South Africa needs to get agricultural politics off social media and back into the fields

The proposed replacement of John Steenhuisen as minister of agriculture is more than a routine political reshuffle. It should cause all of us who care about agriculture to reflect on how decisions affecting the sector are made, whose voices are heard and whether social media noise is beginning to outweigh evidence, experience and democratic mandate.

Agriculture has always been deeply linked to the souls of all South Africans. Land, food and farming are connected to history, justice, ownership, identity and belonging. This calls up powerful images: people returning to the land, sons and daughters of the soil, families working together, animals grazing and crops growing under an open sky.

These images are real, but they also make agriculture an attractive soapbox. The emotional power of farming makes it fertile ground for activism, self-promotion and competing interests.

The reality of agriculture is far less romantic.

Farmers operate in an unforgiving environment of droughts, floods, volatile markets, rising input costs, failing infrastructure, unfair international competition and disease outbreaks. Foot-and-mouth disease has caused enormous damage in parts of the livestock sector. Grain producers face aggressive markets and a severe cost-price squeeze. Emerging farmers still struggle with access to land, finance, mechanisation, technology and markets. Poor rural communities are trying to build livelihoods under harsh conditions.

And yet this sector feeds every South African every day.

That is why leadership decisions in agriculture cannot be treated as ordinary political theatre.

Social media is a sensor, not a steering wheel

Social media has value. It exposes failures, gives affected people a voice and can force institutions to respond when official processes move too slowly. Farmers who are suffering must be able to speak openly, and the government should listen.

The anger surrounding foot-and-mouth disease stems from real disaster – financial, existential and social – among farmers. Organisations and individuals working in affected areas are entitled to campaign, criticise government and propose solutions. Their evidence should be considered seriously.

But there is an important distinction between having a voice and holding a mandate.

A social media page, campaign, website or media platform does not automatically become a representative farmer organisation. A spokesperson may understand a particular crisis and communicate effectively, but that does not mean the person has been elected to represent the broader agricultural sector.

Visibility is not the same as representativity.

Followers are not members. Donations are not mandates. Media appearances are not elections. A steering committee is not a farmer congress.

For more context

Inside Hill-Lewis’s purge — Steenhuisen set to pay the price for rupture with farmers

June 17, 2026

Organised agricultural bodies are not perfect. They must become more inclusive, responsive and accountable.

Nevertheless, their leaders are elected through constitutions, branches, regions, commodity structures, boards and congresses. They must consider more than one issue and balance the interests of regions, commodities, commercial and emerging farmers, livestock and crop producers, and the broader value chain.

That institutional mandate matters.

The loudest voice online may be correct about a specific issue. It may also represent one region, one commodity, one grievance or one proposed solution. The government must hear that voice without mistaking it for the complete voice of agriculture.

Social media should be treated as a sensor that identifies pain and urgency. It should not become the steering wheel that determines appointments, policy and strategy.

What was the basis for the decision?

Steenhuisen’s departure from the agriculture portfolio raises legitimate questions.

What performance measures were used? Which agricultural organisations were consulted? Were the views of AgriSA, TAU SA, commodity organisations, livestock representative organisations and other recognised structures considered?

Were market access, regulatory reform, biosecurity, agricultural trade, farmer development, technology access and implementation of the Agricultural and Agro-processing Master Plan considered together?

Or did political leadership respond primarily to the narrative gaining traction online and on social media?

I do not know the answer. That is precisely the problem.

When a major portfolio change takes place during an agricultural crisis, the sector deserves a transparent explanation of the performance criteria, consultation process and intended outcomes.

Engagement that does not fit into a post

There has also been a claim that Steenhuisen was disconnected from farmers. My own experience is different.

Earlier this year, Grain SA hosted him at the Nampo agricultural and livestock exhibition for three days. He stayed at Nampo Park, moved among farmers, participated in discussions and engaged directly with agricultural leaders and ordinary producers. Conversations started early over breakfast and continued beyond the formal programme and into the evening.

I have not previously experienced a minister of agriculture spending that amount of time at Nampo and engaging so extensively with producers.

That does not mean every decision he made was correct. It does not mean criticism of the government’s response to foot-and-mouth disease is invalid. Ministers must be held accountable, especially where disease is spreading and livelihoods are being destroyed.

But accountability must be based on the complete record.

It should consider whether the minister listened, whether institutions were strengthened, markets opened, regulations improved, technology access advanced and practical partnerships created. It cannot be determined only by which criticism received the most online engagement during a particular week.

Much of the most valuable work in agriculture does not happen on social media.

It happens in technical committees, regulatory submissions, research consortiums, biosecurity structures, trade negotiations, farmer days and difficult engagements with officials.

That work is seldom dramatic or viral. But it is how sustainable agricultural policy is built.

The next minister should be supported through strong agricultural structures

I have met Willie Aucamp briefly, and I know several people who have worked with him and know him well. They describe him as a stand-up person, and I genuinely look forward to working with him.

This is not about Willie.

It is about organised agriculture and how we ensure that the new minister remains focused on the difficult issues confronting farmers in the fields.

It is about ensuring that agricultural priorities are not dictated by unelected or self-appointed spokespeople who generate attention on social media without participating in the representative structures, technical processes and sustained work required to achieve results.

Willie should be given a fair opportunity to lead, and be supported when he takes difficult decisions in the interests of agriculture as a whole.

But his success must be measured correctly.

His performance should be assessed by the quality of his engagement with farmers and recognised agricultural organisations, and by results on the ground: diseases controlled, markets opened, regulations improved, technology made available, infrastructure constraints addressed, emerging farmers supported and farming businesses kept sustainable.

He should not have to spend his term fighting for political survival on social media and the court of public opinion.

If ministers learn that survival depends on appeasing the loudest online voices, communication battles will displace long-term delivery. Agriculture’s hardest interventions require patience, technical depth, institutional cooperation and political courage.

Agriculture needs a minister who can listen widely, distinguish evidence from noise and act decisively.

Put politicians where agriculture happens

The solution is not to remove agriculture from social media. We need public communication, transparency and debate. The solution is to reconnect digital debate with institutional process and practical reality.

Political parties should consult recognised agricultural structures before changing leadership in critical portfolios. Ministers should spend structured time in production regions, not only at media events. The government should publish measurable agricultural delivery dashboards. Crisis communication should be linked to technical command structures. Organised agriculture must communicate faster so that it does not leave a vacuum to be filled by whoever has the sharpest message.

Agriculture does not need protection from criticism. It needs protection from shallow decision-making

The ultimate test of political leadership in agriculture is not whether it wins the argument online. It is whether farmers can continue producing, diseases are controlled, emerging farmers enter the commercial system, rural communities grow and South Africans continue to have food on their tables.

Perhaps that is enough from me.

I need to go farming. I should probably stay off social media, because that is not where agriculture happens and it seems that people lose their manners and moral compass when they sit behind a keyboard. That is not agriculture’s style.

Sadly, however, it is increasingly where our political future is being dictated.

That is precisely the problem.

Let the posts identify the pain. Then let us take the politicians, officials, scientists, farmer leaders and affected producers into the fields, around the technical tables and into the places where consequences are real.

That is where agricultural leadership should be tested.

Not on Facebook, but on the farm. DM