Those who accuse each other of spreading division have a fundamental misunderstanding of what unity is! Personally, I don't think that unity is possible in an agricultural environment as diverse as the one we have in South Africa. What is even worse than this misunderstanding is the blaming of constituencies for not voting for certain leaders or supporting certain policies, organisations, or functions, as if there is some kind of imperative for everybody to fall in line for the sake of unity and as if unity is a goal in itself and not a means to an end!
Farmers are not an easy constituency. By the very nature of the industry, farmers are independent and they tend to think for themselves. They value the freedom to analyse, react, form their own opinions, and make plans because they are a class of entrepreneurs most vulnerable to the forces of nature, the economy, technology, markets, politics, and social change.
Poking farmers to follow positions and policies of organisations just because those structures are old and well established is somewhat of an insult to their intelligence. If there was any substance in this argument, the National Party would still have been a political force today, and the ANC would really be ruling South Africa until Jesus comes again! Often, an organisation becomes too well established, too powerful, too strong to adapt itself to a changing environment and will unavoidably fall out of step with the interests, values, and needs of its constituency.
You first spot the organisation's drift away from the core constituency not by what its leaders say, but by what they don't say. They would, for example, stop making noise about farm safety, farm attacks, and farm murders. From their public presence and agendas, you would say that it doesn't exist. Later, they downplay the significance of farm security, and after a while, they act as if it's merely an extension of a bigger problem of runaway crime statistics. They end up attacking those who make an issue about the high farm murder rate!
Some believe that it's about seeking favour from the powers that be and positioning themselves politically correct. Others blame the drift away from farmers' interests on the composition of some of the best-established agricultural organisations, who recruit their members from multiple constituencies, including farmers, businesses, corporations, and commodity associations. When covered under one roof, farmers’ interests always get the shortest end of the stick.
Both may hold some truth. I would, at least in part, blame it on poor management of policies, if not betrayal of policies. The core function of any farmers’ organisation is advocacy - influencing policies. Farmers’ organisations are meant to work for a policy environment which is conducive to the profitability and sustainability of farms. Other agricultural organisations strive for policies supporting the profitability and sustainability of enterprises elsewhere in the value chain. Often, these interests are not completely aligned, and sometimes they clash.
To influence policies, you need to have policies. Developing policies is extremely hard work; you need to create consensus among your members. In most agricultural organisations, this is done at a general assembly or annual conference. Already in the run-up to these meetings, one can predict the direction and outcomes of policies under discussion by the theme of the meeting and the keynote speakers invited to set the scene.
If the theme of a conference is "Embracing collaboration" and the keynote speakers are from the heart of the ruling elite, we cannot expect any emphasis on the interests of real farmers on their farms. No one will challenge the morality of "Kill the farmer, Kill the boer" at this meeting! No one will question the application of draconian BEE requirements and employment equity on a family farm, or of individual landowners picking up the bill for a national imperative like land reform in the new expropriation act. The mandates sprouting from such a conference will inevitably be out of step with the real-life experience, the frustrations, and concerns of family farmers.
Few farmers would embrace collaboration without asking about the costs and consequences. If collaboration means, for example, the endorsement of central state control over every decision and step in the national vaccination program against foot-and-mouth disease, most farmers would deem the price too high.
Yet, it was unimaginable that some farmers’ organisations would join in fighting unlawful centralisation of the vaccination program by the state in court. In partnership with some business associations, they fought harder against those who brought the case than the state did!
Businesses are not affected in the same way as farmers - the system is rigged in their favour. No feedlot, abattoir, processor, dairy factory, or meat packaging/distribution business has gone bankrupt because of foot-and-mouth disease - it's the farmers who alone pick up the bill for this state-owned disaster! When a farmer takes his cattle to the abattoir, the cost of testing for the disease, along with the value of the fifth quarter, is deducted from his invoice, even if he tests negative. There is no sharing in the risk or the cost of the disaster. It all comes down on the farmers!
So when organisations for agricultural businesses or for mixed constituencies meet to develop policies, the profitability and sustainability of small and medium-scale family farmers is the last thing on their minds. They would go as far as resisting for years the farmers' demands to include "profitability" and "sustainability" of farming in the goals of South Africa's grand strategy for agriculture; the Agriculture and Agro-processing Master Plan (AAMP). Their loyalty is sworn to the politically inspired "transformation agenda", mentioned 92 times in the text, which puts transformation superior to sustainability and profitability, like it was done with disastrous outcomes in the SABC, Denel, Post Office, and SAA.
Ironically, you will find profitability and sustainability in the vision or mission statements of each of these organisations who are shying away from it in the masterplan!
None of these organisations will ever challenge expropriation at less than market value in court, or even contribute to such a case. To the contrary, they will post and repost the not-so-honest statements by the banks that the new expropriation act will not impact on their debt gearing or their risk analysis in the financing of farms, all over social media, but they stay numb when challenged to put their money where their mouths are by offering to share the risk with landowners. Why wouldn't they offer to take a part of the knock if a mortgaged property is expropriated "in public interest" at 50% of its value by writing off 50% of the bond?
All the impact is taken by only one link in the value chain: the farmers!
Those are the farmers who are belittled by referring to them as the "bakkie brigade", but who actually fear the "luxury sedan brigade" masquerading as their representatives, boasting about how hard they work "behind the scenes" where nobody sees it, or knows what they are cooking up, or can ever verify the results.
They would claim to speak for farmers too, and proudly parade their farmers’ constituents - mostly the biggest ones. And there is no argument against it; many farmers do endorse their policies and support their agenda. We dare not deny it, or deny their right to choose so, or blame them or put pressure on them to rather agree with us! Even in the Anglo-Boer War, there were many farmers who actively supported the British army and assisted them in burning their neighbours' farms because they chose to be on that side.
It's no different from the offer to the government that if a guarantee would be given to the 20% biggest farmers that their farms would not be touched, then they can do with the remaining 80% smaller farms whatever they like.
If this offer was not based on official policy, then certainly it represented the worst kind of betrayal of policy, and we are still waiting for the consequences!
There will never be unity in the agricultural sector in South Africa because different organisations have different mandates, different values, and are driven by members with different needs. At best, we can find issues or challenges which force closer cooperation. But when we are urged to "stand together", the authentic voices of farmers will always ask: "on whose legs"? We want to be sure those legs are connected to a spine!
The views and opinions expressed in this program are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any entities they represent. The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by CRA and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk. 9.400 readers per week.
NS -We normally do not post sponsored or external videos on our professional platforms. However, videos of this nature — which are non-marketing and informative — are not freely available YouTube channels.
