In many parts of the world land ownership is still concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy feudal lords and aristocrats, especially in developing countries with volatile democracies, explains Sachal Abbassi

Land ownership does not merely provide a tangible property claim, but is also a source of social, cultural and economic status, power, and most importantly the means to control the most basic of necessities such as food, water and shelter. Indeed, before the Industrial Revolution and the rise of the bourgeoisie class, it was synonymous with wealth.

It is not surprising that in the past monarchic and aristocratic order was tied to land ownership which engendered feelings of indignation, unfairness and inequality amongst the disadvantaged groups of people, which culminated into the rise of Bolshevism and far left in politics.

Yet, in many parts of the world, the land ownership still remains concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy feudal lords and aristocrats.

This is especially the case in developing countries with volatile democracies, and there is a strong corelation between concentrated land ownership and failed states. Land ownership has important social, economic and cultural effects, and therefore, choosing a land ownership structure in policy-making should be an important goal for the government.

More importantly in Pakistan, the land ownership can have a significant impact on the agricultural sector, which is the backbone of the economy. It is therefore, imperative that to achieve its economic goals, land ownership policy should adequately reflect its broader economic goals.

During the 1950s and ’60s, the main political-economic agenda of the government was to achieve high growth rates in the newborn state.

During this period, technology in the form of water distribution, tractors, efficient seeds and fertilisers was introduced in the farming sector.

Due to the high investment costs required in technology, large landowners found themselves more capable of purchasing the technology and deploying economies of scale; hence the government favoured concentrated land distribution.

Yet, since 1945, there were talks of land reforms in the region which later became Pakistan. The first round of land reforms took place in 1959 led by Ayub Khan, and before that period land distribution was highly concentrated with 0.1 per cent owning more than 15.4 per cent of the aggregate land. There were many provisions and loopholes in the 1959 reforms, including the transfer of land to family members amongst many others. Furthermore, land redistribution did not materialise in the form of wealth redistribution primarily because large landowners were compensated by the government for their loss of land.

The second round of land reforms in 1972 was orchestrated by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto by more democratic means and ends. These land reforms differed from its predecessors in which compensation was not provided; there were fewer exemptions, and a lower ceiling. Yet, beneficiaries of the reforms amounted to a mere one per cent of the overall landless population and these land reforms were unsubstantial in bringing about a major socio-economic change in the country.

An important reason why these land reforms were unable to eliminate landlessness at large is because large landowners commanded a dominant influence over the rural and national politics, which made it difficult to effectively formulate and implement the land reform strategy. While rhetoric and propaganda justifying land reforms attracts a lot of votes, the concerted will of the people is not enough to be at par with the political power possessed by large landowners. Yet, to make a transition to a more egalitarian country, large land ownership needs to be dismantled.

Since Pakistan’s rural poverty is rampant, amounting to 90 per cent of its overall population, and with 67 per cent of the population residing in rural areas, it is important that landlessness rates are decreased throughout the country to accommodate more self-sufficiency of the poor in the rural communities. It is clear that social, economic and political power which arises from land ownership will be more equally and democratically distributed as and when land is more evenly allotted.

Lack of land ownership leaves the poorer classes more vulnerable towards exploitation by landowners. The state is unable to enforce its laws in many areas where land distribution is skewed, and therefore, primitive feudal practices tend to prevail in such regions. Large landowners are also more inclined towards joining politics and the government service, and they use democracy and governance as a supporting engine and a source of legitimisation of feudal social order.

Moral ills, such as corruption, patronage, discrimination, exploitation and nepotism, result from such a set-up and is detrimental to the welfare of not only the rural poor but also for society and the country as a whole. It is against the democratic principles to have power in favour of the privileged class of people, and one of the means to achieve a more egalitarian and a democratic society is executing thorough national land reforms. There are notable cases where providing land to women and socially disadvantaged groups in Pakistan has led to them being more empowered, and the government can indeed re-engineer the political and social sphere by introducing more land distribution reforms.