By 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.
bernardbwoni.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment