The Land dispute in Namibia and Redistributive justice

Introduction

The issue of land distribution in Namibia has been one of the main discourses that the country is going through since gaining independence in 1990. The land issue was also one of the causes of the colonisation of not only Namibia but the rest of Africa in the 1800s. In this regard it can be noted that the issue of land distribution carries with it some colonial undertones of regaining land that was taken forcefully by the imperialists from the native Namibians, hence the principles of so called ancestral rights. The following discussion will tackle the issue of redistributive justice and individual rights based on the ways in which we can redistribute land as exhibited in Wolff’s book. These are Libertarian, use of free market, the theory of property rights, employing the planned economy, the principle of justice and the difference principle. In the end the discussion will also look at the principles of ancestral rights.

Redistributive justice and individual rights to property

According to Norzick the Government has the duty to enforce individual property rights, but may not tax individuals beyond the level required for the defence of the citizens against each other and foreign aggressors. This shows how difficult it is to redistribute land as individuals have property rights to the land they own given by the state and the state cannot tax those with property beyond the required level. Doing so is violating individual rights if it attempts to transfer property from the rich to the poor. This makes us reach a conclusion that the state has no power in redistribution of land which is detrimental in achieving an equal society.

Due to the government’s failure in redistribution of land as shown above, Wolff goes on by pointing out an alternative to this way of land redistribution which is the employment of the unimpeded free market, which is the one that is taking place here in Namibia popularly known as “the willing buyer the willing seller”. This is when people owning lands are allowed to appropriate property and trade it or leave it to their descendants. This will enable property owners to make the most productive use of their resources. This brings about human happiness for this is a good mechanism of transfer. However it can be noted that this arrangement is laudable on the issue of rights to property as it protects land owners rights, ironically it brings about more inequalities since there are no limits in this arrangements whereby the rich will continue to accumulate more wealth and the poor continue to be worse off as they will not afford to buy the land, it is wasteful and it alienates the worker it leads to crisis after crisis. In the end one will question this arrangement how can people coordinate?

As noted above, the free market has its own share of shortcomings. To nullify these shortcomings Wolff gives us an alternative which is a planned economy which is an economy in which production, investment, prices, and incomes are determined centrally by the government, in this economy production is not for profit but to satisfy the needs of the citizens and lastly there is central distribution of land rather than trade. Centrally planning will ensure that enough of each good is produced to satisfy the demands of everyone. This alternative is more autocratic as compared to free market, and the planned economy has failed to reach efficiency only to be supplemented by extensive illegal and black market. Thus the planned economy cannot adequately redistribute land in the most just way.

A communist planned economy could incorporate people who get unemployed due to employment of free market, into production, improving efficiency, and reducing working day, this will enable people to earn a wage and be able to buy land. Apart from a communist planned economy an Eligaritarian distribution will supress initiative and enterprise. Why work hard and try to develop new products, if doing so will make a negligible impact on your income. This is true because if redistribution of property is done without looking at other factors it will be a huge problem as this will decrease production. Wolff goes on to say it seems an unequal society produces more than an equal one. To this end one can see that redistribution of land from the rich to the poor is an uphill task as it leads to economic crisis.

Furthermore, according to the welfare liberalism, property must be redistributed from the wealth to the less fortunate to ensure equal liberty for all. This will have detrimental effects on liberties or at least the opportunities of the poor. This same notion state that property remains outside an individuals protected sphere and the government have the duty to supervise and intervene where necessary to protect liberty and justice. This welfare liberalism is actually having the same ideas as that of the planned communist economy in that the citizens collective satisfaction is the priority in redistribution of land rather than individual rights which is of good to the whole society as it brings about equality.

Distributive justice is the problem on how goods should be distributed. And it seems one excellent way of prompting thought on how things should be is to consider how they are. Locke argues that a society is just despite its inequalities would be to show that the individual in that society have moral rights to that property. This view by Locke is worth noting as he believed in natural rights to liberty and property by which he meant every man had the right to own land since land in the state of nature was communally owned and there was no rightful owner. That’s why he questions the morality of the men who owns land.

Norzick comes up with the theory of property rights which needs three different principles which are “justice in initial acquisition” “justice in transfer” “justice in rectification”. Locke says how can an individual form a right to property appropriated from its natural state? He goes on say every object owned by someone could have been owned by someone at the start. How can someone gain the right to exclude others from use of the object?  This is a pressing question on the land issue. To answer these questions one looks at the justice of initial acquisition. To Locke if you are the rightful owner of the land you have various rights over it, not only can you use it, but you can also transfer it to others by sale or gift, from this statement Locke supports the contemporary society view of property. This is contradictory to what he says at first though this last view gives us an impression of Locke accepting that one can own land though it was owned by someone in the pre-political era. To this end one can see that the issue of distribution of land can be best achieved by letting the rightful owners of land do what they want with their property as they will be exercising their rights.

This rather divergent view of Locke continues to point out that the world is owned in common by all humans beings, he goes on to say mankind must be preserved as much as possible. He takes a religious allusion when he says we all could die if no one takes what we need to survive, not doing so will offend God’s rationality. This point to the fact that land is for everyone it is a natural right of men to exploit it and own a piece that is sufficient to himself so that everyone can have a share.

Wolff goes on to present us with Rawls principles of Justice which state that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. Secondly it says Social and Economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both to a greater extent benefit to the least advantaged and attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. These principles are a basis of redistribution as they intend to bring a just society in a just way, as these principles are being erected on foundations of fair opportunity and uplifting of the worse of. This will be an ideal way of redistribution of land from the well off to the worse off.

Moving on to the difference principle, it says that distribution of wealth and income in a society should be equal unless an inequality is to everyone’s advantage, in particular the worst off. This principle is in contrast to the eligaritarian distribution as it seeks to increase enterprise and initiative at the same time trying to maintain the distance between the rich and the poor. If we equalise liberty we must equalise property for it seems obvious the rich can do more than the poor hence have more liberty. This principle however allows inequalities of liberty in conflict with the liberty principle. To give people liberty means we cannot impose any restrictions on individual property holding. This result will not do justice to land redistribution since it gives property owners maximum rights to their property, hence a proper respect for this rule will definitely rule out other redistributive measures.

Land dispute in Namibia

Coming back to Namibia, one has to note that the government is making measures through expropriation of farms that are individually owned by a minority of people. This has been depicted by the inception of the Agricultural (Commercial) Land Reform Act of 1995 which states that there should be Resettlement whereby the Namibian government buys farms from commercial farmers allocates them to previously disadvantaged people, this has been a great initiative but to a greater extent it has been a slower process by not being responsive to peoples grievances to do with land. The government is issuing Loans through Agribank a state-owned bank, grants loans with interests below market level to the previously disadvantaged population. Communal land, which all belongs to the state, is parcelled into small units and distributed by traditional leaders. To this end one can note that the government is in its capacity trying to end this land dispute through giving of loans, resettling people on land which it buys. These efforts have been fruitless since its failing to maximise this land redistribution programme as shown by many informal settlements dotted around the country.

The government has further made more strides in making sure the land dispute is solved through avoiding expropriating farms. Farms to be reallocated to previously disadvantaged people are mainly bought from farm owners that wish to sell their farms. This is called the willing buyer, willing seller principle. Any farm that is to be sold on the free market must first be offered to government. However, in 2005, government began expropriating commercial farms. Although only five farms had been expropriated in 2008, and a further 30 farm owners had received letters asking them to sell to government, this move has been a great leap in making sure each and every Namibian will own land and this is being an answer to calls be the Namibian people for government to expropriate these farms for resettlement.

One of the chief causes of this Land dispute has been the government’s failure to meet the demands of the Constitution which is the supreme law in the country. As enshrined in the constitution in Chapter 3, Article 16 that all persons shall have the right in any party of Namibia to acquire, own and dispose of all forms of immovable property individually or in association with others and to bequeath their property to their heirs or legatees. This shows that every citizen of this country have a right to own land and this has erupted the dispute due to the government not upholding the supreme law.

Although it may be difficult to generalize the definition of ancestral rights, we can claim that the majority of native people claim that their rights are inherent and collective and are derived from the ancestral occupation of land which is now Namibia and the previous social order before the Europeans arrived. It is important to note that these rights are claimed by the San people of Namibia as depicted in the Namibian newspaper when President Hage Geingob said the rightful owners of the land are the San after wide cries from land activists about the issue of ancestral land. To this end we see that the issue of ancestral rights being void since those who are saying that do not belong to the San community which is believed to be the people who owned this land during the precolonial era. This is mostly due to the fact that people like the Hereros and the Owamboes came from central Africa during the Bantu migration.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the discussion has pointed out ways to distribute land as noted by Wolff in his book, elaborating further on these ways through showing merits and demerits of each. The discussion went on to show how the land dispute here in Namibia has been a political issue, whereby the scholar pointed out how the government is responding in solving this dispute which has potential of bringing instability in the country due to individuals, land activists groups protesting for redistribution according to the principle of so-called ancestral rights. However one has to note that the government has been very slow in response to these grievances by the populace and this is catastrophic as it can bring instability in the country, which in turn affects the economy.