Farmers are a diverse community in South Africa, and unity in agriculture is a mirage. Farmers do not all share the same interests, values or basic needs. We have a multitude of agricultural organisations because they represent different, and sometimes even conflicting, interests and values.
All the most controversial issues in today’s agricultural environment go deeper than personal interests and are rooted in demonstrably conflicting mandates. Agri-SA, Grain SA, RPO, RMIS and Agbiz had mandates from their members to sign off on the Agriculture and Agro-processing Master Plan (AAMP), and they continue to push for it to be implemented more aggressively. Saai, TLU-SA, NEASA, LWO and WRSA, which were excluded from the negotiations over the master plan, object to the fact that transformation is addressed 92 times in the document, while there is no reference to the profitability or sustainability of farms. Four years of tension and three comprehensive meetings to determine whether mutual understanding and common interests could be found have still not resulted in the amendment of a single word. Neither side can abandon its mandate.
A similar tension has developed between the same groups of organisations over Minister Steenhuisen’s publication of new regulations on meat analogues and the extraordinary rights granted to plant-based, insect-based and laboratory-grown alternatives to meat products. Although Saai and the DA became involved in serious policy discussions on the matter, Steenhuisen correctly pointed out that the RPO, as the largest voice representing red-meat farmers, had signed off on the regulations. Saai’s members in the red-meat industry were given an opposing mandate and feel very strongly that fake meat being placed on the same shelves and sold under the same names as meat products is not in their interests and must be actively opposed.
Vrystaat Landbou established its own provincial red-meat forum, positioned closer to its own values and interests in terms of policy and action plans.
Nothing has brought these conflicting interests more clearly to the surface than the court case against centralised state control of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease vaccination campaign. The members of Agri-SA and its affiliates all gave written mandates on 29 January 2026 in favour of centralised state control, with the exceptions of Vrystaat Landbou and Agri-NW. Agri-SA explained at the Vrystaat Landbou congress that there was no other option but to distance itself from its Free State farmers. Likewise, the leaders of Vrystaat Landbou could not support a state monopoly over all aspects of the vaccination programme while acting outside their mandate.
So what do you do when one organisation represents farmers with conflicting aspirations, interests and values?
The same thing happened in 2018 in Agri-Limpopo, when every individual member gave a mandate for a court case against the expropriation of the Akkerland farm, but Agri-SA could not support it. Even after Agri-Limpopo, with the help of Afriforum, Solidariteit and TLU-SA, won the case, the president and Chief Executive Officer were targeted and forced out, eventually leading to the establishment of Saai. The rationale was that commercial farmers who were not politically connected needed a structure where they would not have to wonder whether collective action would be taken in their interests against the state.
Underlying the policy differences between agricultural organisations is an ideological point of departure. Although this is often expressed in the public domain through crude, labelling and insulting language such as “right-wingers and left-wingers,” “pro- and anti-ANC,” “AfriMAGA and woke,” or “racists and state collaborators,” it is actually something else.
At its deepest level, it is probably a tension between conservative farmers — and in almost every society, farmers are among the more conservative members of that society — who place greater emphasis on locally rooted traditional values, and those who find meaning in a globalist, more universal identity in which overarching structures such as the state, multinational organisations and multilateral structures take control and determine the general direction, principles and pace.
Farmers are essentially more independent people who think for themselves and ask critical questions. This is not always the culture within corporate companies. When large companies, banks, input suppliers and cooperatives sit together with farmers in one organisation and formulate common policy, it is never necessarily the farmers’ voice that comes through. Large companies do not have a heritage or traditional values. They have boards, shareholders and targets for dividends at the end of the next financial year.
No one has yet been able to answer how the Employment Equity Act and Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment should be applied to a family farm. For large companies, it does not matter — they simply add it as a minor burden to the payroll budget. In a small or medium-sized family farming operation, it may simply not be affordable.
In practical terms, the dividing line between the main groups of agricultural organisations lies most clearly between those with a mandate to promote and protect the dominant transformation narrative that has shaped our economic and social environment over the past three decades, and those who resist it. The politically correct and those who are out of step.
The clarity of this dividing line is reflected in the AAMP, in organisations’ support for centralised state control over the procurement of vaccines, in the signing of regulations that, even with the greatest stretch of the imagination, cannot be regarded as being in farmers’ interests, and in the choice of guests of honour, speakers, awards and themes at prestigious events.
If a business organisation’s congress has the theme “Cooperation” and is addressed by someone at the heart of cadre deployment, but no businessperson who takes a strong position on property rights, farm safety or employment quotas is invited, it sends a message.
Farming Families -Support Your Family: Building Strong, Loving Relationships
If a provincial agricultural union chooses its speakers from the group of 44 alternative Afrikaners, the congress is unlikely to decide to roll up its sleeves and strengthen Soltech or Akademia. The NWKV and Agri-SA will treat News24 journalists as honoured guests, while Saai would rather support Maroela Media. The reverse is unthinkable! The mandates are conflicting because the interests and values are often opposed.
This is the reality. Francois Wilken said at the Vrystaat Landbou congress: “We do not all share the same reality.”
It is senseless to deny, ignore, cancel or belittle one another’s realities. Experience has already shown all these approaches to be counterproductive.
When the Agriculture Master Plan was formulated, the strategy was simply to exclude all opposition to a strict race-based transformation ideology, with the exception of TLU-SA, which was removed from communication and invitation lists when it insisted on a definition of “transformation.”
The same strategy was carried over from the Didiza era into the Steenhuisen era, when the same organisations were excluded from discussions about meat analogues and the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Industry Coordinating Committee. Only TLU-SA’s voice regularly sounds critical of the narrative of centralised state control, focused support for the Department of Agriculture, and alignment with the objectives and methodology of decision-making government officials.
Minister Willie Aucamp represents a welcome break from this polarising strategy. He does not reject any of the interest groups, exclude anyone, or act as though certain voices do not exist or are not valid. He involves everyone and forces the conversation to take place. He calls the round table.
Organisations complaining that they were excluded from the settlement negotiations over Foot-and-Mouth Disease vaccinations were not parties to the court case. In fact, most of them took a stronger position against the court case than the respondents themselves!
But for the first time in decades, the Minister of Agriculture is calling for inclusive discussions in which differences can be defined, policy positions and mandates can be brought into the open, and areas of consensus can be identified.
For the first time in many years, common interests can be separated from the differences so that people can actively work together on those areas, even if they disagree on others.
Even if we move more slowly, let us not leave the small and medium-sized family farms behind. Even when the discussions become heated, it should not be only the interests of big business that prevail.
As with the Government of National Unity, smaller voices also matter.
The diversity of viewpoints and interests must be heard, because our farmers are not all the same.
Every farmer should be able to choose where he or she stands — and know that their voice will count there.
— Theo de Jager
Chairman of the Board, Saai
