In Zimbabwe, the question of land distribution and redistribution (land reform) is perhaps the most crucial and the most bitterly contested political issue today. Do you think the land issue is the pinnacle of the problems Zimbabwe is facing today? Briefly here is the history of land reform in Zimbabwe since the last century from the history books of Zimbabwe. For more information regarding the subject. I have included links with detailed articles for reference to the issue under discussion from different perspective with the aim of getting far reaching and informed opinions on the land reform question. Post your comments here.
After self-government was granted in 1923 the Southern Rhodesia House of Assembly decided to make a legal framework for the allocation of land. The Land Apportionment Act 1930, which was the basis for subsequent Acts and continued in effect until independence, allocated the land of the colony between areas where only Europeans could own property, areas which were held "in trust" for African tribes on a collective basis and areas where only Africans could own property. One practical effect of the apportionment was that some African families were ejected from land they had worked for generations. The anger this caused had a profound impact on the politics of Zimbabwe in the post Independence period.
The lack of individual title to areas in Tribal Trust Lands made it difficult to develop such land through soil improvement, grading, irrigation, drainage and roads. Few Africans had access to the capital funds necessary to buy large plots of land designated for sale to them in the Native Purchase areas. But white settlers were able to buy and develop large areas of farmland. The designated white areas tended to be in the uplands where the rainfall was higher and soil thinner - where large scale, mechanised farming was most economic. Government policy favoured the more lucrative white commercial farmers through support of training, direct grants, loan guarantee schemes and funding for agricultural research. Also, rural road building programmes favoured white farming areas.
In the 1950s the government of Garfield Todd did make some attempts to address problems of land tenure and development in the Tribal Trust Lands, but these attempts were never popular with the largely white electorate. Many members of the white community had supported the Unilateral Declaration of Independence regime of Ian Smith, which had taken over the government in the mid-1960s and broke with Britain over proposals for eventual democracy.
There was therefore a marked racial imbalance in the ownership and distribution of land. Zimbabwean whites, although making up less than 1% of the population, owned more than 70% of the arable land, comprising mainly the best. However, in many cases this land was more fertile because it was titled, resulting in incentives for commercial farmers to create reservoirs, irrigate, and otherwise tend the soil. Communal lands, with no property rights, were characterized by slash and burn agriculture, resulting in the tragedy of the commons. Since the implementation of the most recent land reforms of the 4,500 commercial farmers, only 300 remain on farms. The eviction of the mostly white farmers has been partly blamed by aid agencies and critics for Zimbabwe's worst famine in living memory.
7 comments:
It certainly is one of the biggest causes, being other the refusal to take the democratic road on the part of the current government. Forgive me if I don´t have all the details but, even agreeing on the essential injustice of the land property status in Zimbabwe, how come the so called 'land reform' (actually the eviction of white farmers) be so poorly designed and implemented so as to cause such a disaster? I would try to offer an answer in the form of a rethorical hypothesis: Could it be what was put in place is not even a land redistribution plan but a way to reward friends and cronies in exchange for political support? Isn´t the so called 'land reform' a sort of punishment against foes -not only white farmers but also members of the political opposition and people connected to them- instead of the -necessary but sound and efficient- correction of a social injustice?
AN INTERESTING but rather regrettable trend is developing. President Robert Mugabe's supporters are growing bit by bit across the globe.
Former Zambian leaders, Kenneth Kaunda and Frederick Chiluba, and a host of other African nationalists have never hidden their support for Zimbabwe's recalcitrant ruler.
South African President Thabo Mbeki may arguably be counted amongst them. Ghanaian journalist Baffour Ankomah whose support for Mugabe suggests all sorts of conspiracies.
It has always been easy to brush aside this line-up on the grounds that it subscribes to the old school mentality. A group of people who have yet to forgive the West for the atrocities it committed against the developing world during the last century.
But there seems to be a change. The support may be assuming an inter-generational aspect.
Recently in Leeds I had a discussion with an energetic young Ugandan lawyer of my age who didn't hide his support for Mugabe's defiance against the West. To him Mugabe is an African hero, a liberator par excellence. In the heat of the argument, more and more guys from Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa and Nigeria soon joined in to side with the lawyer.
“Man dat ting which he (Mugabe) did of taking white farms was good man. I like it,” quipped a Nigerian. The whole thing turned emotional when a few more guys from the Middle East, particularly Iran and Iraq joined in.
In bad English, one of them said how sad he was that there were people who thought Mugabe was wrong when all what he did was to “empower” his people.
“You guys must be grateful for this gentleman called Mugabe. These Western people are bad,” the lawyer reminded us. “Bad, bad, bad and bad! Look at what they are doing in Iraq. They are not criticising (Olusegun) Obasanjo and (Yoweri) Museveni of Uganda because they are puppets.”
It is interesting to note how most of the people in the developing world fail to link the bad publicity Mugabe is receiving directly with the suffering he has caused to his people. It should also be noted that all this support for the wayward ruler feeds also from the insincerity of the Western leaders whose double standards when dealing with the African leaders is legendary.
Rather than be blinded by the Western double standards to the extent of heaping praises on people of Mugabe's calibre, the African people had better give themselves time to see what damage he has caused to his own people first.
It is no coincidence that the first people to be suspicious about Mugabe's rise to power were the Africans themselves. History has it that after the coup against Ndabaningi Sithole in prison, Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere and his Mozambican counterpart, Samora Machel were reluctant to accept Mugabe as a genuine revolutionary.
It is interesting to note that all the awards which Mugabe received from a knighthood to honorary degrees were in their large numbers issued by the Western institutions, and not the Africans celebrating the shining of an African patriot.
So all this shows that rather view Mugabe as a victim of Western propaganda, it is essential that we note the fact that there was already enough African scepticism about Mugabe well before CNN and BBC began to excoriate him.
Former South Africa Nelson Mandela's refusal to fully embrace Mugabe even though he had projected himself as an anti-apartheid stalwart was not a side show but a telling gesture from an African icon. It is the same with Desmond Tutu and Wole Soyinka's unyielding stance on Mugabe. It will be hard to imagine they have betrayed Africa by pointing at Mugabe.
The reasons for all this are very clear. Mugabe's ascendancy to the summit of the greasy pole was largely characterised blood spilling and all sorts of sad rumours.
Think of the death of Hebert Chitepo, disappearance of Edson Sithole, death of Tongogara and many other related sad tales.
Today, Mugabe's name is not bad because he seized farms from white people and oversaw the murder of at least 12 white farmers. It is bad because of a carefully crafted programme of subduing the African electorate through Gukurahundi, the shooting of opposition politicians and activists, the arrest and torture of journalists. Mugabe's unpopularity is purely Africa although it is sung more in the Western media. The reason for this has been that there are few or weaker African media voices of global note as compared to the Western institutions.
Occasionally some white casualties have accrued here and there along Mugabe's path but all the way from his prison coup up to today, Mugabe's political prosperity is largely irrigated by black blood.
Time has come for the African people to judge their people by what they are doing to them. It is therefore clear that to commit ourselves to the Western double standards in trying to redeem ourselves is to flee from the centre of issues and more worryingly, it is to let the real instigators of our suffering run away with murder.
If the Western media is reluctant to condemn the likes of Obasanjo and the veteran Uganda dictator Museveni, we should not use that as a reason to keep quiet about Mugabe.
In the case of Mugabe, it is not like the West has prodded us into condemning him but they have joined us to weep and have made our cries louder. The reality is that there was African tears flowing well before there was any drop of a tear in the farmlands
This is another piece of information I read from Wikipedia Online encyclopedia relating to the Land Reform process since Lancaster House Constitution. The First constitution for independent Zimbabwe made in conjunction with the British in 1979. Hopefully it summarises what has been happening in the stone house. My aim is to look back and sift the information to find a wholesome and concrete solution to some of these problems which what we are seeing are just a tip of an iceberg.
Lancaster House Agreement
After the Lancaster House Agreement paved the way for democracy, and elections were won by Robert Mugabe in late February 1980. The three-month long Lancaster House conference nearly failed over land issues. However, the British agreed to fund reform, on a Willing buyer, Willing seller principle, where farmers who were unwilling to stay in Zimbabwe would be bought out by funds provided by the British through the Zimbabwe government.
1980s
In 1981 the British were instrumental in setting up the Zimbabwe conference on reconstruction and development. At that conference, more than £630 million of aid was pledged.
In 1981 the Communal Land Act changed the Tribal Trust Lands into Communal Areas and shifted land authority from traditional rulers to local authorities.
In 1985 the Land Acquisition Act, though drawn in the spirit of the 1979 Lancaster House "willing seller, willing buyer" clause (which could not be changed for 10 years), the Act gave the government the first right to purchase excess land for redistribution to the landless. The Act, however, had a limited impact largely because the government did not have the money to pay compensation to landowners. In addition, white farmers mounted a vigorous opposition to the Act. Because of the "willing seller, willing buyer" clause, the government was powerless in the face of the farmers' resistance. As a result, between 1980 and 1990, only 71,000 families out of a target of 162,000 were resettled.
1992
In 1992 the Land Acquisition Act was enacted to speed up the land reform process by removing the "willing seller, willing buyer" clause. The Act empowered the government to buy land compulsorily for redistribution, and a fair compensation was to be paid for land acquired. Landowners were given the right to go to court if they did not agree to the price set by the acquiring authority. Opposition by landowners increased throughout the period 1992-1997.
Thus some land was purchased by the land fund, but few families were resettled while hundreds of abandoned and expropriated white farms ended up in the hands of cabinet ministers, senior government officials and wealthy indigenous businessmen. The British and Americans cut their losses and money, alleging widespread corruption. To date, the elites have the land and fewer than 70,000 of the people of Zimbabwe have been resettled, most without the necessary infrastructure to work the huge commercial farms from the 12 hectare plots they have been allocated.
Britain withdrew aid to the land reform programme, accusing Mugabe of giving the land to his "cronies". (London now claims to have contributed £44m, but Timothy Stamps, Zimbabwe's health minister, says only £17m was contributed by Britain).
By that time British contribution in terms of aid to Zimbabwe stood at a half billion pounds in support since independence. Furthermore, £47 million of that was specifically targeted for land reform and approximately £100 million was budgetary support which could have been used for land reform.
1997
As part of the implementation of the 1992 Land Acquisition Act, the government published a list of 1,471 farmlands it intended to buy compulsorily for redistribution. The list came out of a nationwide land identification exercise undertaken throughout the year. Landowners were given 30 days (as the 1992 Act demanded) to submit written objections.
1998
In June 1998 the government published its "policy framework" on the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme Phase II (LRRP II) which envisaged the compulsory purchase over five years of 50,000 km² from the 112,000 km² owned by commercial farmers (both black and white), parastatal corporations, churches, non-governmental organizationss and multi-national companies. Broken down, the 50,000 km² meant that every year (between 1998 and 2003), the government intended to purchase 10,000 km² for redistribution.
In September 1998 the government called a donors conference in Harare on land reform (LRRP II); 48 countries and international organisations attended. The objective was to inform and involve the donor community in the programme. The donors unanimously endorsed the land programme, saying it was essential for poverty reduction, political stability and economic growth. They particularly appreciated the political imperative and urgency of the land reform, and agreed that the "inception phase" covering 24 months should start immediately.
1999
The Commercial Farmers Union freely offered for sale to the government 15,000 km² for redistribution. Landowners once again dragged their feet. As frustration set in on both sides, the government drafted a new constitution with a clause to compulsorily acquire land for redistribution without paying compensation. The drafting stage of the constitution was largely boycotted by the opposition (supported by the landowners), claiming that Mugabe only wanted a new constitution to entrench himself politically.
2000
The government organised a referendum on the new constitution. If it had been approved, the new constitution would have empowered the government to acquire land compulsorily without compensation. The country's powerful landed gentry threw its weight and money behind the disparate opposition and human rights groups who formed a united front to fight against the new constitution. Calling themselves the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), the united front won 55% of the votes as against the ruling Zanu-PF's 45%. There was wild jubilation by the MDC's local and foreign supporters, prompting "End of Mugabe" headlines in the British media.
Two weeks later, the pro-Mugabe War Veterans Association organised people of like mind (not necessarily war veterans, as many of them were too young to have fought in the Liberation War) to march on white-owned farmlands, initially with drums, song and dance. They claimed to have "seized" the farmlands. A total of 110,000 km² of land was seized.
2002
Mugabe faced Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) in presidential elections in March 2002. The incumbents picked Land Reform as the basis of their campaign.
On July 3, 2004 a report adopted by the African Union executive council, which comprises foreign ministers of the fifty three member states, criticized the government's handling of the election.
2004
Minister for Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement John Nkomo said on June 5, 2004 that all land from crop fields to wildlife conservancies would soon become state property. Farmland deeds would be replaced with 99-year leases, while those for wildlife conservancies would be limited to 25 years. However, there have since been denials around this policy.
2005
Parliament, dominated by Zanu-PF, passed a constitutional amendment, signed into law 12 September 2005, that nationalized Zimbabwe's farmland and deprived landowners of the right to challenge in courts the government's decision to expropriate their land.
2006
In January 2006 Agriculture Minister Joseph Made said Zimbabwe was considering legislation that would compel commercial banks to finance black peasants allocated formerly white-owned farmland in controversial land reforms.
Banks failing to lend a substantial portion of their income to new black farmers would have their licences withdrawn, Made warned.
The newly resettled peasants had largely failed to access loans from commercial banks because they did not have title over the land on which they were resettled and could not use it as collateral. With no security of tenure on the farms, banks are reluctant to extend loans to the new farmers, many of whom do not have much experience in commercial farming or assets to provide alternative collateral for any borrowed money.
Economic Consequences
The scale of the drop in farm output has produced widespread claims by aid agencies of starvation and famine. However Mugabe's expulsion of the international media has prevented full analysis of the scale of the famine and the resultant deaths. What is not in dispute is that a country once so rich in agricultural produce that it was dubbed the "bread basket" of Southern Africa, is now struggling to feed its own population. A staggering 45 percent of the population is considered malnourished. Foreign tourism has also plummeted, costing tens of millions of dollars a year in lost revenue.
Land reform elsewhere
Many observers view land reform as an essential component of decolonization. Since mainland China's economic reforms led by Deng Xiaoping land reforms have also played a key role in the development of the People's Republic of China. What remains controversial in Mugabe's Zimbabwe is the manner of the land reform, its haphazard nature and the widespread suspicion that it is being used to reward Mugabe supporters and attack his opponents, with others (including thousands of black Africans who worked the white owned farms and those experiencing famine) losing out.
Quotes
On June 10, 2004, British embassy spokesperson Sophie Honey said:
The UK has not reneged on commitments (made) at Lancaster House. At Lancaster House the British Government made clear that the long-term requirements of land reform in Zimbabwe were beyond the capacity of any individual donor country.
Since independence we have provided 44 million pounds for land reform in Zimbabwe and 500 million pounds in bilateral development assistance.
The UK remains a strong advocate for effective, well managed and pro-poor land reform. Fast-track land reform has not been implemented in line with these principles and we cannot support it.
Pan-Afrikan United Front (PAUF), a coalition of Pan-African groups in Ghana, has convened a solidarity forum in Accra to voice their support for the land reform policy of the Zimbabwean government.
The fight for independence from colonialism was a fight for our land and its resources. It was a fight to reclaim African lands from the grip of invading forces. Africa cannot say it is liberated when its land and its resources are still in the control of these invading forces.
The group which said its mission is primarily to mobilise forces against all forms of neo-colonialism in Africa, described the move by the President Robert Mugabe-led government to “return stolen lands to their original owners” as “one of the most courageous steps ever taken by an African leader.” The western media is waging a ‘vicious’ and ‘highly destructive propaganda’ on Zimbabwe, and the forum together wants “to let the world know what Africans feel about Zimbabwe.
“The question of land is fundamental for our struggle for sovereignty. The war of liberation was about land. Of what use is independence when you don’t have control of your land? So our meeting here today is not as much about as supporting Mugabe as it is about supporting the issue. That is the problem with the way the western media is projecting the issue. They are not addressing the question of land. All they are simply interested in is to demonize Mugabe.
Collective memory is important for any people together to be able to define and recognise their national interest, to defend their national sovereignty and to anticipate any threat to the same.
In the modern world, a people must be able to read and understand the characters of other societies, other leaders, other people’s institutions and parties and what they portend for the future. They must also be able to recall past events and facts in order to place them in the context of the present and the future. Now, white imperialists and colonists have always feared African memory. So the first objective of imperialism and colonialism was to dissect and chop up the web of African memory and to replace it with the "separate but equal" memories of apartheid, tribalism and sectarianism. A situation that has resulted in the political impasse in Zimbabwe between two political parties which has nothing to do with the ordinary people.
In order for people to plan effectively for their survival, solidarity, autonomy and prosperity, they and their leaders must be able to read the world. For a people to prevail, they must read and understand complex situations, that is, be able to perceive and decipher their own situational texts based on original strategic observation. For example, the situation created by the 1979 Lancaster House Constitution with its myth of "willing-buyer-willing seller" and pledges to provide funds was not sustainable for Zimbabwe.
Now, what enables people to do all these things is memory. This collective memory is, therefore, the capacity to mobilise for mutual survival and fulfillment and keep a dynamic and comprehensible relationship between past, present and future. The land, the space within which autonomy, expression, work and identity are made possible is a “right”. The Lancaster house constitution was tinkering with a right of the Zimbabwean people. It delayed justice, for justice delayed is justice denied. The anxiety of a nation went through the roof; the emotions had been bottled for too long, it became an uncontrolled explosion.
The body (whether it is the individual body, or the family or the movement or the nation or the community) will strive for its survival and prosperity. The social institution strives to foster solidarity as the basis for civilisation, for work, for mutual protection and advancement. The land, the ground, one’s own space, is the arena within which to create, to celebrate and defend autonomy.
Fellow bloggers, here I have zeroed on land and isolated it to analyse its effects on the populace and factors that led to the so called chaos. The situation surrounding the land issue might have their faults but the question is in your face; Why deny people their land since 1890, do the people deserve to be punished for this.
Everyone worldwide, has criticised the land policy of President Robert Mugabe, and without doubt, he has lost the plot, but, what the world has failed to understand is that there are several fundamental issues to the land appropriation.
The first, by and large, the Rhodesian farmers remained white racist colonials to the day of their eviction, neither acceding to change, nor giving credence to the right for equality and the restoration of the dignity of man.
Secondly, notwithstanding that most Zimbabwean farmers, had perhaps paid for their land at the outset, it was that same land that was originally stolen by white settlers from black Zimbabweans; theft is a continuing crime, an illegitimate act is not legitimised by subsequent legal conduct, that is trite law, internationally.
In keeping with colonial tradition, the blacks had been so marginalised and exploited by the white colonials, that they had little or no hope of ever re-acquiring land that they, in any event, had originally owned and were unlawfully dispossessed of.
Thirdly, in the 25 years after liberation, the now Zimbabwean (but many still called themselves Rhodesian) white farmers had done little or nothing to support the current government, which had, by the grace of God, been wholly responsible for keeping them on the land.
Instead they were arrogant, rapacious and greedy and shared little with those whose toils spawned the riches and spoils the colonial farmers enjoyed.
Instead the white farmers, like gluttons, hoarded much and, believing they were indispensable, taunted President Mugabe, with their "ownership" and the "food security" they provided, at the expense of the "dignity of man."
Fourthly, their misguided support for Morgan Tsvangirai, David Coltart and others, who I know well, and have personal experience with, was short sighted and ill-conceived.
Seldom does a yapping hyena succeed in overthrowing a roaring lion.
Tsvangirai is by no means the answer to Zimbabwe, neither is Coltart.
The white farmers and the Movement for Democratic Change were and remain cowards born of opportunists. The real opposition has not arisen yet.
Fifthly, within the Lancaster House agreement, it was agreed and full consensus was reached, that Britain would shoulder the full responsibility to compensate the white farmers whose land and accessories were expropriated; not the fledgling Zimbabwe government.
It was Tony Blair who reneged on that agreement, turning his back on the colonists his Queen had sent to colonise Africa.
No matter how irrational President Mugabe is deemed to be, it was still not his government's responsibility to compensate the white farmers for the land or machinery it expropriated.
It was the duty and the contractual obligation of Britain.
Yet, when it counted most, Britain repudiated the agreement and became the "liar."
Sixth, I have personally seen the endless atrocities committed by whites on the hapless, ignorant, uneducated blacks. I was there. I was a farmer too, remember, before I became a lawyer.
In those days I had fair-weather friends who abandoned me the minute I stood for the truth.
I watched Ben Norton sjambok his boss-boy (sic) and I watched him kick a retarded man off his farms who had nowhere else to go, and the helpless, hopeless man died a pauper’s death.
They're liars who jumped on the pity wagon and the truth has never been disclosed. You don't have to love President Mugabe to acknowledge the truth. There are many fine Zimbabweans who oppose the anarchy President Mugabe imposes; but in opposition, one does not have to abandon the truth that is and will always be.
Seventh, you, the (white) world, who beat their chests and cry "foul", never saw the endless tears that ran down the hearts of the gentle, hardworking, free Africans the colonialists drove them into Tribal Trust Lands (barren desolate tribal trust lands) and forced them into slavery and paid them pittances, depriving them of the most fundamental rights and liberties.
As in South Africa, the blacks have a justifiable grievance against the whites (here the apartheid Dutchman). The end result, which you have to judge for yourself, is whether it was better for the African to live under white colonial domination while they (the whites) provided food security (they surely provided nothing else but misery because whatever they did, was for the whites and which the blacks were deprived of); or is "the dignity of man," king?
I personally, would rather be free, than be a slave.
David Jesse
Farmer
RACISM, the worst kind of racism, is the only reason for the British media's obsession with Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe.
Nothing in Zimbabwe equates to one tenth of what happens in each of the 36 states of Nigeria. What the opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai did, by trying to instigate mass uprising, cannot be attempted
successfully by anybody in Nigeria today. Just dreaming of it aloud will put you in jail in Nigeria, let alone starting it. Before 2003 general elections key political opponents of the Federal government and various state governments were assassinated, but they made no real news to BBC and other western media. Just few months ago in Ebonyi State, one of the poorest States, the governor Sam Egwu locked up two journalists for over three months for publishing articles which accused him of corruption in a local newspaper. What a pity, this fact did not make any news to the democracy-loving western media! One would have expected the democracy-loving white world to stand up against the evil regime of Obasanjo, but nothing like that has happened.It seems to me that the only reason the white world is against Robert Mugabe is because he expelled white farmers, because genuine concern for the Black race would have meant that Nigeria, being the largest black society, would be given greater focus. It is now clear to me that BBC and other British media are far worse than the British National Party (BNP) which is labelled racist. The BNP is not threatening the existence and survival of the Black race while British journalists are. What I call racism at its worst is the one-sided stand of the "white world" on
Zimbabwe. What is being propagated around the world is that no Black country can survive on its own. What needs to be done by enlightened and decolonised Black people is to rally round and use the Zimbabwean case as an inspiration for building successful societies. Zimbabwe is by far more democratic and successful than most other Black African countries like Nigeria, Sudan, Uganda, DRC, Tongo, Eritrea, Ethiopia etc., but today it bears the ignoble reputation of being one of the worst places to live in! It is therefore very clear that Mugabe would have remained a friend of the West if he had not expelled white farmers. Hence, it is purely and squarely about race!
Post a Comment