Why asking the right questions about Maya Customary Land Tenure in southern Belize is important: Freedom for Somerset, Toledo, and the World?
My home village is in Somerset, England. It is a place I consider
myself incredibly fortunate to be from. All my childhood memories
are there, it is the seat of all of the culture that both created me and
belongs to me, it is where everyone who raised me still resides; it is,
in honesty, the only place I am wholly comfortable to spend any great
length of time.
It is possible, however, that my wife and I will never own a home
there. I have often asked, “why am I not, by simple virtue of being
from here, allowed to live here if I choose?”.
In theorising a reason for this, you could posit that ‘we have not yet
spent enough of our time and resources in the pursuit of financial
capital’. That is true – we place high value on living in a way we
enjoy, spent much of our time exploring together, and much of our
limited income on education. But you could also theorise that the
reason we cannot live in our own village is because it has become
possible to exclude people from owning property there by allowing
that property to be sold on an open market – hence, we need to focus
all of our efforts on accruing money. This is because land is alienable;
it is ‘my village’ in the linguistic and philosophical sense, but legally,
there is no part that I have any control over or claim to.
This sounds a very familiar concept to anyone born in England. In
actual fact, one might argue that England, or perhaps Europe, and
those that are cultural and legal descendants of it, are strange in this
sense. But no one seems to; instead we expect that others will fall in
line eventually, coming to their senses and seeing that someone who
is born, raised, works, has friends, interests, knowledge, memories –
in short, forms a part of the social and physical fabric of a place –
ought to stop having a right to live in that place unless they dedicate
their life to making enough money to do so. Even if they do, a significant part of that money-making will nearly always necessitate movement away from the area, which in this example is too rural to
begin a high-paid career. And what about those who simply don’t
have the capacity to access high paid work?
There is a huge amount that could be said about the incredibly odd
way that my society has been shaped, but this piece is not about
England specifically. As a frame of reference, however, it serves as
useful insofar as it can be seen as a backward system when considered
against the customary land usage of other societies. The Maya
villages of southern Belize offer one such system.
My main intention is not to explain in detail why the system is
important for the Maya people, the usual and incredibly worthwhile
approach, but to think instead about why it is important from the
outside, looking in. My main argument is this: That instead of arguing
against the Maya Customary Land Tenure system because not
everyone in Belize (or the world) has those rights, it may be
instructive to begin to think about what it means for all people to be
free to live in the way that they value. I will attempt this by exploring
an oft-asked question surrounding the land rights movement.
Firstly, though, I will briefly describe the Maya land system and its
context.
A Maya village in southern Belize owns its land communally. This is
not the same as everyone being able to do whatever they like with any
land; family units hold and use land (largely, for living or farming).
This looks a lot like England, albeit in the jungle; families ‘own’ their
land, and farm on it over years. But a family could not simply sell
land. If they moved away permanently, the land becomes the
community’s to allocate as necessary. And if a family wanted to move
into the village, they would need to be accepted by the village first,
but if successful, would not pay a price for property ownership
(although, potentially a small price for membership of the community,
in lieu of communal work done over the years).
Decisions about what happens to land, if it affects the community
(which is to say, goes beyond the norms of provision for the family), are made communally. Village meetings provide a platform for
consensus decision-making. In this way, members of the community
have a say in what happens not only on their own ‘property’, but on
and in their village. (Imagine how many poorly thought-out housing
developments, how many ecological disasters, might have been
avoided in rural Britain…)
The Maya have only recently had their land rights upheld, in a ruling
handed down by the Caribbean Court of Justice. That means that their
collective ownership of the land is now affirmed by the state, and a
legislation to provide guidance on how this will work is being drafted.
But the process has been slow, and is the subject of much contention.
Now to the aforementioned question. People, presumably who are
from the ownership background I am from, often ask, “why should
they get special privileges?”.
Let us examine that question, because I believe through doing so, we
can open up avenues of thought that might be more beneficial for
everyone.
It is often said that the ‘special privileges’ are that the Maya are being
‘given’ a certain amount of land. This is the first problem with the
formulation of the question. They have used the land for a long time.
But it is understandable that people would substitute ‘land given to’
for the concept of ‘having rights to land recognised’ if the observer
knows only the capitalist land ownership system; in that system, if
one is not buying the land, it must be given. In fact, of course, the
Maya can – that is, have the right to – use that land, simply by virtue
of being from it. Nothing is being given – rather, it is being stopped
from being taken away.
If the Maya people are not, then, being given land at the expense of
others in, say, Belize City, the ‘special privileges’ are simply to be
able to live how they please on their own land. The question then
becomes – what I think is really being said here – “why should the
Maya be able to (continue to) live in the way that I might value,
whilst I cannot?”. This is not a stupid question. The problem is that it is directed towards the Maya villages, with the intention of stopping
them from living in that manner. This seems to be based on the
reasoning of equity; the simple notion (an obvious fallacy) that a
nation will provide each of its subjects with an equitable lot in life.
What will be the outcome of asking this question in this way? The
Maya may not have land rights, more than likely the land will be
bought by foreigners for conservation, tourism, agriculture, etc.… and
life will change for no one else. That is to say, the people asking the
question do not get a better life, unless they already have lots of
money and consider buying a portion of indigenous lands as a
conservation area to be fundamental to their happiness.
What if the question instead read, “now it has been proven that there
are opportunities to relate to land in other ways, shall we explore what
this might mean for everyone?”. This question should be directed
towards the Maya villages, who, after all, have experience in this
matter. It should also be directed to everyone else, such that an open
and honest discussion about what it is that people actually want can
be conducted.
We do not know what the outcome of such a discussion would be.
The initial question being asked at all assumes that there are some in
society who do wish to live differently; or even, they feel it is unfair
that they are predetermined to live in a certain way, whilst others are
free to choose, even if they would ultimately decide to live a system
similar to that which is currently imposed (neither is that an inherently
foolish thing to feel, in my opinion). It is not really the resulting way
in which people choose to live that is at stake here. Some may have
communal land, worked communally, others worked privately, some
in kinship lineages; others might pass their property on through sale,
other inheritance, others random selection; some may believe in
monarchy, others republics, dictates of divine power; nations,
communes, kingdoms, councils; the possibilities are almost endless.
What we do know is that, by asking the right questions, it is possible
to demonstrate the freedom that society has. This is not individual freedom to impose on others, but it is the invitation to the table of
decision-making about what social life in the world actually consists
of. We are a long way from that in most countries. But there is a
glimpse here in Belize, and I am grasping at it.
So instead of asking why some people are allowed to live how they
want – through special privileges – could we not ask why we are not
all allowed to live how we want, recognise that we are if we demand
it of ourselves, and do something about it?
What does this all mean for the question of changing land use in my
English village?
Should we do it? The answer to that question would require a vast
amount of research, and the will of the people; it is not for me alone
to say. Clearly, changing culturally and legally embedded systems of
anything is not something to be taken lightly.
But, could we do it?
Knowing that the answer to this last question is ‘yes’, we accept that
we are choosing the way that we live. To ensure we know that we are
making a choice, is to know that we are free to choose. This is as true
in Somerset as it is in Toledo. It is true anywhere humans make their
homes. This is why asking the right questions about Maya customary
land tenure is important; because if we don’t, we risk our own
freedom.
Let us not argue against diversity in order to reproduce the systems
that restrain us; let us celebrate that others have exercised their
freedom, and let us believe that we can do the same.
Palmer's Pages 