What are the factors that trigger the South African government’s corruption and unequal distribution of land.

Student’s Name Professor’s Name Course Due Date What Are the Factors That Trigger the South African Government’s Corruption and Unequal Distribution of Land Abstract The paper was focused on answering the question regarding the factors that trigger the prevalent issue of corruption and unequal distribution of land in South Africa. In doing so, the paper first identified the nation as one among the various African states that are still struggling with corruption as a result of bad governance. The disheartening fact about the country’s bad governance is that, although the country is rich in resources, corruption has been detrimental as it has resulted in this nation being at the bottom of development prism and global governance. From a historical perspective, the issues plaguing South Africa can be best comprehended by focusing on its political history. First, the country’s politics are founded along the lines of racial segregation and white supremacy. That is, long before the apartheid, South Africa was already dealing with the issues of white supremacy and racial segregation. The problem was worsened by the passing of the notorious Land Act in 1913 since it marked the start of territorial segregation. Since the passing of the Native Land Act, South Africa became an unfavorable place for inhabitation by blacks. Specifically, the establishment of an apartheid government led to further separation of whites and blacks. This move saw the government forcibly remove black South Africans from rural areas and the reclassification of these regions to “rural white areas.” The bigger picture about this is that as long as the apartheid government was ruling, South Africa’s historical evolution remained closely associated with poverty, inequality, and unemployment. The situation was to change following the holding of the first democratic election in 1994. However, as it would turn out, the complex notion of a consolidated democracy was far from being achieved. For example, even with the promise of a brighter political system, the country’s political culture was greatly influenced by the politics of the 1950s, which was evident in the specific political orientations and actions of those in power. The outcome of this is that gaining democratic independence in 1994 was a great milestone in South Africa’s politics since political parties, such as ANC, were in a better position to lobby for reduced poverty, inequality, and unemployment. However, regardless of this stride, the connectedness between politics and democracy continues to hurt South Africa since corruption and racial preference for whites over blacks continue to dominate this society. Introduction The corruption and unequal distribution of land in South Africa can be best understood by first focusing on Africa as a whole. According to Radelet, when most African nations gained independence, they had the opportunity to chart a new direction of development (88). That is, by the time colonizers departed most African countries, they had a high likelihood of improving the lives of their citizens. This opportunity was ascribed to the fact that the policy agenda of most African states at independence was to fight poverty, ignorance, and diseases. Nonetheless, this agenda was not substantiated, as evidenced by the continuous suffering of African nations. The situation in most African countries is typified by experiencing low levels of development, which cascade down to high levels of unemployment, poverty, insecurity, as well as general decay of society and morals. The development problems are majorly attributed to bad governance and particularly high levels of corruption and misrule. A more critical approach shows that South Africa is one of the various African nations still struggling with bad governance. The aspect of bad governance in this country entails high corruption rates and unequal distribution of land. It is such a paradox that a nation like South Africa, which is rich in natural resources, remains at the bottom of development prism and global governance. Peters’ critical examination of this occurrence supposes that the situation in South Africa is not unique and can be closely related to corruption (270). As of this approach, scholars define corruption as one of the major challenges that the human race is currently struggling with. Corruption is disheartening as it obstructs countries from realizing good governance. For example, corruption is associated with having monumental effects on the social, economic, and political well-being of societies. A look at the situation in South Africa could be summarized by the fact that, unlike Western nations that increased their per capita, raised their literacy rate, and improved healthcare after independence, it has not achieved a lot since liberation. Besides, it has stagnated in some areas, while others have witnessed a significant decline. An extension of South Africa’s corruption can be seen in the unequal distribution of land. The issue of land is a globally prevalent issue, which is evident in the various land reform attempts in numerous nations. In South Africa, the issue of land is quite pressing, considering that since its independence, the nation has yet to achieve notable gains in relation to achieving land equity and reducing extreme poverty. The disheartening fact about South Africa’s land issue is that land ownership remains a significant problem regardless of the various social changes directed toward enhancing access to equal land rights. On a larger scale, land distribution in South Africa aims at transferring land ownership to all races equally (Pillay, Corruption–the challenge 589). This approach has yet to be achieved since land inequality remains a major problem that affects the country. The issue of unequal land distribution is seen in the levels of land security among indigenous populations, the size and value of land possessed by indigenous people, the quality of land owned by foreigners, and the actual control of land in South Africa. In an attempt to answer the question of unequal distribution of land, the paper will examine various factors such as corruption in the country, South Africa’s governance, and how they contribute to the continuously witnessed inequality issues. The General Historical, Social, and Political Development of South Africa Historical Development The historical development of South Africa is understood along the lines of racial segregation and white supremacy. Researchers note that white supremacy and racial segregation in this country started long before the apartheid. For example, the passing of the notorious Land Act in 1913 marked the start of territorial segregation (Beinart and Peter 668). Specifically, the act forced black South Africans to settle in reserves, as well as making it illegal for them to work as sharecroppers. Additionally, the Land Act prohibited blacks, except those living in Cape Colony, from renting or buying land in the restricted areas. The passing of this act was a move by the government to ensure black South Africans worked as laborers, earning cash wages instead of squatting or sharecropping. The restriction was unfavorable to blacks, which forced some to escape and live in small spots, which were areas amidst whites that had been bought before the passing of the Land Act. Attempts to remove these blacks from white neighborhoods led to the passing of another law in 1939, with its primary objective being to move all blacks to the reserves. Further separation between blacks and whites was achieved through different forms of urban control. In the early 1920s, the South African government established basic frameworks that administered the lives of blacks living in urban areas. The move was a recommendation of the Stallard Commission, which supposed that there was a need for a system that would control the influx of blacks in urban areas. At the time, blacks were only allowed in urban areas only if they were there to work and needed to leave immediately after their job was done. In 1923, the passing of the Native Urban Areas Act led to further separation of whites and blacks. The act led to the establishment of a separate and self-balancing native account. This was part of a bigger move by the government to exclude blacks from white-funded amenities since they did not contribute any revenue in these locations. The move to separate whites and blacks gained significant roots throughout South Africa, and this was evident in the Afrikaner National Party winning the 1948 general election using the slogan apartheid. The slogan apartheid meant separateness. Therefore, when this political party came into power, it continued the separation of blacks and whites by passing a wide range of apartheid laws on all aspects of economic, political, and social life (Tiryakian 682). The laws resulted in more separation since they controlled movement as well as economic activities by black South Africans. The primary objective of the Afrikaner National Party was not just to separate whites from blacks but also to separate them along tribal lines. The separation along tribal lines was used to cripple the black South African’s political power. As a result, the separation laws managed to consign blacks to homelands, while the major mineral areas and cities were set aside for the whites. The apartheid lobbied for further separation of whites and blacks as it resulted in the government forcibly removing black South Africans from rural areas. The move resulted in the reclassification of these regions to “rural white areas.” The outcome of such moves was that between 1960 and 1994, approximately 3.5 million people were forcibly and deliberately removed from their homes and moved into Bantustans (Ally and Arianna Lissoni 100). The move to the Bantustans was detrimental as it subjected blacks to more poverty. Further restrictions against blacks meant that they could not move freely within other parts of South Africa. Rather, if a black was to move from one location to another, they needed permission to do so. The history of white and black separation in South Africa was also seen in the education system. The education system was separated in a way that blacks were not allowed to attend white schools. For instance, during the peak of apartheid, there were 11 universities, which served only white students. On the contrary, the University of Durban-Westville was the only institution set aside for some Indian and black learners. Another education institution, the University College of the Western Cape, was also founded in 1959, and it was meant to serve colored students. However, despite being a learning institution for blacks, they were characterized by limited training. Limited training in this institution was a move by the government to ensure that colored students took up low-mid-level positions in the civil service, schools, and other organizations that accepted people of color. Social Development The social and economic development of South Africa is evident in that since gaining its independence in 1994, the country has strived to transform and unite its citizens. Nonetheless, regardless of the efforts, the transformation process is far from being achieved since South Africa remains a divided society. The division is a result of the continued economic and social exclusion of millions of black South Africans. As a result, a high number of blacks live in poverty because of inequality in access to opportunities and income. Such occurrences limit blacks’ economic progress, especially in relation to employment and education. Therefore, South Africa’s transition since independence is construed as yet to translate to a better life. The socioeconomic development of South Africa is also apparent in that it is an upper-middle-income nation (Gumede, Socioeconomic transformation 279). The status is calculated as a virtue of the average GDP and the national income per person. Regardless of this, the status hides the fact that the nation has high rates of unemployment, which are anchored on widespread poverty and extreme inequality. A close examination of this shows that although South Africa is witnessing significant economic growth as evidenced by the systematic increase of fiscal expenditure, it has not managed to address the issue of poverty and low development rate. The reason behind this is that the economy has failed to grow to the extent of creating jobs at a pace that will reduce the extreme rate of unemployment, while the education system has also failed to ensure improved education for black South Africans. The country’s developmental state can also be understood by focusing on the macroeconomic policies, which remain to be a challenge to the South African government. If the country is to eradicate poverty, it needs to have sound macroeconomic policies, which are focused on employment opportunities as well as universal and equal access to economic chances and education. The significance of such policies is that they help promote people’s livelihoods by granting them free choice of productive employment and work (Gumede, Social and Economic Inclusion 88). As per the current situation, South Africa has been experiencing tensions regarding how to balance competing interests in the name of ensuring the interests of investors and the majority of South Africans are preserved. The biggest challenge in achieving this is that South Africa has yet to become a developing state that can embrace the appropriate policies. The economy of South Africa plays a crucial role in this nation’s social structure. A close examination of this nation’s economy reveals that it traditionally depended on mining and agriculture. This meant that most South Africans were either farmers or mine workers. However, over the years, the manufacturing sector has experienced significant growth since the 1960s. The reason behind the country’s economic development and expansion was because of its protection based on import substitution strategy (Rotich et al. 132). The outcome of this positive spinoff was the massive expansion of public infrastructures, such as roads, railways, telecommunication, and water. Additionally, a capitalistic economy has been paramount, considering that it was bolstered by colonial domination and conquest. As a result, most blacks in South Africa have only been featured as laborers instead of being owners of production. Therefore, racial segregation and colonial denomination of the economy resulted in a racialized class structure. Further exploration of South Africa’s social development suggests that, on the one hand, it is a united society. The unity is characterized by the fact that all races share a common cultural heritage, one future, and citizenship. Alternatively, South Africa can be seen as a nation that remains to be deeply divided. The division results in its citizens living in two districts cultural and social worlds. The whites view themselves as participating in the country’s cultural heritage and being models of education, culture, and politics. On the other hand, most blacks belong to the group that has been on the receiving end of apartheid and colonial domination (Clark and William 34). In the past two decades, South Africa has witnessed a vibrant civil society, which has emerged as a result of trade unions, civic organizations, as well as youth and women empowerment groups. What is conceived from this is that South Africa is a society in transition. Hence, globalization and democratic transition have helped in unleashing an accelerated process that transforms all aspects of life in this country. Political Development A general overview of South Africa’s political development is best interpreted by focusing on the policies passed by the apartheid government. First, the apartheid government is notable for the passing of the Natives Land Act in 1913 (Modise and Ndikho 359). The passing of these policies resulted in thousands of black South Africans being forcefully removed from their land. The move meant that a majority of blacks did not live in fertile land. Instead, the most fertile areas were set aside for the white settlers. Following the end of apartheid, successive governments have been trying to implement land reforms that will see black people get back their land or compensated in the best way possible. Even with such attempts and reforms, the unequal distribution of resources has been key in South Africa’s overall revolution. That is, the whites continue to control the major part of productive lands. The reason whites are still in possession of the majority of fertile land is because the policies implemented after apartheid, such as willing buyers and willing sellers have failed to be effective. The political development in South Africa can also be critically examined by focusing on the politics surrounding the black South Africans losing their land. The history of black South Africans losing their land traces back to 1913, when the apartheid government passed the Native Land Act. The act did not favor blacks since the thousands were forcefully removed from their land, and the areas given to whites and others were set aside for building towns. The reason behind the passing of this act was that giving commercial land to the whites was a more viable option as it would contribute to the country’s development. Consequently, most blacks were restricted from owning or occupying land in the set regions unless they were workers of their masters. After the passing of this law, the apartheid government relocated blacks to poor homelands and townships, which had poorly planned services. The political climate existing at the time of the apartheid government meant that black South Africans were denied their civil liberties as well as their economic and social rights. What is deduced from this is that the apartheid government was the reason for the continued suffering of black South Africans. The harm that was caused by this government is extensive, which is why, regardless of the endless efforts and attempts to have corrective measures for the situation, the scars of the racist governance continue to prevent freedom and democracy. The desire for land ownership is, therefore, seen as a significant milestone in the country’s political development. Specifically, the majority of the blacks in South Africa feel that it is everybody’s right to own land as they like. The political move in relation to this has been the focus on the land reforms in South Africa, which promise land restitution, which is a framework that will empower blacks to become business people and farmers, hence reducing the existing social and economic inequality in the country. The supposed act of nationalizing land by the South African government is part of this nation’s political development. Most people have proposed the need for the government to nationalize land. The idea is embraced by a majority, but it is also countered by some, especially the rich since they are unwilling to lose their land to the government. The greatest challenge is that the majority of the people who own huge chunks of land are the same people in government. As a result, they find it difficult to implement the idea of nationalization. Hence, irrespective of the various successive government cabinets attempting to enhance equality in the country through equal opportunities to own land, they have failed to successfully implement the land reforms because of the lack of political will and other social problems. Detailed Discussion and Analysis of The Politics of South Africa and Its Political Systems At first glance, one may see South Africa as a remarkable success story. Such a supposition may be influenced by the country having inclusive institutions and democratic elections, which have arguably replaced the various decades of race-based economic, social, and political structures. The politics of South Africa were majorly associated with racial tension and violence, which were a result of the apartheid government. However, following the end of apartheid governance, the political climate in South Africa has been experiencing significant improvement. Specifically, South Africa’s political milestones after apartheid include embracing a functionally proportional and representative electoral system. The country also assimilated a federal executive structure, which it used to distribute power both regionally and racially. This political move was vital as it helped maximize inclusiveness at the provincial and national levels of government and prevented ‘spoiler’ politics. The political move in South Africa explains why the overtly racial political parties continue to struggle while the broadly multiracial ones continue to dominate the political arena. For example, multiracial opposition parties, such as the Democratic Alliance, have gained significant strength. The same is replicated in the ruling African National Congress (ANC), which focuses on escalating its racial appeals by having more black candidates, using divisive election rhetoric, and disproportionate targeting of black voters in election campaigns. The strategies employed by these political parties show the dangerous trend in South African politics. That is, the political climate in this nation is driven by demographic realities and historical conditions, which, combined with institut...