The land question in KwaZulu: Is land reform necessary?

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Land reform in the ‘homelands’ depends on whether or not a viable economy can emerge in these areas. If not, the only alternative may be to accept the failure of rural development and follow the new state policy line of ‘positive urbanization’. Outside the limits of state policy, the apparent consensus on freehold tenure may be illusory. Black‐held priorities for land appear to differ at base from those held up by white groups. White business interests want to see large‐scale commercial farming, while blacks want the free and secure right to hold and deal in land, together with a right to use rural land for residential purposes. There is renewed international interest in land reform. Some of the Far Eastern market economies have obtained startling rises in production under a reform regime of owner‐operated mini‐farms. It is doubtful if this type of reform is appropriate in KwaZulu, where the tenure system already strongly protects the universal right to hold land, and where the community's small role in land matters is still important to local self‐organization capacity. More appropriate models might be found in Zimbabwe and China, which have also achieved sharp rises in small‐farm production without full freehold tenure. Zimbabwe's village committee system recognizes existing land rights and allows for substantial local option. In China, decentralization policies seem to be encouraging a new rural economy in which most of the population may eventually be absorbed into self‐generated nonfarm activity. This kind of enterprise‐led rural development, may offer a possible pattern for KwaZulu.