A research paper presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts (MA) Human Rights, Witwatersrand University, South Africa 16 February 2015 / The research looks at the coordination of land policy with population growth and biodiversity loss as a means through which economic, social and cultural rights may be achieved. The argument is made that poor coordination of land policy with social and environmental systems may perpetuate the circumstances that drive poverty in Africa. This given the fact that land policy is a public policy that may challenge the legitimacy of economic, social and cultural rights when not properly coordinated with social and environmental systems. The research questions what considerations are taken into account when determining land policy that reflects the economic, social and cultural needs of the people within a respective State. Given clearly identified dependencies on land for development by the majority of the African population, the research aims to address how land policy may be reformed in order to take on a multilateral perspective regarding coordination, as opposed to the current unilateral perspective that stays within the realm of land administration and commoditization of land. The hypothesis of the paper assumes that current land policies in Africa challenge the legitimacy of economic, social and cultural rights since coordinated with the systems of population growth and biodiversity loss as representatives of social and environmental sectors that most influence poverty are non-existent. The research focuses on the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Kingdom of Lesotho as comparative regions where; regardless of the differing characteristics of both regions, population growth and biodiversity loss prove to be common factors that influence society’s experience of poverty. The paper makes use of structural functionalism and conflict theory as a framework for analysis. Finally, the paper makes suggestions for further study into multilateral land policy reform as a contributing factor to the achievement of human rights. Key Words: Biodiversity Loss, Child Mortality, Corruption, DRC, Economic Social and Cultural Rights, Environmental Services, Food Security, Health, Housing, ICESCR, Land Policy, Land Tenure, Lesotho, Population Growth, World Bank

This thesis is not a life history of Archie Mafeje. Instead, it is an attempt to grapple with his ideas. This thesis is said to be a ‘biography’ insofar as it is dedicated to a study of one individual and his contribution to knowledge. In trying to understand Mafeje’s ideas and the intellectual and political environment that shaped them, the thesis relies on Lewis R. Gordon’s concept of ‘epistemic possibility’. The thesis comprises four main parts. Part I locates Mafeje and his work within the broader African intellectual and political environment. Part II evaluates his critique of the social sciences. Part III focuses on his work on land and agrarian issues in sub-Saharan Africa. Part IV deals with his work on revolutionary theory and politics. Broadly speaking, this thesis is the first comprehensive engagement with the entire body of Mafeje’s scholarship. Specifically, the unique perspective of this thesis, and therefore its primary contribution to the existing body of knowledge, is that it seeks to overturn the idea that Mafeje was a critic of the discipline of anthropology only. The view that Mafeje was a mere critic of anthropology is in this thesis referred to as the standard view or the conventional view. The thesis argues that Mafeje is best understood as criticising all of the bourgeois social sciences for being Eurocentric and imperialist. This is offered as the alternative view. The thesis argues that the standard view makes a reformist of Mafeje, while the alternative view seeks to present him as the revolutionary scholar that he was. This interpretation lays the foundation for a profounder analysis of Mafeje’s work. In arguing that all the social sciences are Eurocentric and imperialist, he sought to liquidate them and therefore called for ‘non-disciplinarity’. It should be noted that in this regard, the primary focus of this thesis consists in following the unit of his thought and not whether he succeeded or failed in this difficult task. / Sociology / D. Litt. et Phil. (Sociology)