Property & Democracy

The Central Thesis: Property as a Source of Democratic Disorder

The speakers began by diagnosing what they call the “disordering effect” of modern property discourse. Since the post-World War II period, and especially under neoliberal ideology, private property has been reframed as an absolute and unrestricted right. This shift, they argued, has detached property law from its democratic and social context. In that manner, ownership elevates as an inviolable personal liberty rather than a social institution that exists within a collective framework.

They emphasised that the neoliberal conception of ownership treats state regulation as illegitimate interference. Such narratives, evident in debates surrounding the Dutch nitrogen crisis, portray property rights as natural and untouchable, which is an idea the speakers argue lacks grounding in European legal tradition. They claimed that this creates a paradox: property law is profoundly political that shapes economic and social hierarchies, yet it is simultaneously presented as an apolitical domain of private relations. This depoliticisation enables property to accumulate power while remaining shielded from democratic scrutiny.

Methodological Framework: The “Three Registers” of Property

The speakers implemented a tripartite analytical model called Resilient Property Theory, composed of three “registers”:

1. Rhetorical Register:
   The cultural and ideological narratives surrounding ownership where property is treated as freedom, autonomy, and moral virtue.
2. Hierarchical Register:
   The institutional and legal structures that organise property rights, including doctrines, court decisions, and constitutional frameworks.
3. Material Register:
   The lived, social experience of property, meaning the real and tangible effects of ownership and non-ownership on people’s lives (e.g., precarity, exclusion, inequality).

This three-dimensional view is aimed at bridging the gap between abstract legal principles and everyday realities. The speakers criticised economists and political scientists for discussing “property rights” in oversimplified terms and argued that it detaches from what property law actually does in practice.

Diagnosing Property’s “Three Traits”: Exceptionalism, Absolutism, and Permanence

In their preliminary findings, the researchers identified three key traits that characterise property’s current dominance:

Property Exceptionalism: The idea that property exists outside democratic and legal accountability. For example, gated communities that self-govern beyond public oversight.

Property Absolutism: The idea that ownership entails total autonomy, with state interference permitted only under strict justification and compensation. This rhetoric is claimed to have intensified since the mid-20th century.

Property Permanence: The idea that property rights are inherently enduring as they are passed down through inheritance and resistant to redistribution. This permanence reinforces inequality by allowing wealth to reproduce itself across generations.

Together, these traits have transformed property into an autonomic source of authority as property is positioned above both the democratic political and legal systems.

Preliminary Research Insights and Future Directions

As this research is still in its early, diagnostic stage, the speakers used several examples to illustrate how property’s dominance manifests across different contexts. In South Africa’s post-apartheid constitutional framework, for instance, the democratic commitment to redistribution often clashes with deeply entrenched property regimes. Similarly, in European housing markets, the rise of investment ownership and financialisaton has distorted access to housing. On a global scale, state and corporate actors continue to concentrate property ownership under neoliberal globalisation. Beyond these examples, the speakers plan to examine non-Western property philosophies, particularly Ubuntu and Asian traditions, to explore alternative concepts of ownership.

A Tension Between the Past and the Future

A recurring theme in the talk is the tension between the backward-looking nature of property and the forward-looking nature of democracy as the former protects past entitlements and the latter aims to reshape the future. Following this logic, there lies a temporal discrepancy which causes friction in areas like environmental policy, housing, and redistribution. The speakers proposed reframing property as something open to change through democratic processes, rather than as a static, pre-political right. They argued that doing so requires confronting the ideological power of property rhetoric, what they call the “illusion of shared interest” between ordinary homeowners and economic elites.

Critiques and Discussion

During the Q&A session, several observations and comments deepened the discussion on property, democracy, and power. One participant raised concerns about how the so-called “sharing economy” and digital platforms have, in reality, concentrated ownership and control in the hands of a few powerful corporations, thereby undermining democratic processes. The speakers agreed with this critique and connected it to historical waves of financialisaton and digital abstraction that have gradually detached property from its material and social context. They emphasised the importance of distinguishing between household owners and large-scale investment owners while also warning against the “illusion of shared interest” that masks growing inequality between ordinary homeowners and economic elites.

Another participant called for greater methodological and conceptual clarity in the research, particularly in how the researchers define “rhetoric,” “democracy,” and “property.” They suggested the need to map the different rhetorical and intellectual traditions that shape the concept of property and the need to articulate a clearer definition of democracy. In response, the speakers acknowledged this point and mentioned that they deliberately embrace a degree of complexity, what they referred to as “staying with the mess”, rather than oversimplifying a multifaceted issue.

Questions about the scope and focus of the research also arose. Several participants questioned whether the project primarily examines property law itself or property as a broader economic and political phenomenon, and whether the real issue lies in law, wealth, or constitutional protection of property. The speakers clarified that their work investigates how legal structures legitimise and stabilise (un)democratic power and that their aim is to repoliticise property, not abolish it. They also acknowledged the necessity of including an international dimension, given that wealth and ownership now easily transcend national boundaries.

Another line of questioning addressed the issue of public versus private power. Some participants pointed out that “private” property often functions as a form of public authority, as seen in Big Tech’s influence over digital spaces. The speakers agreed and noted that modern property frequently operates as a form of private sovereignty which inevitably blurs the traditional divide between public and private governance.

Finally, several online participants raised questions about the relationship between democracy, autonomy, and regulation. They asked whether restricting property owners’ freedoms could still be considered democratic. The speakers responded that democracy requires a balance between liberty and security, and argued that excessive liberty that is manifested in unchecked property rights can erode equality and justice. They emphasised that regulation, not abolition, offers a sustainable and democratic path forward, and pointed to Dutch rent control reforms as a practical example of how the state can intervene to rebalance property relations without undermining ownership itself.