Can’t Live With ‘Em

877 words

Observers of international politics usually invoke case studies like Zimbabwe and South Africa to illuminate the consequences of land expropriation policies. However, many pundits are highlighting the wrong lessons from these examples.

Rather than simply reflecting political demagoguery, these cases reveal deeper, more systemic issues related to state-building and governance. At their core, they illustrate the limitations of post-colonial African societies in transitioning to effective self-governance and economic stability.

In both Zimbabwe and South Africa, the end of white minority rule was accompanied by high hopes for empowerment and prosperity for the black majority. Yet, decades later, the outcomes have been starkly different from those aspirations. Zimbabwe, for instance, has experienced a dramatic regression since gaining independence in 1980. At the time of independence, 13% of the population lived in extreme poverty. Today, under black leadership, that figure has risen to 35%. Similarly, South Africa, once the continent’s economic powerhouse, now grapples with an unemployment rate of 32.1%, which climbs to 42% when discouraged job seekers are included. Nearly half of South Africans rely on welfare, a situation that the country’s leadership seems to consider an achievement

Notwithstanding these dire statistics, there are white South Africans like 18-year-old Tristan Kruger, who expressed his support for expropriation in an interview with The Daily Mail, stating: “I don’t approve of Trump…My dream is to be an ANC activist. Millions of dollars’ worth of property and land, and not only farms, is owned by whites and should be seized for the people.” Naive Tristan is too young to appreciate that land ownership can be a deterrent to wealth formation. While some argue that land redistribution is a path to wealth, history shows that landownership is not the route to economic success. Land redistribution can lead to inefficient peasant farming which traps populations in poverty. Economic progress is typically marked by the movement of labor from agriculture to more productive sectors like manufacturing and services. This transition has been a key driver of success in many parts of the world, including countries like Antigua and Barbados, where limited land availability prevented the emergence of a dominant peasant class and spurred economic modernization.

In contrast, Zimbabwe, best reflects the pitfalls of land redistribution. The expropriation of white-owned farms resulted in food shortages and the collapse of commercial agriculture. While some black landowners recruited former white farmers as employees to leverage their expertise, these efforts were insufficient to reverse the sector’s decline. Zimbabwe has since acknowledged the failures of its land reform policies and is now compensating affected farmers.

South Africa, however, appears to be repeating Zimbabwe’s mistakes. Instead of fostering a collaborative relationship with white human capital, it has pursued expropriation without compensation, a policy that risks further economic destabilization. This approach stands in stark contrast to the strategies employed by Japan, which successfully integrated Western institutions and technology to drive economic growth. Following World War II, Japan embraced reforms introduced during the U.S. occupation, recognizing the long-term benefits of modernization and cooperation. This pragmatic approach allowed Japan to rebuild its economy and emerge as a global leader. On the other hand, the refusal to acknowledge the value of collaboration and expertise has hindered progress in Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Furthermore, the success of predominantly white settlements like Orania in South Africa, reinforces the failures of black nation building. Orania, a self-sufficient town with low crime rates and no police force is an oasis in crime ridden South Africa. Rather than viewing the exodus of white populations, as liberating blacks from the perceived racism of whites, many critics have labelled Orania as a white supremacist project. This is understandable because Orania’s success epitomizes the ineptitude of black South Africans.

Similarly, the case of St. George in Louisiana highlights the importance of white human capital in sustaining economic progress. When wealthy residents of Baton Rouge sought to secede and form their own city, critics bemoaned that this would deprive poorer black communities from the amenities of the wealthy white enclave. There were also concerns that the separation would starve the city-parish government of tax revenues. Yet, this development should have been celebrated by the media and white liberals who complain that blacks are disadvantaged by racism. If blacks are impeded by white racists, then their exodus must be seen as an opportunity for black empowerment. Fearing the impact of separation, therefore suggests that blacks require the benevolence of whites to thrive.

Comparisons to groups like the Amish, who have achieved economic success through disciplined saving and entrepreneurship, further challenges the narrative of anti-black discrimination. The Amish not only save more than average Americans, businesses established by them have a higher survival rate and they eschew government welfare. If the Amish can thrive while remaining largely disconnected from modern culture, why should we expect less from black Americans, who are far more integrated into mainstream society? These questions force us to confront uncomfortable truths about the role of culture, governance, and human capital in shaping economic outcomes.

Ultimately, the obstacles faced by Zimbabwe, South Africa, and blacks in the diaspora cannot be attributed to external factors or historical injustices and won’t be solve until blacks fix their human capital problem. Whites can only accept blacks for who they are and desist from indulging their outrageous requests.