Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Theoretical Understanding of the Ubuntu Conception of Resources
Ubuntu is a philosophical term used to denote the axiological, epistemological, and ontological understanding of life by native members of the southern Africa region (Hapanyengwi-Chemhuru and Makuvaza: 2014, 2 – 3; Mangena: 2016). By saying this, it means that Ubuntu is a reflection of the authentic human experience of the people found in southern Africa. As a reflective part of human living, Ubuntu is the lived, and living tradition of the people (van Niekerk: 2013, vi; Chuwa: 2014, 48; Ramose: 2014, 121). The main concern of this tradition is to foster and cultivate positive human interactions so as to enhance the well-being of the community and that of the individual as well (Hapanyengwi-Chemhuru and Makuvaza: 2014, 6 – 7). Van Niekerk (2013, 1) furthers this thinking by saying that Ubuntu has expectations and requirements which have to be observed and followed by members of the community in order to promote social cohesion and social harmony. For Ubuntu, positive human interactions are expressed through communalism. Communalism refers to living together as a group. Mangena (2016) avers that in Ubuntu thinking communalism is expressed through emphasising communal existence as prior and important as opposed to western thinking of placing the individual at the centre of human existence. In Ubuntu thinking communal interests come first and are respected by all members of the community. The same thinking concedes that individual interests are subsumed within the communal or community interests, hence there is no variance between individual and community interests (Eze: 2008, 107). The emphasis upon communal existence is well expressed through the ideas and values of mutual recognition and respect for each other‘s needs, sharing, interdependence, interconnectedness, and common humanity (Matolino and Kwindingwi: 2013, 199; Mangena: 2015, 6).
Ubuntu‘s communal existence also refers to the collective orientation of the people of southern Africa which is reflected both in the way the people act and in their administration of resources (Kimmerle: 2011; Chuwa: 2014, 48 – 49). In Ubuntu thinking, members act together in solving and resolving conflict, for compassionate reasons, and to express their joys (Mangena: 2015, 6). Collectivism is also shown in the common administration of both tangible and intangible resources that belong to the community (Kimmerle: 2011; Chuwa: 2014, 48 – 49). The administration is done through the chief‘s court, because the chief is the custodian of the community‘s resources. Under Ubuntu communal ownership, resources were not commercial commodities and commercialisation was prohibited (Thompson25: 2003, 188 – 189; Wiredu:
2003, 374)26. The main reason as to why land was considered a communal property lay in the fact that by so doing, access to land would be regulated by the community and made available to every community member according to need (Wiredu: 2003, 374). Just land distribution was also assured since everyone was entitled to land holding and use (Wiredu: 2003, 374). Impartial land distribution was assured through communal land distribution which was administered by the whole community led by the chief and his court of advisors (Pauw 1997, 375)27. The purpose of involving members of society was to encourage good social relations, reduce conflicts and confrontation among community members and minimise and avoid corruption and greed which are incompatible with the spirit of Ubuntu (Bennett: 2011, 43; Moyo: 2013, 73; Matolino & Kwindingwi: 2013, 199). Over and above all is the fact that communal ownership and sharing was aimed at establishing social harmony and social cohesion. The procedure of land distribution consistently followed the pattern as mentioned above. The idea and ideals of communal land ownership are still found in the post-independent era especially in communal areas where there are no legal land titles.
The Practical Application of Ubuntu Land Ownership on F.T.L.R
Parallels can be drawn between the ideas and values of Ubuntu communal land ownership and the nationalisation of agricultural land28 in Zimbabwe. Recent developments (2010 – 2014) in the Zimbabwean F.T.L.R context point to the fact that land has been nationalised. Nationalisation of the land implies that all land in the country is now state land or property and it is now the responsibility of the state to distribute land in the manner it deems fit particularly in relation to addressing colonial land inequalities and injustices (Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment [No 20] Section 72: 2013). Communal land holding is equal to saying all agricultural land is now state land and is to be distributed by the state through state mechanisms such as chiefs, agricultural and land ministries. Instead of communal agreement, the state now offers state recognized lease agreements as proof of land ownership and this is far removed from colonial land titles. The state argues that having or continuing with colonial land titles encourages speculative land holding and acquisition. It is also assumed that by embarking on nationalisation and national redistribution, the government will address the needs of the people, especially access to and use of arable land. Ubuntu values of sharing, caring and respecting the needs of the people is reflected in the nationalisation of land in Zimbabwean. The Ubuntu conception of land holding and exchange, however, has its drawbacks when questions of inclusion arise. That is to say, important choices of individual will and freedom to participate and be incorporated in society are ignored. Instead, indoctrination and manipulation tend to be resorted to at the expense of individual freedom and autonomy (Matolino and Kwindingwi: 2013 198 – 204). As a matter of fact, Ubuntu thinking runs the risk of creating a monolithic society hat does not respect the multi-cultural and cosmopolitan values and societies that now characterize contemporary Zimbabwean society (Matolino and Kwindingwi: 2013, 203). It limits and fixes Zimbabwean land holding and exchange to pre-colonial thinking. Moreover, Ubuntu ideas are applicable to small communities and this makes it difficult to apply them to states or nations. Ubuntu philosophy is limited because it has local but not universal applicability. Metz (2011, 532 – 533) and Curle (2015, 13 – 14) postulate that Ubuntu is based upon the collectivism of small local southern Africa communities. Furthermore, the thinking behind Ubuntu philosophy is based upon group thinking and acting, rendering it uncompromisingly majoritarian in outlook. For this reason, Ubuntu thinking is not compatible with the liberal traditions that defend individual freedom and liberties unfettered by communal control; that is, it prioritises humanism over the human per se (Douglas: 2015,306 – 307). Moreover, based on this argument, Ubuntu thinking may have difficulties in adjusting to modern societies since such societies are now liberal in outlook though through encouragement and reeducation people may learn to adopt Ubuntu thinking.
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1. The Land Redistribution: The matter in Question
1.2. Research Question
1.3. Objectives
1.4. Area of Investigation
1.5. Context of the Discussion: Redistribution and Phases of Zimbabwean Land Redistribution: The Background.
1.6. Organization of the Study
1.7. Theoretical Framework
1.8. Chapter Conclusion
Chapter 2 The Genesis of Inequalities and Injustices: Analysing the Colonial and Post-Independent Arguments for Land Redistribution in Zimbabwe.
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Colonial Justifications for Land Expropriation.
2.3. Zimbabwean Post-colonial Arguments for Land Exchanges.
2.4. Chapter Conclusion
Chapter 3 Arguments for Justice and Equality in Zimbabwean Land Redistribution
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Understanding justice
3.3. Versions of Justice
3.4. Main Roles of Justice
3.5. Exposing the Injustice in Zimbabwean Land (Re)Distribution
3.6. Understanding Equality
3.7. Inequality and Zimbabwean Land Redistributions
3.8. Arguments for Just and Equal Land Redistribution
3.9. General Analysis
3.10. Suggestion
3.11. Chapter Conclusion
Chapter 4 Arguments for Applying Nozick‘s Theory to Zimbabwean Land Redistribution
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Defining N.E.T.
4.3. Popular Arguments similar to Nozick‘s Point-of-view
4.4. Unpopular Argument
4.5. Chapter Conclusion
Chapter 5 Applying the Capabilities Approach to Zimbabwean Land Redistribution
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Defining the Capability Approach
5.3. Key Philosophers and Their Ideas
5.4. Key Concepts in C.A and their Relevancy in Analysing F.T.L.R
5.5. Intentions of Zimbabwe F.T.L.R
5.6. Rawlsian Difference Theory
5.7. Capability Approach Entitlement Theory and Nozick‘ Entitlement Theory
5.8. Land Redistribution and the Capability Approach contra Social Exclusion and Poverty
5.9. Critique of Capability Approach
5.10. Conclusion
Chapter 6 Contemplating Agreements: The Land-Based Compromise
6.1. Introduction
6.2. Dilemmas over Values
6.3. Possible Solutions to Zimbabwean Land Reform
6.4. The Land-based Compromise
6.5. Nature of L.B.C
6.6. Philosophical Bases for L.B.C: Linking C.A and N.E.T
6.6. Challenges
6.7. Chapter Conclusion
Chapter 7 Contributions and Conclusions
7.1. Contributions of the Research
7.2. For Further Research
7.3. Conclusion
References
