ABSTRACT
The issue of land reform is compelling not just as a crucial threat to democratic consolidation, but also as
a challenging case for the psychology of justice. In land controversies in transitional regimes around the
globe, the unfairness of the past confronts the fairness of the present as alternative conceptions of justice
collide and conflict. For instance, to what degree should land rights secured under a prior illicit regime be
recognized and honored by the newly formed democratic system? Land reconciliation presents
prototypical problems of transitional justice.
Based on a survey of a large national sample of South Africans conducted in 2004, this paper
investigates the means by which ordinary people adjudicate conflicts between alternative principles of
justice. The survey included a formal experiment, based on a vignette in which the dependent variable is
perceptions of fairness in a land dispute in which a squatter is evicted from private property. Judgments
about the fairness of squatter evictions are hypothesized to be related to the perceived need and
deservingness of the squatter (distributive justice), the due process of the eviction (procedural justice),
and the nature of the current use of the land (individual land rights, rule of law).
The findings indicate that the race of the respondent determines almost all aspects of justice
judgments. The exception is important: South Africans of all races judge the eviction of the squatter as
more fair when the squatter is extended procedural justice. In addition, the group identities of black South
Africans significantly influence the nature of their justice judgments. Thus, this analysis yields important
insights into the role of justice considerations in contemporary land controversies, especially under the
condition of conflict among important principles of justice.
Convention