The formulation of a just land reform law is mired in a confusing swamp of domestic and foreign interests largely caused by the government’s inability to both provide and articulate a philosophical framework within which to reform and further modernize Ukraine’s largest economic sector.
From the beginning of this governments’ mandate, the lack of clear leadership has shown how the government lacks an understanding of the public psyche towards land ownership and the depth of the psychological and emotional attachment of Ukrainians towards their land.
In its historic attempt to enact land reform and modernize the agricultural sector to Western standards, while attempting to attract foreign investment, the government, to date, has yet to answer the most fundamental of questions: how do you convince the country’s majority to further effectively modernize its largest economic sector by creating the legal context to attract investment? And second, how to overcome the psychological and rhetorical barriers of an electorate whose mindset has been shaped, and continues to be affected by serfdom, forced collectivization, the Holodomor, the dominance of oligarchic agricultural practice, the perceived threat of foreign ownership of land and the illegal occupation by Russia of 7 percent of its land?
The process is at best, confused. At worst, In the discussion of land reform in a transforming democracy, the principle of individual property rights, has yet to be uttered.
In economically thriving and free market democracies, the role of governments has been to ensure that a legal framework for individual land ownership is guaranteed in law. In addition, an effective and just legal code be enacted that would respect and protect the principle of individual land ownership.
Lacking in the debate is the government’s inability to confirm that it is being guided by a fundamental principle of democracy; that citizens have an essential and “natural” right to own property and that these individual interests would be effectively codified and protected in law. The majority of Ukraine’s population is not confident, nor has it been assured, that its government is prepared to confirm and articulate the sovereignty of its peoples the right to determine and decide the destiny of the land upon which they reside.
The government does not seem to have heeded Milton Friedman’s dictum, “that nothing is so important for freedom as recognizing in the law each individual’s natural right to property, and giving individuals a sense that they own something that they’re responsible for, that they have control over, and that they can dispose of.”
If the government was to frame the debate along these lines, the psychological and emotional recalcitrance of Ukraine’s majority would probably dissipate. At the same time, it would put into a more factual perspective the concerns regarding the concentration of land ownership, equitable accessibility to arable land, transparency in land acquisition and disposal, legal protection of individual and small landowners and the overcoming the fear of foreign land ownership and participation in the agricultural sector.
Attracting further and continual investment in the agricultural sector, whether it be domestic or foreign, is essential if the sector is to reach its potential. Thus, it must be further exposed to free-market disciplines to increase sectoral efficiencies, to create investor confidence that would inspire an increase in infrastructural investment, affirm continued access to foreign markets, enable further integration to western markets, and create a smooth pathway to employing new technologies.
At the moment, Ukraine’s agricultural sector is the most important gateway to direct foreign investment. How land reform is handled, will send clear signals as to what extent Ukraine is willing to transform itself into a vibrant free and rules-based market.
How can the government overcome the psychological and rhetorical barriers it faces with the majority of the electorate?
It must establish the rhetorical high ground amongst the public by putting the question of property rights if the process of land reform is to succeed, something that due to its lack of political expertise and acumen it has, heretofore, failed to do,
It must frame and establish a foundation on a rhetorical based on the fundamental democratic principle of “property rights,” philosophically arguing and convincing Ukraine’s citizens of its commitment that the basis for democracy and the free market is based on a guarantee that citizens have the right to freely own property and to do with it what they so choose.
They must argue that the strategic and primary goal of land reform is a form of wealth creation that will anchor the establishment of a middle class especially in rural areas and provide an opportunity for the transference of generational wealth.
They must present the argument that there is an opportunity to create economic efficiencies and economic stimulus in rural areas that would have to potential to curtail massive migration to urban areas and stabilize the rural population.
And perhaps most important, they must illustrate that this landmark piece of legislation will usher in a new epoch of justice regarding land ownership in a country that has suffered serfdom, collectivization, a Holodomor, and the negative impacts of the oligarchic practice.
To conclude, if the process of enacting laws towards fundamental land reform is to be successful it must primarily illustrate the direct benefits and interests of individual landowners and the potential for profit. In addition, it must argue that land reform will provide a viable and sustainable economic model and justification for the modernization of the agriculture sector. All this must seem to have been done in a transparent democratic context whereby Ukrainians feel that they have influenced, controlled and determined the destiny of their own lands through their national government and their elected representatives.
