Land is a touchy issue. It always has been and it always will be. And it is precisely because land is such an emotive issue that the government recently proposed in the Department of Land Reform's Strategic Plan to declare all productive agricultural land a "national asset".

Land reform needs to happen. This is an indisputable fact and one which is accounted for in our Constitution. However, the government's latest proposal for achieving this objective smacks of desperation. More importantly, it is completely untenable.

In the Land Reform's Strategic Plan, Director-general Thozi Gwanya puts forward two possible solutions to the land reform problem.

"The Department is proposing two options: all productive land will become a national asset and a quitrent land tenure system either with perpetual or limited rights envisaged. This may require an amendment to Section 25 of the Constitution."

"Option two will focus on a review of current tenure policies and legislation in order to maintain the current free-hold title system but within the ambit of a land ceiling framework linked to categorisation of farmers."

Amending the Constitution

The first, as he suggests, would involve an amendment to Section 25 of the Constitution. An Expropriation Bill, tabled in 2008, was shelved for the very reason that it was deemed unconstitutional by legal experts. The new proposals would be no different.

Section 25 of the Constitution states that: "No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property".

Furthermore, it specifies that in cases where property is expropriated for a public purpose (and this includes land reform objectives and reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa's natural resources), it must be "subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed by those affected or decided or approved by a court".

So, in order to achieve its objectives, the ANC-led government must either (a) pass legislation to change the Constitution, (b) compensate the farmers of all productive land for their land, or (c) take the land illegally.

If the ANC hopes to change Section 25 of the Constitution, it will need to get at least two-thirds (66 percent) of the members of Parliament and at least six provinces in the National Council of Provinces to agree to the change. In the most recent election, the ANC fell just short (65.9 percent) of achieving a two-thirds majority.

The issue of food security

The government does not have the money to compensate the farmers of all the productive land in the country. In fact, it doesn't even have the money to complete the planned land reforms (transfer of 30 percent of white-owned land) before 2014. Gwanya admitted as much at the end of 2009.

If the ANC fails to amend the Constitution, they are left with option C. And, as Mugabe has so aptly demonstrated, illegal land-grabs are bound to do the poor of the country more harm than good. Not only because it would result in significant international backlash and a loss of international investment, but also because it would severely compromise the food security of the country.

This is not a statement about the ability of black people to successfully farm the land. It is common sense. If you transfer, on a grand scale, the means of production from those with skills to those without skills without any accompanying transfer of the skills in question, the result will be a collapse in the industry. There have already been examples of this on a smaller scale ? many of the farms which have already been expropriated and redistributed under the land reform programme are no longer productive.

Considering that the Department of Land Reform has recently acknowledged this problem, their latest proposal shows a shocking lack of foresight.

If the State were to make productive farm land a national asset ? essentially nationalising it ? the intended recipients (or tenants) would clearly not be the current owners as this would defeat the purpose of the exercise. Furthermore, under such circumstances, the government could hardly expect the current farmers to readily transfer their skills.

Even if the government manages to change the Constitution ? an act which would no doubt anger many South Africans ? it would be doing so at the expense of South Africa's most vulnerable. While the poor may struggle without land, they would struggle considerably more without food.

Finally ? and this may just be semantics ? does the land cease to be a national asset once it ceases to be productive? Where should the line be drawn? The government cannot simply take what it pleases. If productive farmland is regarded a national asset ? to be shared equally among the people ? surely all land should be deemed a national asset?

And that includes Zuma's homestead at Nkandla and Malema's two homes.