by Khadra Ghedi Alasow
“Conscientisation is a moment in which a critical demystification of edifices and arrangements of domination are exposed to the consciousness of the oppressed.”
Over the past few months, images of the massive farmers’ protest in India have caught attention across the globe. These protests are occurring in the middle of a global pandemic with ever increasing death rates when agricultural production to ensure food security is of paramount importance. The protests are centered around legislation that introduces three new policies that would deregulate the agricultural sector and leave producers at the mercy of the private sector. Farmers are concerned about being forced to rely on “the free market.” That reliance they know will only weaken their rights and livelihoods as the protection afforded by government regulated minimum support prices falls away. The most recent laws curtailing farmers’ ability to support themselves and their families were the last straw and mark the culmination of farmers’ long-term mounting frustration with the neoliberal regime of India’s corporately led government. The social degradation suffered by the farming community over many decades has given rise to desperate and increasingly angry pleas and demands for land reform.
The battle for land reform is a persistent and intensifying dimension of politics and social life in the Global South where people are struggling to escape the claws of colonialism and capitalism. Here, the violent history of being stripped of the land and forced to sell labor power has left a legacy of enormous destruction both to the land and to society. Various movements are rising up to resist this injustice by advocating for the transformation of the relationship that people have with the land. In most cases this relationship has been, and continues to be, one of dispossession, exploitation and exclusion, as the people on the ground are often the most vulnerable and disregarded.
The quality of livelihood of rural lives is directly linked to the type of relationship individuals have with the land. Colonialism and capitalism are responsible for organising society in a way that land and resources are controlled in an increasingly inequitable manner. Rural areas are increasingly polarized between a small group of landlords and large agribusinesses who own or control the land and a large group of peasants with marginalized rights to it. Contemporary neoliberalism has exacerbated the struggle for control over resources to the point that just to retain their rights of legal access to the land has become a permanent part of most peasant farmers’ lives.
Peasants’ resistance movements do not simply rest on the rhetoric of unemployment and poverty. They insist on improved quality of life through change in the peasants’ overall relationship to land and resources. They offer a reconnection with earth, natural resources, and society through alternative governance. In this essay I will analyze the making of the precariat and the significance of land reform to our contemporary overall socio-environmental climate conditions. I will then draw upon resistance movements to analyze how peasant protests offer alternatives. It is important that greater attention be paid to—and stronger solidarity be built around—land restitution and redistribution. Without these the shocking decrease in quality of life and independence of peasant farming communities will only continue. The institutionalized system that allows for inequitable power and control over land and resources has caused widespread social, environmental, and cultural damage. Various activist groups worldwide are now contesting this reality and aspire to build a land governance system that is inclusive, just, and responsive to all peoples’ needs and aspirations.
This essay attempts to shine light on the progressive potential of these movements by highlighting both their inspirational value and their effectiveness in achieving meaningful change. The colonial and capitalist hold on land governance is actively questioned and dismantled by these movements as they build a system that reflects better integrated nature-society relations. Active self-determination, liberation, and inclusivity are at the core of their essential understanding of how to successfully oppose the oppressive dictatorship threatening peasant and small farmers’ lives and livelihoods. Using the land as an anchor, protesters’ are taking matters into their own hands as part of a collective rebuilding of contemporary rural society.
From colonialism to capitalism: land dispossession and the formation of the precariat
Land represents an important part of dignity. It has always been central in transforming the relations that people have with each other and the environment. Coloniality (the legacy of colonialism) and capitalism now dictate the vast share of social and ecological interactions. The repercussions of colonial land dispossession—especially the transformation of dispossessed peasants into cheap laborers—are tolerated and persist under neoliberalism. These forces play an active part of everyday life across the planet today. The central political and moral issue of sovereignty over land and resources is obscured by the ideologies and expropriations carried out through privatization, financialization, and commercialization in all their national and international forms of institutional embodiment. Signs of the wounds left behind by the vast exploitation, exclusion, and dispossession caused by these forces are everywhere.
Patric Tariq Mellet (2020:311) reminds us of the significance of the colonization of land by emphasizing that not only was land expropriated but so were “natural resources such as water, a successful livestock farming economy and cattle, indigenous social infrastructure, and institutions of governance, labor, and the added value they created.” Colonial capitalism corrupts relationships to the land through obscure legal notions of territorial possession, legitimizing maximized exploitative control. Examples of this are evident all over the world. Local communities everywhere exercise decreasing control over the resources with which to construct their livelihoods.
In 2019, I travelled to Namaqualand, an arid area that stretches across northern South Africa and southern Namibia, separated by the orange river. Here, a long history of decreasing access to land and resources continues to affect the present of the Nama indigenous community. This comes as colonial notions of territory are imposed by capitalist institutions, marginalizing the Nama by restricting their reconnection with the land. Colonial capitalism intensified exponentially with the discovery of minerals. Nama were dispossessed of their land and forced to “skuif” (shift) continuously as white settlers took control. Understandings between indigenous communities and settlers regarding land use, territorial boundaries, and ownership have been transformed. The use of barriers and fences has redefined access to land and resources. Obstacles to building sustainable indigenous communities continue to increase.
Topography of Namaqualand. Photo by author.
One of these obstacles is the social degradation caused by the systematic erosion of indigenous knowledge systems. Nature is the fundamental asset required for cultural and traditional practice. For example, traditional medicine depends on harvesting resources from the natural environment. However, as white settlers fenced off territories, access to natural resources became increasingly difficult. Essential elements of community cohesion were thereby undermined. A local Nama descendant described to me the generational impact of not being able to fulfill important traditions. He pointed to a hill and listed two different resources that used to be harvested from the rugged landscape. One of these was used for newborn babies as a boost to their immune system, the other was used to heal the digestive system in adults. Both resources are only found in mountainous areas which are now largely fenced off. Harsh consequences result from the “trespassing” necessary to continue harvesting these necessities. For medical assistance rural communities are increasingly forced to rely on poorly resourced clinics that do not respond in a timely manner. Indigenous people’s agency through deep and sustained interaction with the natural environment is restricted. This severely limits the power of the community’s social infrastructure including that provided by traditional community healers. Many Nama descendants feel lost as their relations with the natural environment and with each other have become degraded. They are forced to see themselves through the eyes of capitalism—as mere workers—instead of as healers, farmers, and teachers who determine and carry out the important and complex interchanges between nature and society.
Land signifies an essential component of freedom. Michael Polanyi (1944) warned about the imbalance of freedoms in a complex society by highlighting the contradiction of increased versus weakened “freedoms” that are facilitated through institutions. Those aligned with the aspirations of capitalism, such as agribusinesses, enjoy a higher level of freedom at the cost of others, especially the poor and exploited. The notion of “free market” is depicted as an efficient system that tends to all human needs, but in reality it only effectively assists those with a very particular socio-economic profile. Democracy under neoliberalism has resulted in the legitimization of hierarchies and oppressions by allowing the capitalist puppeteer to pull the strings behind the scenes of rural society’s structuring social order. In rural areas, especially the agrarian sector, the capitalist agricultural model is institutionalized and advantaged through the state. Instead of protecting the marginalized, neoliberal states severely constrain the transformation of land relations by facilitating the controlling powers of the private sector. The state collaborates with agribusinesses in projecting images of modern bureaucracies and qualified “experts” as solutions to social problems through job creation and training. The reality is an increase in evictions, exploitation, and the insecurity of rights to resources.
Global land grabbing by national and transnational corporations has increasingly pushed locals off the land. This creates a landless precariat whose immiseration is legitimized through harsh legislation, privatized notions of land use and ownership, and the disregard for alternative value systems. A colonial capitalist legacy pervades all social relations. The use of title deeds can nurture empowerment, but—usually to a much greater extent—lead to disempowerment. Colonial legacies of land ownership laws and practices allow those who are forced into compromised traditional land use practices, or who have no title deeds, to have land taken from them. Such theft is perpetrated by disregarding the fact that the system of “land ownership” itself has been imposed through colonial conquest. Indigenous groups use a different vocabulary the define their relationship to the land. They speak of “belonging” to the land, to a specific area, and not necessarily owning the land. Under neoliberalism, “ownership” through strategic privatization has removed other forms of property rights (e.g., collective rights) and suppressed alternative social ordering. The monetized commodification of land and natural resources has left many at the mercy of the private sector for basic ecological services such as access to water and firewood to support their livelihoods.
In response to these injustices, movements are resisting both the economic and ontological consequences of capitalist land grabs. They contest the inferiority bestowed on peasants (coloniality) and exploitation (capitalism) by attempting to strengthen their rights to land. Historically, reducing people of color to cheap labor facilitated “civilization” becoming synonymous with capitalism (Ngcukaitobi, 2018). Oppressive value systems have destroyed heritage as they have increasingly enforced a monetized calculus of worth. The focus on agriculture has shifted from people-centered food production to mass production for maximized profit through export. In most cases, food insecurity is the result of poor foundational principles regarding the management of land and resources and not due to the lack of agricultural potential. This is why advocacy of “food sovereignty” has become such a crucial policy adopted by resistance movements. It affirms indigenous peoples’ right to their intimate relation with the land.
The struggle for land reform, experiences from the Global South
“It is this “labour of the negative,” these struggles that are held up by organisations, these movements that are building the confidence and power of the working class and peasantry, that would be able to drive the agenda forward. They build the road by walking.”
Although it is not always portrayed as such, resistance movements are merely demanding their rights to equality and freedom. The goal of land reform for resistance movements is to improve peoples’ relationship to the land, one that is less economically focussed and yields more justice to the people who work the land. Resistance movements aim to heal the toxic individualism of neoliberalism and establish community-centered relations to the land. Instead of artificially intensive agriculture, movements promote agro-ecological and traditional agriculture that is in better harmony with Earth and society. Such resistance movements can be found all over the world, doing the hard work of physically building a land system that is inclusive rather than exclusive. A lot can be learned from these movements and the way in which they are contesting oppressive systems and building the road to a better future.
1. Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurias Sem Terra (MST), Brazil
The MST formed a national movement in 1984 and is seen as one of the most influential and dynamic movements globally. The movement was formed by rural workers fighting for land reform, contesting the violent impacts of private property rights and agribusinesses. The land question dates back to Brazil’s colonial history when the Portuguese stole land and introduced latifundios—landed estates producing monoculture crops and forcing indigenous and imported slaves to become agricultural laborers. Colonialism and capitalism worked hand in hand to violently change the relationship people had with the land and forced landless individuals to sell their labor power. Today the landholding elite still control the majority of the land. The 2017 census of Brazil shows that almost 50% of rural land is controlled by 1% of the landowners (Tricontinental, 2020). Economic and political power lie in the hands of the large landowners, industrial capital, transnational agricultural corporations, and banks, all of which are profit-driven and have little interest in the social well-being of the country (Stédile, 2020).
The MST contests this and puts the social first. It operates largely through systematic land occupations, resettling landless families on unoccupied land. The MST is fighting the effects of the capitalist agribusiness model that focuses on mass production, monoculture, and the intense use of machinery. It opposes the view that the value of natural resources should be measured as commodities in a way that allows financial capital to control the relationship between natural resources and human beings. The agribusiness model is organized to increase the profits of large corporations. The MST aims to offer an alternative: an agro-ecological model that is just, egalitarian, and not detrimental to the environment. This movement firmly believes that agrarian reform can only take place through social change. It therefore invests in political education that provides peasants with an understanding of how to build an inclusive, mutually reinforcing relationship between nature and society (Karriem, 2009). The territorial struggle for land forms the basis upon which larger social transformation is envisaged and constructed. The MST has inspired various land-centered reform movements around the world.
2. Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) – Peasant Movement of the Philippines
Similar to the MST, the KMP fights against the monopoly of big agribusinesses and landlords that control large tracts of land in the Philippines. After suffering the depredations from Spanish colonialism and later United States imperialism, the land system has remained fragile. Many farmers now find themselves landless, exploited, or possessing insecure tenure. The post-colonial governmental regimes of the past have promised agrarian reform, but the entrenched power of the landlord class has persisted. In the rural Philippines, a semi-feudal system which contributes to the violent extraction of capitalism persists. The large comprador landlord class uses both cheap labor and mechanization on its haciendas while also collecting cheap agricultural produce from the traditional rent collecting landlords (Sison, 2020). Small cultivators often cannot keep up with the market pressures and profit margins imposed by larger farms and are systematically pushed off the land. Land grabbing has increased over the years due to agribusinesses and landlords’ avarice. This has left poor peasants and indigenous communities increasingly powerless and landless.
After decades of struggle, the KMP continues to fight for land reform. Resistance primarily takes the form of occupations of haciendas and large landholdings. KMP advocates for, and participates in, collective land cultivation. By organising and mobilising peasants, KMP nurtures a community-driven agro-ecology that improves living conditions. Members are fighting the reality that rural producers who work the land have little or no control or ownership over it. Reclaiming their rights to land is a way to actively build alternative agriculture that is less corporate-driven and more centered on both societal and ecological well-being. Fighting for the legitimacy of secure possession of land by poor farmers, the KMP aims at building an inclusive society capable of using natural resources in a sustainable way.
3. Landless People’s Movement (LPM) of South Africa
When the apartheid regime was replaced with a democratically elected government in South Africa in 1994, many who suffered decades of dispossession and exploitation were hopeful that they would finally be able regain their right to land. At first the government promised to prioritize land reform and indicated that this would be done through land restitution, redistribution, and tenure reform. However, soon it became clear that South Africa’s neoliberal growth path, particularly the Growth Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) macroeconomic policy of 1996, limited actual land reform. While promising land reform to the dispossessed, the government simultaneously strengthened private property rights and protected those with economic power. This enabled landowners to maintain their strangle hold on the land. Very little land has changed from white to Black ownership since the end of apartheid.
LPM rose in 2001 as a result of the negative impacts of neoliberalism on the progress of land reform. While the state’s rhetoric is that land reform targets the landless and poor, the trajectory in fact has been that those capable of commercial productivity are the real target. This means that only those with a particular socio-economic standing benefit. Those for whom social redress is most urgent are ignored. On top of the inadequacies of the land reform programs, increasingly insecure tenure of farmworkers (through systems of casual, seasonal, and contract labor and even outright eviction) has caused further marginalization. LPM attempts to hold the state accountable for land redistribution and tenure reform by standing up for the rights of the landless. They shield farmers from eviction through their mobilizations and critical engagements with government.
Today the movement is no longer as active as it once was. Divisions developed within the movement over the best approach to take towards government. Some activists advocated a radical stance while others insisted on a more bureaucratic one (Greenberg, 2004). Nonetheless, the movement has been crucial is establishing the principle that those most vulnerable under the apartheid regime must not remain marginalized under neoliberal economic restructuring.
Although some land reform programs have been introduced, these programs have often remained contained within the confines of capitalism. States continue to place restrictive conditions on redistributing land, holding beneficiaries accountable to exploitative production standards. Furthermore, landlords are often able to resist transformational change by using the law to their benefit, hiking up land prices and introducing superficial community development programs to avoid scrutiny. Often, land that is intended for redistribution to the landless falls back in the hands of powerful landlords. Movements advocating progressive land reform contest this by giving landless peasants their voices in the continuing struggle for land and the livelihood it provides for human flourishing.
Resistance movements have challenges. Internal conflicts and schisms due to disagreements over tactics and external influences have been an intrinsic part of their evolution. Many states have used violent measures to supress these movements and divert them from their objectives. Land occupations are often met with intense militarized responses from the state. Rural peasants often have their livelihoods and homes destroyed by state officials and are constantly rebuilding and reconstituting themselves as a community. Sadly, displacement has long been part of their identity. Often, strategic killings of members who pose the greatest threat to the capitalist agenda take place with no one being held accountable. Families have to bear the burden of this violence, battling to find those responsible and bring them to justice. Movements have frequently suffered great setbacks even as they continue the struggle for their land rights. Victories are always accompanied by the memory of those who have been lost along the way.
Conclusion
Land reform is fundamental to decolonization. In much of the world, control over land and resources continues to be governed by colonial and capitalist legacies. Land reform has a dual function: reparation for historical crimes of dispossession and the creation of a building block with which to address the necessity of radical environmental change to cope with global warming and the loss of biodiversity. Land reform is not increased privatization. Rather it is the socially- and community-driven reform through which to build sustainable inclusive security and dignity.
Land reform is the anchor. It is not just a struggle by indigenous communities, but one waged on behalf of the vast majority of people that rest at the margins of capitalist society. Those seen as disposable by capitalism have united and taken action in contesting their assigned destiny. Farmers and peasants are building their own futures. These movements may seem powerless relative to the institutionalized social order of capitalism, but they are enabling the precariat by “conscientisizing” its members to create a healthier relationship with the land. These movements are demanding a decentralization of power and control over land and resources. By fighting for land, resource sovereignty, and farmers’ rights to participate in resource use in self-determining ways, land reform movements point toward defining and fulfilling post-capitalist needs and aspirations for everyone. These movements anticipate holistic changes that combine political, social, environmental, and cultural elements. What is required however is greater solidarity and collaboration across all progressive political movements and sectors of society to build a sustainable, inclusive post-capitalist world. This essay has attempted to show why the battle for land reform must be placed at the center of that project.
References
Greenberg, S., 2004. The landless people's movement and the failure of post-apartheid land reform. Centre for Civil Society and School of Development Studies, University of KwaZulu Natal.
Karriem, A., 2009. The rise and transformation of the Brazilian landless movement into a counter-hegemonic political actor: a Gramscian analysis. Geoforum, 40(3), pp.316-325.
Mellet, P.T., 2020. The lie of 1652: a decolonised history of land. Tafelberg: Cape Town.
More, M.P., 2017. Biko: philosophy, identity and liberation. Human Science Research Council Press: Cape Town.
Ngcukaitobi, T., 2018. The land Is ours: Black lawyers and the birth of constitutionalism in South Africa. Penguin Random House, South Africa.
Polanyi, K., 1944. The great transformation. Gollancz: London.
Sédile, J.P., 2020. Interview with Vijay Prashad. Tricontinental Institute for Social Research. Sixteenth Newsletter.
Sison, J.M., 2020. Semifeudalism in the Philippines. Peasant Movement of the Philippines (webinar).
Tricontinental, 2020. Popular agrarian reform and the struggle for land in Brazil. Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, Dossier, n27.