By Bernard Bwoni
 |
| ZANU PF UK Vice Secretary General : Cde Bernard Bwoni |
A recent report by the
Oakland Institute revealed that there are billionaires from the West who have
been buying and grabbing land in Africa at a very concerning rate. These
investors and hedge funders are reportedly paying next to nothing for these
vast tracts of land in some African countries. This is a worrying trend and
puts into context the Zimbabwe land policy and reform. Interestingly in South
Africa in his State of the Nation address, President Zuma said that foreign
nationals will not be allowed to own land in South Africa but will be for
long-term lease only. The land reform debate in SA has been taking centre stage
with the country exploring a 50-50 Policy framework on rights to people who
live and work on farms.
The
Zimbabwe Land Reform programme is a beckon of hope for the historically and
perennially disadvantaged and displaced Africans. Any other African country in
the same predicament as Zimbabwe was before the land reform will have to go
through the same mire and mud Zimbabwe went through to regain their land. It is
such a shame that some African countries are relinquishing their God-given heritage
for a few pieces of silver. Zimbabwe is a unique country and all the hard work
was not for nothing. There is no other route to land reform in Africa except
for the Zimbabwe Model. Anything else is child's play.
There is no universal
definition of the term property rights as everyone has an opinion and vested
interest in the matter. The definition can and has been evolving over time,
thus considering different perspectives, the historical context and background
underpinning the Zimbabwe land and property rights issue is necessary. Property
rights are not absolute but just a function of what society is willing to
acknowledge, defend and enforce. They may need to be adjusted at some point
because they do not evolve optimally on their own. There is not enough
empirical evidence in Zimbabwe of how the complex property rights package
influences economic behaviour and as such those who remain fixated on property
rights as the panacea to Zimbabwe’s economic woes are unreflective and
insincere.
The Development Economist
Daniel W. Bromley in his book, Environment and Economy: Property Rights and
Public Policy, argued “property rights do not necessarily imply full
ownership and the sole authority to use and dispose of a resource”. To be
secure, property rights should be of a sufficient duration to allow one to reap
the benefits of the investment and should be backed by an effective, socially
sanctioned enforcement institution. Zimbabwe has in place ninety-nine year
lease in place and that is “a sufficient duration” for anyone to benefit from
their investment, case closed.
The relationship between
the rights of the individual and the rights of the community has been
constantly changing and without doubt will continue to evolve. We live in a
complex and dynamic world where conventional wisdom can be overturned for the
good of the majority and it is important to acknowledge that changes in
theoretical views on property rights do take place. During the unrestrained
land grab by the colonial settlers the rights of the individual settlers took
precedence over the collective rights of the indigenous community and in the
new Constitution the Zimbabwe government addressed those inequalities created
by these historical interactions.
Much of the early
property rights literature was quite optimistic about the evolution of property
rights towards economic efficiency. The available literature indicate that
property rights form the cornerstone of every Western country’s economic
modernisation and Hernando De Soto even calls the system of legal property
rights the ‘’hidden architecture of modern economies’’ and “if a developing
country is willing to succeed economically, property rights which have to be
well-defined must be enforced”. De Soto of course did not factor in China which
“recognises the right to private property but only as a right bestowed by the
state and not as a natural right’’. And, by the way China, is by far the
fastest growing economy in the world and is poised to edge the USA as the
biggest economy in the world by 2016 or so. My argument is that the property
rights construct and debate in Africa was distorted by the colonialism and
imperialism’s accumulative streak and that makes De Soto’s claim invalid in the
African context.
Property rights are
theoretical constructs in economics and the discourse needs to reflect that
especially on a uniquely multiplex case like Zimbabwe. Property rights are
formed and enforced by political entities and they reflect the historical
context, the conflicting economic interests and the bargaining strength of
those affected. They are the social institutions that define or delimit the
range of privileges granted to individuals of specific scarce resources. In the
modern economic literature the argument is that it makes sense to have secure
property rights as it makes it easy to access finance and credit from financial
institutions and promote sustainable development.
Some contemporary
development economists have gone as far as stating that sustainable development
will only come from stable property rights and that markets are less efficient
when property rights do not exist. From a theoretical economic point of view
that is true however complexities in different situations need to be
acknowledged. There is an element of imperialism that has pervaded much of the
discourse of property rights on Zimbabwe. I have looked into available
literature on property rights on Zimbabwe and there is absolutely nothing and
the question is how do you make recommendations without empirical evidence from
realities on the ground?
Those who remained
opposed to Zimbabwe’s land reform have argued that separation of provisions on
property rights from rights over agricultural land is fatal as the section in
the new Constitution on agricultural lands restricts thus running against
natural justice. Chapter 4, Part 2, Section 72 of the Constitution points
out that access to agricultural land is seen as a “fundamental right” and that
“every citizen of Zimbabwe has a right to acquire, hold, occupy, use, transfer,
hypothecate, lease or dispose of agricultural land regardless of his or her
race or colour’’. The new Constitution also notes that following the colonial
occupation and the triumphant liberation war “the people of Zimbabwe must be
enabled to re-assert their rights and regain ownership of their land”. If you
read the above clauses then the issue of secure property rights is not as
contentious as some would want the world to believe. The land reform in
Zimbabwe is irreversible, and that is fact. Property rights with regards to
agricultural land fall within the limits set by the State to avoid abuse and
the government has set up the Land Commission to address issues of abuse
through a transparent land audit which is still pending, and this is all within
the bounds of international law. Chapter 4, Part 2, section 71 of the new
Constitution addresses the overall issue of property rights fairly and again in
line with international law. The rights are extended to all people and the
rights to compensation are recognised. However the issue of property of
agricultural land needed to be and was addressed in line with the need to “redress
the unjust and unfair pattern of land ownership that was brought about by
colonialism”. Conventional economic wisdom tells you that economic progression
is based on strong foundation of secure property ownership, but what it does
not do is take into account complex interactions on the ground.
Chapter 4, Part 2,
section 72 of the Constitution seeks to protect the continuing rights of
persons currently occupying or using agricultural land under a lease or other
agreement with government and states that the State must take appropriate
measures ‘’to give security of tenure to every person lawfully owning or
occupying agricultural land”. The Constitution states that, not all agriculture
land will not be State land and “owners and occupiers will be allowed under the
provisions and limits of the law to ‘transfer, hypothecate, lease or dispose of
his or her right in agricultural land”. It is important to understand the fact
that the property rights issue is insufficient in explaining why capitalism has
succeeded in the West but failed dismally in other parts of the world.
The issue of property
rights surely cannot be absolute without taking into consideration the realities
on the ground. The choices we make today are often constrained by the decisions
and actions of yesterday. History does matter and it is history that shapes our
futures. The shifting relationships of property and property rights in the
Zimbabwean context are contentious and as such it is important to adopt a
historical outlook to it to garner a better understanding. The discourse around
the issue of property rights needs to be reflective and all encompassing for
better outcomes for all Zimbabweans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment