DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STUDIES POL305: POLITICS OF SOUTHERN AFRICA

Question 9: In a comparative outline, discuss how the land question evolved in Zimbabwe, South Africa and Namibia.

MR T C PHEPHENG 201003690

INTRODUCTION

According to Moyo (2003), the land questions facing Southern Africa are dominated by the negative

effects of distorted settler-colonial decolonization and the associated failure to address the national

question, sustainable development, and democracy, within the context of incomplete national

democratic revolutions. This academic paper will be discussing how the land question evolved in

Zimbabwe, South Africa and Namibia.

These three Southern African countries share a similar history of race-based minority rule characterized

by extensive land expropriation that pushed indigenous black populations into unfertile reserves during

the colonial era. Although each of the three countries has pressures for land redistribution resulting in

land invasions, they have had very different reactions and approaches to the management of land

reform issues that they face.

They all experienced some form of an armed struggle, ostensibly over land. Negotiated settlements for

a new political dispensation ensured that (at least initially) indigenous people did not forcefully grab

land from the landed elite who happened to be white. In all cases, the negotiated settlements meant

legal mechanisms that granted a peaceful route to resolving land problems. For instance, each of the

three countries had (and still have) constitutions that entrench rights to immovable property (including

land) and an independent judiciary to enforce that right (Mufune 2010).

However, all have pressures for land redistribution and this has led to land invasions. Yet they have

had very different reactions and approaches to the management of land reform issues that they face.

While the Zimbabwean government has supported and encouraged land invasions, the Namibian and

the South African governments have had very little sympathy with land invaders (Mufune 2010).

Land to date, remains a basic source of the livelihood of the majority of Southern Africans, and is

essential to the development of agriculture, tourism and housing (Moyo 2005). Hence it is still very

significant for governments in Zimbabwe, South Africa and Namibia to address the land inequalities that

were created by the settler colonies before independence.

For each of the countries this essay will discuss land issues during the colonial period, the promises

that were made at independence and lastly how the situation has been since independence. This paper

will end with a short comparative analysis of the differences and similarities in the way that the

governments of all the three countries have attempted to address the land question.

ZIMBABWE: THE LAND QUESTION EVOLUTION

Colonial Period

The dispossessions of land by British settlers began in June 1980 with the launching of Cecil Rhodes‟s

expeditionary forces across the Limpopo River. Cecil Rhodes financed a column of 700 self-styled

pioneers to invade the area north of the Transvaal Republic. The leaders of the pioneer column found

land dominated by the Ndebele people in the south and much larger Shona speaking people in the

central and the northern areas up the Zambezi River (Alden and Anseeuw 2009:39).

The hope of the mineral wealth proved to be elusive for the British; however the abundance of the

fertile, if arid, land provided the basis for commercial agriculture for the trickle of European and

Afrikanner settlers. The British assumed formal responsibility for Rhodesia in 1895 and as result the

British South Africa Company exercised control over the colony(Alden and Anseeuw 2009:39).

The conflicts with the local Ndebele and Shona were inevitable. There was the outbreak of sporadic

violence in Matebeleland in May 1896. This was termed the „First Chimurenga‟ which was initially just

against the imposition of a hut tax but it eventually grew into a campaign of resistance of white

occupation.

The British South Africa Company initially allocated tracts of 2500 hectares to the settlers on freehold

basis to develop the land, with an eye to supplying the needs of the mining sector as a priority. The

Blacks were allocated land under the auspice of the crown, theoretically to accommodate their

traditional subsistence activities thus setting in motion a two tiered racial system of land ownership

between white freehold and black communal land (Alden and Anseeuw 2009:39-40).

In 1931 the government intervened to starve off competition from black farmers, the most significant

being the creation of Maize Council Act (1931) and Maize Council Amendment Act in 1934 which forced

black farmers to sell their output below production cost. This also added benefit of addressing chronic

labour shortages on white commercial farms.

With the growing population pressure in the Native Reserves the Land Apportionment Act was passed

in 1930 by the Rhodesian parliament. This Act formalised segregation of land into 50 per cent for white

settlers, 20 per cent as Native Reserves, 8 per cent as Native purchase areas and the rest as for

forestry and National Parks. This Act was revised in 1950 to accommodate the growing pressure for

land among Africans. The revisions added new areas in the form of special native areas and some

crown land to African reserves (Mufune 2010).

In 1969 the Land Tenure Act replaced the Land Apportionment Act. The result of these Acts was that

land became and remained concentrated in white hands. In reality 6,682 white farmers occupied

European areas while 6,80,000 African farmers used African areas. Thus, Whites had access to about

100 times as much land as every person in an African area.

Despite the fact that land was racially divided for a long time the legitimacy of such distribution was

absent. At independence in 1980, the stage was set for changes in land distribution. The question was

not whether land reform would occur but when and how (Mufune 2010).

Independence

The Lancaster House agreement, which served as a negotiation table for both the whites and blacks,

was signed in December 1979. It detailed the conditions under which the conflict between whites and

blacks would come to an end and when the national elections towards a new independent government

were to be held.

Land was an important negotiating point at the Lancaster talks for a new Zimbabwean dispensation.

While there was agreement on the need for reform, a clause in the Lancaster agreement specified that

in the first 10 years of independence European land could only be acquired through a „willing seller-

willing buyer basis‟. If government seized land it had to pay market value compensation in foreign

currency (Mufune 2010).

The Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and Rural Development launched the Land reform and

Resettlement programme in 1980, putting together a three-tiered scheme for resettlement aimed at

initially returning exiles or Zimbabweans displaced by war. Six models of resettlement were set up:

Model A (individual family farming); Model B (collective production cooperatives, in which land was

state-owned and operated but communally held and managed); and Model C (individual family holdings

attached to a cooperative or state farm). There was also Model D (in which ranches were incorporated

as extended grazing areas for communal farms); Model E (which was additional grazing land for

communal farms); and Model F (where master or emerging commercial farmers could be resettled)

(Alden and Anseeuw 2009:52).

By the beginning of 1990, 51,000 peasant families had been resettled on 2.65 million hectares of land.

Through the means of the Land Acquisition Act by 1997 government figures state that 71,000 families

had been resettled in the programme on 3.5 million hectares‟. By 2000, 75,000 black families had been

resettled on 3.6 million hectares (Mufune 2010).

The British government, did in keeping with their promises made at the Lancaster House, provide $47

million grant towards land resettlement in 1980 as well as sponsor a post conflict resolution and

development conference in 1981 which raised 630 million Pounds towards the cost of land reform

(Alden and Anseeuw 2009:53).

Post-Independence

By 1997 the land acquisition by the government was moving at a slow pace and there was growing

evidence that the Zanu PF elites were profiting from the process. Public sector workers and veterans of

the liberation struggle engaged in a series of demonstration. Shaken by the protests the Mugabe

regime reopened the neglected land issue and publicly proposed restitution through expropriation as a

solution to the country‟s economic ailments (Alden and Anseeuw 2009:70-71).

British unwillingness to continue supporting the land reform and the Zimbabwean currency crises led to

Mugabe regime listing 1471 primary white-owned commercial farms for state acquisition in November

1997. In April 2000 the Zimbabwe parliament passed a new legislation which was a new fast track land

reform. It stated that a total of 10 million hectares of white-owned commercial farmland would be

transferred to the black hands by December 2001(Alden and Anseeuw 2009:71).

By the end of May 2000 the veterans had seized nearly 1,000 white-owned farms (Mail and Guardian

29 May 2001). President Mugabe himself supported these actions. Actually, since the „fast track‟

programme that officially began in February 2000 and ended in August 2002, between 600 and 900

white commercial farmers out of some 4,500 remained in the country. An estimated 300,000 small

farmers were resettled and about 30,000 black commercial farmers had received land by the end of

2002 (Mufune 2010).

SOUTH AFRICA: THE LAND QUESTION EVOLUTION

Colonial Period

Historically, white settlers in South Africa appropriated more than 90 per cent of the land surface under

the Native Land Act, confining the indigenous people to reserves in the remaining portion of land. The

1913 Native Lands Act served to formalize the racially skewed patterns of tenure favouring whites. This

Act brought about a heavy-handed territorial segregation. It also redefined the nature of black tenancy.

This process forced a large number of rural residents to leave the rural areas for urban areas in search

for work (Ntsebeza and Hall 2007:3).

The 1913 Act got rid of aspects of African land ownership and sharecropping which white farmers found

undesirable and enlarged reserves to ease congestion and facilitate the recruiting of labour for the

mines. Thus, after the 1913 Act, 77 per cent of the land surface was reserved for white private

ownership, 8 per cent for blacks, 13 per cent was for the state and the rest belonged to institutions such

as the church. Only after the 1936 Native Trust and land Act were African reserves increased to 6.2

million hectares, that is, 13 per cent of the national area (Mufune 2010).

Africans in many places continued as tenants and occupied far greater chunks of the countryside than

allocated to them. Beinart says that it was this fact which prevented even greater rural to urban

migration in South Africa. The 1955 Tomlin commission proposed granting of freehold titles in

homelands so as to develop a class of fulltime farmers. This was to make a considerable number of

Africans in the reserves without access to any land and was therefore not entirely supported by the

government of the day (Mufune 2010).

With the discovery of minerals in 1880, the colonial government stopped promoting African peasantry

altogether as it started by legal means compelling them to become wage labourers. The first legislative

measure in this regard was the promulgation in the Cape Parliament under the premiership of Cecil

John Rhodes of the notorious Glen Grey Act in 1894. After the Union of South Africa in 1910, some of

the provisions of the Glen Grey Act were incorporated in the Native Land Act of 1913. This forbade

Africans to buy and own land outside the 7 per cent of the land that was reserved for their occupation it

abolished the share cropping system and labour tendencies (Ntsebeza and Hall 2007:3-4).

With the impending collapse of the apartheid system at the beginning of the 1990s the government

sought to institute some reform. The 1991 Land Act abolished the cornerstone of land segregation, the

Natives Land Act of 1913 and the Native Trust and Land Act of 1936. It also abolished the Group Areas

Act. of 1966, the Black Communities Development Act of 1984 and repealed or amended other racist

legislation. This Land Act thus tried to open rights to property in land to all South Africans regardless of

race (Mufune 2010).

Independence

The apartheid system in South Africa was ended through a series of negotiations between 1990 and

1993 and through unilateral steps by the de Klerk government. The negotiations included the land

reforms. The land reform programme of the South African government had three focus areas: restitution

of land rights to the victims of forced removals; redistribution of land to the disadvantaged; and tenure

reform aimed at promoting security of tenure for all (Ntsebeza 2006).

Restitution of Land Rights Act, Number 22 of 1994 was the one which was guiding the first reform.

Restitution possibilities „include restoring land, providing alternative land and paying compensation to

those that lost land. The period in which people who lost land as a result of the 1913 Act and other laws

of discrimination could lodge claims was May 1995 to May 1998. By the end of March 1999, there were

63,455 land claims lodged at the commission (Lahiff 2007:1580).

In 1997, the Department of Land Affairs adopted a White Paper on Land Policy which, amongst others,

endorses the principle of „willing seller, willing buyer‟. The initial target proposed by the World Bank was

that 30 per cent of agricultural land was to be transferred from white farmers to blacks with the first five

years of South Africa‟s democracy. By 1999, the end of the first five years, barely one per cent of land

had been transferred from white to black hands. This was a far cry from the 1994 target of transferring

30 per cent of agricultural land. Following this dismal failure, the Minister of Land Affairs changed the

period and targeted 2014 as the year the 30 per cent target would be met (Ntsebeza, 2007).

The initial targets for land redistribution were even more ambitious than those for restitution, and the

initial results as disappointing. Through the Reconstruction and Development Programme, the ANC

committed itself to redistributing 30 per cent of agricultural land within five years (Walker 2005:818).

Post-Independence

Ever since independence the pace of land reform in South Africa is undeniably slow. This is a fact that

has also been acknowledged even by the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki when he delivered

his State of the Nation address in February this year, 2007. However, while there may be general

acceptance that the South African land reform programme is not occurring fast enough, there is no

agreement on the reasons.

In July 2005, the Department of Land Affairs organised in Johannesburg an historic land summit

involving various interest groups including representatives from civil society organisations and

government. The land summit was built around the theme: “A Partnership to Fast Track Land Reform: A

New Trajectory, Forward to 2014”, the year to meet the 30 per cent target. Far reaching resolutions

were taken, and later adopted by the summit. Almost two years after the land summit (and just over 13

years after the introduction of democracy in South Africa) the redistribution of land is still dismal, around

4 per cent of agricultural land has been transferred from white hands (Ntsebeza, 2007).

In 2006 3.4 million of hectares have been transferred through the various branches of Land reform,

benefiting an estimate of 1,2 million of people. In 2007, 43% has been transferred trough the

redistribution programme, with lesser amount being transferred through land restitution, state land

disposal and land tenure. The total transferred is equivalent to 4.7% of the agricultural land in white

ownership in 1994. The numbers clearly indicate that South Africa‟s land Reform has failed.

According to the report by The Economist magazine in 2009, the South African government has run out

of money to continue financing the Land Reform. Once-productive land lies fallow. The deadline of

2014 for completing the reform has been postponed; 2025 has been mooted but even that may be too

ambitious. The estimated extra cost is 71 billion rand ($9.4 billion) on top of 6 billion already disbursed

(The Economist, December 2009).

The South African government also seems to lack coherent alternatives (to the existing Land Reform)

and resulted in a debate that runs the risk of being technist; as stakeholders debate the merits of the

individual policy mechanisms such as expropriation, compensation, land taxes, subdivision of

landholdings, limitations on foreign ownership and so on, rather than focusing on the land question as a

whole.

NAMIBIA: THE LAND QUESTION EVOLUTION

Colonial Period

The German missionaries moved into the central highlands of Namibia in the mid-19th century. Their

engagement with the local people, particularly the Nama and Herero was marked by contradictory

impulses ranging from introducing convectional conversion strategies, the pursuit of commercial

activities (and even arms sales) and meddling in local politics. Indeed to an extent they became factors

in an on-going struggle between the Nama, Damara and Herero over land and cattle.

Following the formal division of African continent at the Berlin Conference of 1884-5 (and formed again

in 1890), German occupation of what was to become known as South West Africa began in earnest.

The German settlers met with scattered resistance but were able to defeat the challengers and in fairly

rapid succession established fortified towns, farms and the beginning of a national railway network

(Alden and Anseeuw 2009:120).

The policy of land dispossession and displacement intensified after the defeat of the Hereros and Nama

and other groups by the Germans early in the twentieth century and after the establishment of the so-

called Police Zone. The Police Zone referred to land in the central and northern parts of the country. It

was created in 1906 when the German colonial rulers prohibited trade in guns, horses and alcohol

beyond (present day Oshivelo) the northern border of the zone. The area was put under direct colonial

rule and whites under protection were permitted to occupy the place ( Mufune 2010).

A settler economy developed in the former Herero, Damara and Nama hinterlands based primarily upon

cattle ranching and limited agriculture through the use of irrigation or borehole water. Farms of

enormous size were granted by the colonial government, reflecting both its relative abundance and the

need for grazing pastures to sustain its cattle rearing.

The year 1915 marked the South African occupation of the South West Africa and the subsequent

granting of the territory to Pretoria as a League of Nations mandate introduced a new and ultimately

defining dimension to the situation (Alden and Anseeuw 2009:122). Under South African rule it was

decreed (under Proclamation 15 of 1919) that no one could cross the zone without permission. The

zone itself changed its boundaries several times as white farms were added on and expanded. Most of

the land under the Police Zone and elsewhere was expropriated through the right of conquest, treaties

of protection and through legislation (Mufune 2010).

By 1902 only 31.4 million hectares (that is, 38 per cent) of the total land area of Namibia, about 83.5

million hectares, remained in the hands of indigenous people. White farmers had acquired about 3.7

million hectares increasing to 4.8 million by 1904 but concession companies had 29.2 million hectares

and the colonial administration had 19.2 million hectares. One important thing to note is that the

northern areas (an area where more than 50 per cent of the population lives) did not suffer extensive

expropriation of land.

Independence

Namibia became independent on 21 March 1990. The new government inherited a system of land

distribution along racial lines which had developed over more than a century with intensive state

interference and financial and other support. Approximately 4,500 commercial farmers held 43% of all

agricultural land while 15,000 black households had access to 42% of the land.

At independence, Government was determined to address the imbalances of the past, and was guided

by two important principles: the Constitution of the Republic of Namibia; and the policy of national

reconciliation. Within the first month of the first National Assembly convening, a motion was put forward

requesting Prime Minister Hage Geingob to call a national conference on the „land question‟ which,

according to President Nujoma, was “one of the most burning issues facing our young nation”. A

National Conference on Land Reform and the Land Question was subsequently held from 25 June to 1

July 1991 under chairmanship of the prime minister. The objective of the conference was to “achieve

the greatest possible national consensus on the land question” (De Villiers 2003:29-30).

Among the resolutions were that foreigners would not own farmland, although they could be given the

right to use and lease it in accordance with Namibia‟s policy of attracting foreign investment. Land

belonging to absentee landlords would be expropriated, very large farms as well as multiple farm

ownership would not be allowed and that a land tax would be imposed on commercial farmland.

One important resolution that avoided the dissolution of the conference itself was the agreement not to

press for land restitution to communities that had lost their land during German and South African

colonial rule. Among the most important resolutions from the land conference was recommendation to

set up a Technical Committee on Commercial Farmland that would investigate issues pertaining to

commercial farmland such as under-utilization, absentee ownership, viable farm sizes, multiple

ownership and farm taxation (Mufune, 2010).

Post-Independence

The second important conference on Land (The 1994 Land Conference) was held in 1994 under

auspices of NGOs that felt that more people should help shape land policy. This so-called Peoples

Land Conference was committed to lobby the government to draft legislation on land .Over the years a

number of institutional structures dealing with land issues have evolved in Namibia. They include the

Adhoc Cabinet Committee on Land Reform (ACCLR) and the Permanent Technical Team on Land

Reform (PTT) appointed by the Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and Rehabilitation in 2000 to advise it

on technical issues of land reform.

The National Assembly subsequently adopted the Agricultural (Commercial) Land Reform Act, 1995 to

give effect to some of the Technical Committee on Commercial Farmland‟s recommendations. The Act

received widespread support and was endorsed by all major parties (with the exception of a small right-

wing group) in the National Assembly. The Act essentially provides for the acquisition of freehold land

on a willing buyer–willing seller basis, although government would have the “preferent right” to acquire

agricultural land that comes on the market ( De Villiers 2003:31).

A draft outline of a National Land Policy was released for comment in 1996 and discussed at various

regional and national workshops. The restrictions imposed by the Act on land holding by foreigners are

not as severe as were recommended by the Technical Committee on Commercial Farmland (Hunter

2004:87).

The Agricultural Commercial Land Reform Amendment Act 13 of 2002 was meant to remove loopholes

in the 1995 Act. For instance the 1995 Act required that all commercial farmland sold must first be

offered to the government for redistribution through its resettlement programme.

The land reform process during the first decade of independence has been so slow that some have

asked whether there is indeed a „land question‟ in Namibia. In the first year (1996) after the passing of

the Act, 17 farms were acquired, with that number more than doubling the following year. The cost at

which the process takes place (in 1997 N$30 million) has, however, given rise to the question of

whether such a poor country can afford its scarce resources to be directed at acquisition for the mere

purpose of accessing land. To date to Namibian government land reform is still moving at a slow pace

(De Villiers 2003:31).

The dilemma faced by Namibia is that restoring land rights to those who lost their ancestral land would

mean that most Namibians will not be beneficiaries to land reform, yet giving land to all those in need of

land might mean giving land to those that were never dispossessed. Those that experienced land

dispossession could even end up disadvantaged vis-a-vis those that had never lost land (Mufune,

2010).

CONCLUTION

In Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe land alienation meant extreme forms of land divisions by race

and land reform was inevitable in the new political dispensation. At independence Zimbabwe had 75

per cent people living in rural areas and Namibia had 65 per cent. Land for those people in rural areas

represented wealth and for those people it was the only form of wealth they knew. Consequently, in

both Namibia and Zimbabwe landlessness or near landlessness can breed disillusionment (Mufune,

2010).

On the other hand South Africa only has about 43-44 per cent of people in rural areas. South Africa is a

more industrialized country with a much broader market and a higher manufacturing and

entrepreneurial base. Compared to Zimbabwe, South Africa, thus, may have a higher capacity to use

land more intensively and productively (Mufune, 2010) .

In Namibia the people that lost land to whites belong to the minority ethnic groups supporting the

political opposition. As the people that are disadvantaged by the loss of ancestral land they argue for

some kind of land restoration. Many of the people talk in terms of land redistribution happen to be the

supporters of the government. The supporters of the government are mostly the people who were less

affected or not at all affected by the forceful land removals by the colonial powers. As a result they see

land redistribution (as opposed to land restoration) as a more viable measure of land reform.

In the case of Zimbabwe land restoration is a more widespread demand. Namibia has unfavourable

climate conditions for arable agriculture; it is therefore difficult for subsistence farmers to make a living

out of Namibia land. However Zimbabwean government has faced greater pressure for land reform as it

has more fertile land which can support both arable and pastoral agriculture. As a result Zimbabwean

government has supported land invasions and this has resulted in a chaotic reform situation in

Zimbabwe dragging its economy down (Charunduka & Bromley, 2010).

Namibian and South African governments would not want to achieve the pariah status that

Zimbabwean government has achieved and as a result they are less likely to consider the „Zimbabwean

fast track land reform‟. In this sense the fact that Zimbabwe has embarked in land invasions that have

achieved little economic productivity make them less likely in other countries. While this may be a factor

for consideration, the more important factors pertain to the differences in the political and economic

cases between Namibia and South Africa on one hand, and Zimbabwe on the other.

The Zanu PF government in Zimbabwe has in almost all elections used the land issue as political tool,

however in many instances it was the party loyalist who benefited from the government land policy. In

Namibia, historical difference in land expropriation means that the ruling party is unlikely to make the

land question into a tool for mobilising the masses. It is the opposition whose base is among the

historically expropriated that sees value in using land as a political tool. South Africa‟s ANC has in

some cases used land question as a tool for mobilising the masses however it has not managed to

deliver on the promises that it has made to the South Africans.

This academic discussion concludes with the view that the political and economic dynamics pertaining

in Namibia and South Africa make it highly unlikely for them to engage in a radical land reform which is

similar to the one adopted by the Zimbabwean government.

Bibliography ACTSA. (2010, May 1). Southern Africa and Land: Justice Denied? Retrieved February 20, 2014, from

Action for Southern Africa (ACTSA) website:

http://www.actsa.org/Pictures/UpImages/ACTSA_Land_and_southern_Africa_paper_May_2

010.pdf

Alden, C., & Anseeuw, W. (2009). Land, Liberation and Compromise in Southern Africa. London:

Palgrave Macmillian.

Charunduka, C., & Bromley, D. W. (2010, September 1). Beyond the Crisis in Zimbabwe: Sorting out

the Land Question. Retrieved March 3, 2014, from Taylor & Francis Online:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0376835X.2010.498944

De-Villers, B. (2003). Land Reform Issues And Challenges: Comparative overview of experiences in

Zimbabwe, Namibia, South Africa and Australia. Johannesberg: Konrad-Adenauer-Stifting.

Economist, T. (2009, December 3). Land Reform in South Africa: Hurry Up! Retrieved March 5, 2014,

from The Economist: www.economist.com/node/15022632

Hall, R., & Ntsebeza, L. (2007). The Land Question in South Africa: The Challenge of Transformation

and Redistribution. Cape Town: HSRC Press.

Hunter, J. (2004). 'Who should own the Land?': Analyses and Views on Land Reform and the Land

Question in Namibia and Southern Africa. Windhoek: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Namibia

Institute for Democracy.

Lahiff, E. (2007). 'Willing Buyer, Willing Seller' :South Africa's failed experiment in the marketed

Agrarian Reform. Third World Quaterly, 1577-1597.

Manji, A. (2006). The Politics of Land Reform in Africa: From communal tenure to commercial

markerts. London: Zed Books Ltd.

Moyo, S. (2000). The Land Question and land Reform in Southern Africa. Retrieved March 2, 2014,

from http://depot.gdnet.org/newkb/fulltext/moyo3.pdf

Moyo, S. (2005). The Land Question and the Peasantry in Southern Africa. Latin American Council of

Social Sciences, 146-163.

Mufune, P. (2010). Land Reform Management in Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe: A

Comparative Perspective. International Journal of Rural Management, 1-31.

Ntsebeza, L. (2009). Land Redistribution in South Africa: The property clause revisited. Retrieved

March 22, 2014, from Yale University:

http://pclt.cis.yale.edu/macmillan/apartheid/apartheid_part1/Land_Reform.pdf

Walker, C. (2005). The Limits to Land Reform: Rethinking 'the Land Question'. Journal of Southern

Africa Studies, 805-824.