Abstract
The inequalities in land distribution in Zimbabwe are of a historical legacy that has to be corrected urgently if the country is to enjoy a peaceful and prosperous future. The land issue is an unfinished decolonisation process and should be addressed in a way that is consistent with economic fundamentals and at the same time minimising the fears of white commercial farmers. The colonial legacy of capital accumulation based upon unequal landownership patterns and access to agricultural resources and infrastructure is what underlies the growing conflicts over land in Zimbabwe and more generally in the Southern African region. It is important to note that black Zimbabweans are in revolt, not against the white farming society, but rather against paternalism, economic and political domination by a small white community. Zimbabweans are seriously concerned about the land issue today than never before because of the realisation that land is a finite resource that can be a key factor for economic development and reduction of rural poverty. The economic decline, lack of foreign direct investment and increasing unemployment levels directly increases the land demand in the rural areas as the redundant workers retire to their rural homes.
Land reform is largely supported on the grounds of alleviating population pressure in the communal areas, bringing under-utilised land into full production, to expand or improve the infrastructure of economic production and to ameliorate the plight of people who had been adversely affected by war and try to rehabilitate them. The land reform programme has also been criticised as an electioneering ploy used for political expediency by the government. The issue of resettlement is always raised with much vigour when elections are nearing and its forgotten business once the elections were over. An example would be the 1985, 1996,2000 and 2002 parliamentary and presidential elections.
The poor performance of Zimbabwe s land reform has been attributed to the legal framework governing land acquisition stage. The first legal provision that guided the land reform exercise was the Lancaster House Constitution that provided for respect of private property rights, thus any land could only be acquired on a willing-buyer-willing-seller basis. For 10 years land was transferred this way with the help of British funding though this was not adequate for significant land transfers. Other reasons for slow land reform process would be the political balancing act played by the government so as to satisfy all sections of the society. This includes the rich and the poor, rural and urban populations, farmers, industry, central and local government etc. The varied nature of these different social interest groups also translates to varying and often opposing land demands. There is the anti-land reform alliance which includes white commercial farmers which believes that tempering with the land is tempering with the golden goose that lays the golden eggs; the white banking and business interests which service agriculture and the rural communities where the government enjoys support and the state would not want to alienate. The government hopes to satisfy black capitalists and the elite, by opening up land in growth points for business people to acquire freehold tenure.
The study briefly outlines the progress or lack of it of the market-based land reform that was widely supported by the international community but with less commitment in the provision of necessary financing as promised in the Lancaster House agreement. The major problems of the market-based land reform programmes are, that it is blind to both politics and power relations on the land; it will redistribute little land to benefit the landless majority; over-valued land which will effectively exclude poor farmers and this is worsened by the lack of collateral security to access private credit.
The study also focuses on the likely winners and losers of the on-going accelerated land reform programme. A large spectrum of all sections of the economy is evaluated. A popular aspect has been the political context of the land reform process in the just-ended controversial presidential election. The study establishes that if land reform is taken as the sole political campaign strategy by the incumbent government, it reduces or weakens the justification of the land reform and resettlement whilst the real need for land is there. However, the speculative nature of the political model used in the study makes use of the amount of resources available for campaigning as being the determining factor in the outcome of the election. Dominating the campaigning with promises of making the land available to all land-hungry peasants will be indirectly legitimising the land invasions and no donor community will want to be associated with this lawlessness thus they withdraw their support. The incumbent government won the controversial election and with its success it was accompanied by international isolation largely because of the haphazard land reform programme and the rigged election. The consequence of winning the election has been the withdrawal of financial support in protest of the rigged vote.
The plight of the commercial farm workers is highlighted and this section of society has or will loose its livelihood. Although there are no concrete figures of the number of commercial farm workers, it is thought that they range between 250 000 and 500 000 of which around 35% of them are of a foreign decent. Generally the land reform programme has not specifically tackled the plight of the commercial farm workers and no considerations have been adequately put forward to incorporate resettling farm workers. Alien farm workers (from mostly Mozambique and Malawi) will loose their homes on the farms and loss of income and access of education and health facilities usually provided on the farms.
Role of Agriculture in the economy:
Agriculture contributes around 15% of real GDP whilst manufacturing, which is the second largest, contributes around 13%. Agriculture accounts for approximately 40-60% of manufacturing inputs and contributes 40-50% of total export earnings and it contributes 30% of formal employment. This signifies the importance of agriculture in the Zimbabwean economy, thus any uncoordinated land reform programme will be detrimental to the economy thus have serious impact on employment levels. Land reform has some effects on the economy and it is the extent that has been prone to a lot of debate with various players trying to support its cause. The commercial farmers union (CFU) portray the government as an irrational demon that punishes the productive farming community through land expropriation. Supporters of the current land reform programme views the CFU as playing the politics of belittling the low production of black peasants. This dramatise the likely losses the economy is likely to face. There were some losses due to the land reform programme but it was difficult to quantify the magnitude because of the current drought, so the losses cannot be squarely put on the land reform programme.
The plight of commercial farm owners is highlighted especially where there is no compensation for the land except for the improvements. Without donor funds from the international community farm owners would be the losers and some them were using the land as collateral to access private credit and are still indebted to the commercial bankers.
Peasants who were resettled turn out to have gained but the magnitude of the gain was dependant on the availability of resources. Those people with resources have seen significant increases in income and full utilisation of the land. Some peasants were promised funding from the government and the help did not come or it came late, ended up leaving the land idle thus defeating the cause of the land reform programme.
Though losses are expected from the land reform programme, the need to correct the land- ownership imbalances is there and should not be sidelined so as to break the impasse of the restive population that is threatening peace and stability in the country. However, there is need to minimise these losses so that the resettlement programme will not create more economic and political problems in the future.