Accordingly, without private property rights, officials and politicians are both tempted by and capable of undemocratic abuses of power. Resistance requires resources. Democracy requires the existence of real opposition that must be able to mobilize substantial financial resources. This would be impossible in the absence of both private and secure property with which to organize and oppose government policy. For example, unless private citizens own or have the right to use places where they can meet and organize privately, produce and disseminate literature, and hold public meetings and demonstrations, effective democratic processes are clearly impossible.
Dispersed property disperses power.
By the same token, its ownership or control of most of a country's property undermines the distribution of power necessary for effective democracy. Indeed, government ownership or control of mass media is clearly undemocratic. In today's South Africa the debate over land ownership is characterized by a number of false assumptions. First, it is mistakenly assumed that the case for protection of property rights is somehow in conflict with the case for restitution to those who became landless during the years of apartheid. Secondly, it is assumed that the interests of black landowners might not be affected in the future if the country lacks strong property rights for all.