Different African states have dealt with the lkand reform issue differently. The same applies to ideas on addressing skewed land reform that have also been proffered by scholars. These perceptions emanate from the different African political, social and economic environments; in fact the different circumstances assisted in the shaping of the different theoretical and practical responses to the land challenges. For note is the fact that land distribution in almost all African statesāwith the exception of Ethiopia, Eretria (which was part of Ethiopia then) and Liberia1āfollowed the Western distributive pattern. The Western distributive system was established at the colonisation of Africa by Western countries. The Western distributive pattern was skewed in favour of the colonialists (colonial countries, race and individuals). This has not only been unfair and/or unjust on the part of the local inhabitants, but marked the end of the localsā land distributive systems in favour of the colonialistsā own. In that sense the colonial distributive system was not only foreign but was imposed on the locals. The imposition and disregarding of the localsā land tenure systems constitute the unfairness and injustice that the colonial distributive arrangement brought.
In regard to views on skewed colonial land distributions, there is a general agreement that considers that arrangement as unjust, unfair and out-dated. By out-dated, I mean that is the land arrangement is out of touch with contemporary African interests. The interest of equitable distribution of resources burdens and benefits linked to land ownership and use. Connected to this is that the colonial framework is unjust;2 unjust in that it disregarded the political, social and economic systems of the locals. In addition, there was the establishment of deprivations, discriminations, social exclusions and violation of the nativesā rights (Thomas 2003, 695; Wuriga 2008, 5; Openshaw and Terry 2015, 73). The establishment of unjust land distributions lead to vulnerability of the locals especially abuse, exploitation and manipulation on farms, on mines and in other activities that occurred on land (van Onselen 1976, 91).
In as much as abuse and exploitations directly coming from unjust practices, the two are also connected to unfair treatment of individuals and groups that have suffered at the hands of colonial skewed land distribution. Unfair as a social dimension refers to biases and unequal treatment of people (Boss 2008, 582), in some cases this is manifested in racism or some other form of exclusion related to favouritism. In the context under discussion, my concern is on land distribution, in that sense colonialism produced unequal distribution of land in that it favoured ownership and use that was tilted towards the colonialists. As if that were not enough the colonial administrations always set aside financial funds to support colonialists activities while nothing or very little was reserved for the colonised (Marongwe 2007, 29; Obeng-Odoom 2012, 162ā163). All this increased the gap and the exclusion of the natives from the settlers.
In light of the mentioned, there is a general agreement among African populace, particularly in Southern Africa, that there is need to revisit and rework the land distributive framework so as to respond to contemporary African interests.
What are these contemporary African interests? This is a loaded question, which I think cannot be answered in one chapter and in one book like this one. However, I note that what is contemplated by African scholars who contributed to this work is that justice, fairness, stability, inclusivity, prosperity and harmony ought to be achieved. Justice for the scholars is a situation that promotes fair access and use of land, non-discriminatory prosperity for all and maintaining peace. In that sense, thought provoking views are forwarded by the contributors who are adding a voice to the thinking that have already been proffered on land reform Southern Africa.
The views forwarded address pertinent questions to thoughts about and on issues that are related to land reform. The questions are within the ontological and related epistemological realms. These questions are as follows, though not limited to these: What are some philosophical thoughts on land as the very life of Africans? How can philosophy be relevant to the issue of humans and resolving the land question in Africa? What are some of the ethical considerations on land reform in an African context? Which mechanisms should be used in addressing past injustices and promoting justice in the present and in the future in regard to land reform and redistribution? Apart from these questions, I note that the contributors in this book respond to these questions by directing their discussions to themes that address issues that have to do with identity, compensation, rights, justice, restitution, reconciliation, history on and of colonial land distribution and the role of the local community(ies), land distribution as source of empowerment or disempowerment.
In addition, most of the chapters in this book indirectly or directly echo that land reform ought to build communities rather than be a divisive instrument. In that regard, the contributors express concern at land reform practices and/or theories that are limited in particular those that seem to promote the perpetuation of a vicious circle of exclusion, marginalisation, discrimination and dehumanisation. The kind of land reform that perpetuates exclusion and the like is one which limits its practice and thinking to bettering and/or maintaining status quo of one group of people be it racial, social and economic. A strong ethical persuasion underlies the presentations that are portrayed in this book. The ways in which the chapters are written are such that they have a say in, and possibly influence, policy formulation in Africa, in particular Southern Africa. Beyond the confines of influencing policy formulation, the chapters reflect the desire for Africans to be accommodative and that this desire is reflected in community thinking, in practice and in the policies that would govern land reform. I realise that the contributors use philosophical toolsāepistemic, hermeneutical and moral among othersāto interpret historical, social, political and economic events and issues related to land reform. By bringing in these tools, the chapter authors have departed from descriptive approach of interpreting land reform and have become philosophical (critically analytic) in interpreting land reform in Southern Africa.
Though contributors in this book have their views about land reform and in some instances reflecting upon other peopleās thinking on land reform, I want to point out that there are other perceptions that have already been advanced by many other philosophers on issues related to land reform in Africa. I now present the reflections of what some Africans have said concerning the land reform.
Chitonge and Mine (2019, ix) concede that the land and agrarian reform (though, agrarian is not a particular focus of this book) has always been tinkered with by governing African systems, though at most the contemporary African states have maintained the colonial frameworks and land-governing systems. In a sense the colonial legacy has persisted, contemporary African states have failed to produce their own land-governing frameworks. In fact decolonising the land framework (tenure system) is still a matter to be resolved. In relation to that, Chitonge (2019) situates the land reform issue within the decolonisation discourse. Chitonge argues that land reform as part of decolonisation is a process that as Africans we still have to go through, in the same sense land decolonisation is not an event but a process that Africans have to embark on. By using the term āAfricans,ā Chitonge refers to the inclusive understanding of the term African. In this sense I share his views that the land reform discourse has to be diverse in its nature and inclusive at the same time. The contemporary of African societies requires this and ...