As debate in South Africa swirls around land restitution and possibly amending the Constitution to permit land expropriation without compensation, it is useful to examine the early philosophical roots of land ownership property rights. And is South Africa in step with Africa on this subject?
An early idea on land ownership came from 17th Century English political philosopher John Locke. His work refers to the ‘state of nature’ when nothing was owned by anyone. Locke argues that, by mixing one’s labour with the land by cultivating it, an individual makes it his or her own. Locke’s logic is that both the produce and the land thus become the labourer’s property. There are, however, important caveats: ‘Anyone can through his labour come to own as much as he can use in a beneficial way before it spoils; anything beyond this is more than his share and belongs to others… Nature did well in setting limits to private property through limits to how much men can work and limits to how much they need.’ Locke nonetheless recognises that the advent of money made accumulation of ‘larger possessions’ (i.e. more than one person needs) possible through selling excess produce.
Being able to own more than one’s fair share formed the basis of the Marxist critique of Locke’s work. Ownership of the means of production, which includes land, implies that others can work the land, mixing it with their labour, while owners pay them a wage in return. Marxists argue that capitalist work contracts are incompatible with Locke’s labour-mixing theory to justify property ownership. Marxists also contend that it is unfair on a person with landless ancestors who were thus not able to pass land down to their descendants. This became a historical injustice. The person wants to work on land and mix it with her labour, to come to own the land and its produce, but, today there is little unowned land left.
Locke’s contemporary, Thomas Hobbes, famously described life in the state of nature ‘as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’. Given the competition for limited resources and the instinct for self-preservation, rational individuals would give up some rights (such as the right to use violence against each other) to an authority (government), which would enforce a ‘social contract’ by implementing common laws and protecting its citizens. Several political philosophers also argued that it is a government’s duty to protect the property of its citizens. This idea of a ‘social contract’ remains relevant. Citizens pay taxes and accept the authority of a state. In return, the state protects them from violence, safeguards their property, settles disputes and provides social goods, such as roads, hospitals and education.
The motion to expropriate land without compensation, adopted by South Africa’s National Assembly on 27 February, may pave the way to amending Section 25 of the country’s Constitution. This states that ‘no one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property’. It is widely accepted that the country’s previous efforts have failed in addressing past injustices. However, is land expropriation without compensation the correct way to do that?
Much has been said about a similar policy in South Africa’s neighbour, Zimbabwe. Many critics blamed it for the collapse of agriculture, which saw Zimbabwe decline from the region’s breadbasket to a food importer. The country’s new president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, admitted that the land seized from the country’s white farmers will not be returned. But he is also attempting to modernise the country’s land policies and make them more inclusive, through enabling white farmers to take out 99-year land leases. South Africa seems to want to avoid the mistakes of its northern neighbour. President Cyril Ramaphosa has stated that land reform needs to be handled with care, and in a way that will not disrupt agricultural outputs, food security or the economy.