Who should own the land? : analyses and views on land reform and the land question in Namibia and southern Africa

140 Pages·2004·0.69 MB·English

by  edited by Justine Hunter.

WHO SHOULD OWN THE LAND?
Analyses and Views on
Land Reform and the Land Question
in Namibia and Southern Africa
Edited by
JUSTINE HUNTER
Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung
Namibia Institute for Democracy
Who Should Own the Land? i
Published by
Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung
Namibia Institute for Democracy
Edited by
Justine Hunter
© Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung
Namibia Institute for Democracy
February 2004
No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage
or retrieval system, without the written permission of the publisher.
Cover picture: “Getting water from well” by John A Muafangejo
© Arts Association of Namibia, National Art Gallery of Namibia
Cover design: DV8
Language editing: Sandie Fitchat
Layout: Perri Caplan
Printing: John Meinert Printing (1999), Windhoek, 2004
ISBN: 99916–796–9–3

Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Namibia Institute for Democracy
PO Box 1145 PO Box 11956
Windhoek Klein Windhoek
Namibia Namibia
Tel.: [phone] Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
ii Who Should Own the Land?
WHO SHOULD OWN THE LAND?
Analyses and Views on
Land Reform and the Land Question
in Namibia and Southern Africa
Justine Hunter (Ed.)
Contributions
Willie Breytenbach
Ben Fuller
Colleen Muchinarwo Gwari
Oliver Horsthemke
Justine Hunter
Uazuva Kaumbi
Willem Moore
Dirk Mudge
Lloyd Mambo Sachikonye
Robin Sherbourne
Wolfgang Werner
Interviews
Alfred Angula
Jan de Wet
Hon. Marco Hausiku
Risto Kapenda
Hon. Hifikepunye Pohamba
Who Should Own the Land? iii
iv Who Should Own the Land?
Table of contents
List of abbreviations..........................................................................................................................vi
Who should own the land? An introduction
Justine Hunter (Namibia Institute for Democracy)................................................................................1
A rich man’s hobby
Robin Sherbourne (Institute for Public Policy Research)....................................................................8
Promoting development among farm workers: Some options for
Namibia
Wolfgang Werner (Independent consultant)........................................................................................19
Land reform in southern Africa
Willie Breytenbach (University of Stellenbosch).................................................................................46
Land reform in Namibia and Zimbabwe: A comparative perspective
Lloyd Mambo Sachikonye (University of Zimbabwe)........................................................................64
A Namibian path for land reform
Ben Fuller (Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit)...................................................................83
Land reform in Namibia: Opportunity or opportunism?
Oliver Horsthemke (Permanent Technical Team on Land Reform)............................................87
The land is ours
Uazuva Kaumbi (Pan African Centre of Namibia)...............................................................................92
The year 2003: Crisis or opportunity?
Willem Moore (University of Namibia) ..................................................................................................95
Land reform in perspective
Dirk Mudge (Member of the Kalkfeld Farmers’ Association) .......................................................100
The agrarian revolution in Zimbabwe and the plight of
an ordinary man
Colleen Muchinarwo Gwari (formerly of the Daily News, Zimbabwe) .....................................104
Interviews on land reform in Namibia
Justine Hunter (Namibia Institute for Democracy) ..........................................................................109
Land reform in Namibia: A bibliography
Wolfgang Werner (Independent consultant) with inputs from
Robin Sherbourne (Institute for Public Policy Research)........................................................122
APPENDIX1: Bibliography on land reform in Namibia
Robin Sherbourne (Institute for Public Policy Research).................................................132
APPENDIX2: Geographical maps......................................................................................................133
APPENDIX3: Key trends in farm ownership transactions, 1990-2002............CD-Rom
Who Should Own the Land? v
List of abbreviations
AEA Agricultural Employers’ Association (Namibia)
ANC African National Congress (South Africa)
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
FCTZ Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe
LSU large stock unit
NAFWU Namibia Farmworkers Union
NAU Namibia Agricultural Union
NGO non-governmental organisation
SADC Southern African Development Community
SSU small stock unit
VIDCO Village Development Committee (Zimbabwe)
ZANU-PF Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front
vi Who Should Own the Land?
Who should own the land?
An introduction
Justine Hunter
(Namibia Institute for Democracy)
We have been fighting for the land, but we still have only pieces of it. Most
of the land is still occupied by those who enjoyed a long period of prosperity
by exploiting Namibians. These people become more prosperous while
people such as us, who live in informal settlements, feel hopeless. The
land must be divided equally.
(Reader’s letter, The Namibian, 24 November 2000)
As an obvious projection area of potential social conflicts, the complex and
emotional land question has the potential to create or even deepen racial
mistrust and hatred. Some 13 years after Namibia achieved independence;
the existing land distribution remains an obvious expression of expropria-
tion, oppression and extermination of the African people by German and
South African colonists, settlers and members of the occupation forces
(Werner 2000:9). Unlike other settler colonies such as Zimbabwe and Kenya,
the white settlers appropriated agricultural areas that, due to low and
unpredictable annual rainfall, are almost exclusively utilisable for extensive
stock farming. The central and southern regions, especially those inhabited
by the Herero, the Nama and the Damara, were particularly affected by
colonial land expulsion. This was mainly because, at the beginning of the
20th century, the German troops were not equipped with the military might
to subjugate the influential northern kingdoms. Consequently, Namibia
inherited an extremely asymmetrical distribution of land. At independence,
52% of the agricultural farmland was in the hands of the white commercial
farmer community, who made up 6% of the Namibian population. The
remaining 94% of the population had to put up with owning only 48% of the
agricultural land.
Situated in the former “homelands”1, due to the population density and
the lack of resources, the agricultural productivity of communal farmland
was very limited. The majority of Namibians, who populate the communal
1 Separate development under the former South African apartheid regime dictated that
various ethnic groups lived in designed regions – homelands – in Namibia.
Who Should Own the Land? An introduction 1
areas, are subsistence farmers who live off and from the land without owning
it.2 The economically viable, so-called commercial farm sector is the biggest
employer in Namibia: the number of farm workers and the members of their
families amount to around 230,000 people (Werner 2001:260).
Though rather prominent, the land question is only one aspect of various
inherited inequalities and the overall need for a redistribution of wealth.
Namibia suffered under an extreme, protracted and differentiated colonial
experience. Under German colonial rule, the extermination of the indigenous
population and the expropriation of land began. After Namibia had fallen
under South African’s control, systematic racial discrimination culminated
in the implementation of apartheid politics. As a result of a lengthy and bitter
liberation struggle, the country gained its independence in 1990. When the
established system was eventually overcome, it occurred not by way of a
revolution or violent takeover, but by a controlled change of system and an
internally and externally negotiated settlement. The constitutional princi-
ples adopted as a compromise in the early 1980s and which formed the
foundation of the new national constitution guaranteed property rights after
independence. Acknowledging their mutual dependency, the former oppo-
nents agreed that an apocalyptic disintegration of the territory had to be
avoided, and both political and economic stability secured. Accordingly,
the introduction of a policy of national reconciliation after independence
expresses the postulated common interest and national fate as fundamental
to nation-building, while Article 16 of the Constitution (RoN 1990) legally
entitles landowners to their private property.
At a symposium organised by the German Vereinte Evangelische Mission
(VEM) in May 2001, the participants identified specific certain stumbling blocks
that hamper the solution of the Namibian land question (Motte 2002:10):
(cid:204)(cid:3)Differing land rights within the country
(cid:204)(cid:3)The use of commercial land almost exclusively for extensive stock-farming
(cid:204)(cid:3)The way possible beneficiaries of the land redistribution process are
selected and qualified
(cid:204)(cid:3)The financing of land reform
(cid:204)(cid:3)The relatively minor implications of land reform within the private sector
for the economic and social development of the nation as a whole, and
(cid:204)(cid:3)The political interest and opportunities available to the Government.
There seems to be a consensus among Namibian parliamentarians and
civil society agents that comprehensive land reform is vital. Nevertheless, the
practical realisation of a structured and transparent land reform process
2 Commercial farmers are usually those who farm on freehold land, while communal
farmers farm on communal (non-freehold) land
2 Who Should Own the Land?
does not seem to be a top priority for the Namibian Government. The reasons
for the obvious Governmental retention are multi-layered. Unlike South Africa
and Zimbabwe, “only” approximately 10% of the Namibian population was
directly affected by colonial land-grabbing. The areas affected by previous
dispossession fell mainly outside the political base of the governing party
(De Villiers 2003:35, 40; Grobler 2002:26; Werner 2000:11). The landless
population, those whose land was expropriated, and farm workers are all
insufficiently unionised. By way of contrast, the commercial farmers’ union
is equipped with remarkable influence and well-established networks
(Kössler & Melber 2001:150). Finally, the former liberation movement, the
South West African People’s Organisation, SWAPO – now the ruling SWAPO
Party of Namibia – does not urgently need the land campaign in order to
convince its voter base.
During the 1990s, land reform in Namibia took three main forms: redis-
tributive land reform, an Affirmative Action Loan Scheme, and the develop-
ment of resettlement projects in communal areas (Werner 2002:57). Given
the national reconciliation policy and the provisions of the Constitution, a
consultative National Conference on Land Reform and the Land Question
passed a consensus-based resolution in 1991. Of political significance was
the Conference’s reaffirmation that the restoration of ancestral land rights
was out of the question. Due to pre-colonial and colonial migration and the
continued change in occupation and control of Namibian territories, complex
and competing claims for land ownership could not be harmonised. In other
words, land would not especially be distributed to those directly affected by
colonial land-grabbing, but to all historically disadvantaged Namibians.
Besides other resolutions, the Conference recommended that foreigners
not be allowed to own freehold land, and that the land owned by foreign
absentee landlords be expropriated.
In respect of the reform of commercial land ownership, the National
Assembly adopted the Agricultural (Commercial) Land Reform Act, 1995
(No. 6 of 1995), which received both widespread support and criticism.
The Act provides for the acquisition of commercial farmland on a “willing
seller – willing buyer” basis. The Government reserves preferential rights in
the purchase of land that comes onto the market.
In respect of communal land reform, although it is seen as significant
in respect of poverty reduction (Sherbourne 2000a:20), land rights in the
communal farming areas have received less attention than their commercial
farmland counterparts. Werner (2000) states that redistributing communal
farmland also means redistributing political influence. Thus, the consolida-
tion of communal rights of ownership is linked to the consolidation of politi-
cal control for the benefit of traditional leaders and politicians (ibid.:12). A
decade after independence, the Communal Land Reform Bill was passed
Who Should Own the Land? An introduction 3
by the National Assembly and referred to the National Council. The latter
objected to some of its provisions and referred it back for amendment. In
2002, the Bill became law as the Communal Land Reform Act, 2002 (No. 5
of 2002).
The Namibian debate on land is determined by two different lines of
argumentation: equality and justice on the one hand, and the productivity
of the agricultural sector on the other. The implications of commercial
land reform for the socio-economic development of Namibia as a whole
are believed to be minor. According to Melber (1991:38), however, the
economic considerations turn out to be irrelevant in comparison with the
psychological dimensions. Primarily, land reform needs to be understood
as the reclamation and restitution of identity and history. It needs to be
clarified whether land reform should be part of a sustainable agrarian and
developmental strategy, or if it is to be regarded as an isolated procedure.
Since the beginning of the Government-sponsored violent farm invasions
in neighbouring Zimbabwe, the land question has refused to leave Namibia’s
headlines. According to the local economist, Robin Sherbourne, there appear
to be three standpoints on the issue of Namibian land reform. The first
sees Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe as an African hero setting an
example to others by fighting long-standing colonial injustices. The second
sees land reform as an economic red herring with little to contribute
towards economic growth and long-term poverty reduction. Adherents to
the latter argument as well as those of the following one generally see the
Zimbabwean farm invasion as little more than a cynically staged drama by
Mugabe, who is faced with economic collapse and the emergence of a
credible opposition party. The third standpoint sees land reform as a
necessity that needs to be undertaken in an orderly and effective way
within the rule of law. Thus, Sherbourne (2000b:2) states that, “While the
heart may sympathise the head must reason that future prosperity cannot
be jeopardised by a government-sponsored breakdown of law and order”.
Although a Zimbabwean-style land invasion is not in the offing in Namibia,
one is obliged to draw attention to the fact that Zimbabwe embarked on
its radical land reform programme some 20 years after its independence.
“The grass in Namibia is therefore still green”, states De Villiers (2003:40),
and forecasts that the success of land reform through market forces during
the next few years will make an impact on the direction that the Namibian
land issue is going to take. According to Werner (2002:52), due to the fact
that poverty and unemployment prevail among the Namibian majority,
land reform will remain on the political agenda. As the Nigerian Nobel
laureate Wole Soyinka (2001) imparts, persistent socio-economic injustice
is equipped with the potential to rock the foundations of an otherwise
remarkable reconciliation process.
4 Who Should Own the Land?