Abstract
Transitions to democracy across southern Africa have been difficult and inevitably flawed. Shifts in international values, national demographics and power realities see social conflicts mutate through time, making societal transformation not a point of arrival, but an ongoing process. In Zimbabwe, and more recently Namibia and South Africa, land ownership and control have become bitterly contested issues. If one accepts that injustices were perpetrated in the past, what principles should guide their remedy? This article considers the complexities arising from competing conceptions of justice over land ownership and management in the context of changing political pressures and dilemmas as to who land might be taken from, along with future dilemmas about equitable distribution and productive management. If the crisis-driven experience of Zimbabwe is to be averted, stakeholders in Namibia and South Africa must find jointly acceptable principles to guide action into the future, and it is likely that no single principle of justice will suffice – a principled multi-track approach based on a mix of utilitarian, restorative and economic empowerment logics must be negotiated ... and then urgently implemented.
Highlights
The popular injunction “no peace without justice” negates the reality that many violent conflicts are rooted in competing ideologies of justice, and in the evolution of such ideologies within societies through time
Powerful shifts occurred in international values as occupational imperialism gave way to an era of nation states founded on principles of sovereignty and self-determination
First in Zimbabwe, and in South Africa, a new generation of political activists proclaim past transition agreements as “half-baked” and in some instances, as “sell-out” deals
Summary
Transitions to democracy across southern Africa have been difficult and inevitably flawed. In Zimbabwe, and more recently Namibia and South Africa, land ownership and control have become bitterly contested issues. If one accepts that injustices were perpetrated in the past, what principles should guide their remedy? This article considers the complexities arising from competing conceptions of justice over land ownership and management in the context of changing political pressures and dilemmas as to who land might be taken from, along with future dilemmas about equitable distribution and productive management. If the crisis-driven experience of Zimbabwe is to be averted, stakeholders in Namibia and South Africa must find jointly acceptable principles to guide action into the future, and it is likely that no single principle of justice will suffice – a principled multi-track approach based on a mix of utilitarian, restorative and economic empowerment logics must be negotiated ... If the crisis-driven experience of Zimbabwe is to be averted, stakeholders in Namibia and South Africa must find jointly acceptable principles to guide action into the future, and it is likely that no single principle of justice will suffice – a principled multi-track approach based on a mix of utilitarian, restorative and economic empowerment logics must be negotiated ... and urgently implemented
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
