THE land tenure imbalances in Africa in view of the legacy of colonialism are a cold reality that governments on the continent need to address as a matter of principle. If they don’t, history will give them a resounding F for not doing what they should have when they had the time.
Events in Zimbabwe over the last decade have definitely scared the vision out of many former European Union member country colonies, mainly because of how ex-British premier Tony Blair handled the bilateral dispute with Zimbabwe and the vilification of the southern African country that ensued.
It’s now a matter of recorded history that the sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe largely explain the unprecedented economic freefall that befell the country soon after the government decided to carry out the land reform programme. As some scholars have suggested, had Zimbabwe not been bullied so dramatically by the West, by now there would have been a literal land revolution across Africa.
The whole attitude of the West towards the issue is encapsulated in the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001. This law, signed by disgraced former United States president George W. Bush into law on December 21, 2001, instructs American officials in international financial institutions to “oppose and vote against any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the government of Zimbabwe,” and to vote against any reduction or cancellation of “indebtedness owed by the government of Zimbabwe.” The law also authorises President Bush to fund “an independent and free press and electronic media in Zimbabwe,” referring obviously to media opposed to the government of Zimbabwe.
So, the West for now can toast to the curbing of a virtual economic avalanche that would have eroded its interests in Africa.
But the celebration can only last so long. Nothing illustrates that more than recent utterances of ANC Youth League president Julius Malema, who spoke for millions of Africans when he last week noted that the land in South Africa had been stolen from its people.
Malema told the annual conference of the Black Management Forum at Midrand, Johannesburg, that during land negotiations the landed white gentry said “for them to agree we must accept the willing buyer willing seller idea.” He then brashly said this could no longer be because “you stole it from us.” Malema said political freedom meant nothing if the people did not control the means of production. He said freedom should not be reduced to satisfying service delivery demands or changing street names.
Needless to say, land reform was high on the agenda when the ANC came into power in 1994, but SA’s commitment to an orderly legal process has slowed redistribution. South Africa’s approach has three levels: restitution, redistribution and land tenure reform. Restitution seeks to restore land ownership or compensate those who were forcibly removed during apartheid. Redistribution aims to provide people with access to land and address the inequalities of the apartheid and colonial past. Land tenure reform seeks to secure tenure (ownership or occupancy rights), particularly for labour tenants.
What is a time bomb about the issue is the speed of implementation, which we fear could lead to spontaneous land seizures by a disgruntled population. We can only hope that the government moves with speed to address the imbalances and sooth the grievances because in a country like SA, it’s not difficult for such spontaneous protests to turn fatal. The xenophobic violence of last year fully demonstrates this.
This is unlike the case of Mozambique, where nearly all colonial settlers left at independence in 1975 and all land was nationalised. Major land reform problems have often related to lack of a formal land register, insufficient clarity on customary occupancy and inheritance rights and security of tenure for commercial investors.
Land laws were revised more than a decade in a fusion of formal and customary law that recognises written contracts as well as traditional tenure systems. Buildings can be privately owned but all land is owned by the state. Permission can be secured for 50 year renewable leases.
But it is not only in Zimbabwe and SA where land is such an emotive topic. We cite these as mere examples of a major grievance across Africa. In Namibia, murmurs about land redistribution are slowly but surely turning into cries. Surely the issue needs to be tackled head on.
The question to ask is.
What was the purpose of all those bloody struggles for independence from colonialism when the majority are still not in control of their heritage, their land?
