The danger of a single narrative in relation to Land Reform in Zimbabwe

I initially started writing this piece as an academic article that I would eventually send for publishing. I however realised as I was writing that the thoughts that I had were better expressed as an opinion piece, that will hopefully spark debate in the relevant circles and gunner engagement around what we view as the predominant narrative of any story.?

The Land question has always been an emotive one, in Africa as a generality and Zimbabwe in particular. Rightly so, because to the native, Land is beyond the strategic view of it being “capital”. Land in my view, is lathered with symbolisms and is an anchor of identity for most of us. It is the reason for our being, as we were formed from it, lived on it, survived through it and buried in it. Our forefathers have been enveloped inside it and have ultimately become one with it. Land is us! You thus, can not divorce the Land from its people. They are one.

We therefore can see the rational of restoring the Land back to its rightful owners, beyond it being a strategic and useful means of resources for the already marginalised and disenfranchised black majority, as caused by Apartheid and Colonialism.

In the case of Zimbabwe, a neo-liberal, market-assisted land reform programme of willing seller – willing buyer (read as: willing robber - willingly robbed) between 1980 and 1990 was adopted, before transitioning to a radical land reform process in 2000. This programme was terminated in 2010 after the expropriation of 6 214 farm properties which resulted in the resettlement of 168 671 land beneficiaries. This expropriated land was divided amongst 145 775 small farm households who were resettled on A1 plots of about an average size of 5 hectares and 22 896 medium to large-scale commercial farmers on A2 farms, sized at roughly 30 hectares and above. The new farmers inherited farms that were commercially viable, very fertile, and generally well-resourced, and were contributing to the national economy through producing food for local consumption and exportation. However, agricultural production plummeted in the period immediately after the implementation of the programme. This decline in agricultural production was blamed on the land reform initiative which had resulted in the displacement of farm owners and farm workers, who constituted a bulk of the workforce. This narrative has been perpetuated for over 20 years and has gained ground in international circles, that other countries in Africa shouldn’t redistribute land, lest they turn into a Zimbabwe.

What is interesting is that the nuances that surround the “perceived” failure of the Land Reform are not interrogated. It is common knowledge that the International Monetary Fund withdrew balance-of-payments support to the government in 2001, which subsequently knocked Zimbabwe's agriculture-based economy off the rails. The ZDERA policy was also instituted at that time. The Zimbabwe government itself, had made enormous fiscal blunders from 1997 with the payment of War-Rewards to veterans. The El Nino droughts of 1992 and 2002 were not helping the situation, and not withstanding the ESAP drama of the 1990s. All constituting towards the decline in Agricultural productivity within the country. A single-story narrative would not factor in all these scenarios, choosing to look at things in silos and not in their entirety. Besides, it allows for biases that can not be easily changed when the tides shifts, as in the case of Zimbabwe. It is my honest and humble submission that Land Reform has started to show its benefits, especially post the dollarisation period of 2009.

Sam Moyo postulates that the success of the land reform programme should be looked at from “the character and scale of redistribution”. He suggests that the agrarian structure before the Land Reform, had unequal agrarian power relations that were perpetuated through control of land by a minority of landowners who skewed the social relationships of agricultural production, as witnessed by their hold on labour. These complex power relations prompted the suffering of the greater part of the population, more specifically the landless African population. However, with the change in the agrarian structure, the majority of the rural peasantry is now able to control their own labour for their own social reproduction in newly acquired farming lands. Due to their newfound property rights, the rural peasantry is now able to diversify into other economic avenues not limited to agriculture, such as small-scale mining (especially of gold), wildlife, and fuel-wood and timber extraction.

In my own field-work, for my Masters thesis, I came across real beneficiaries of the Land Reform, not the so-called Mugabe cronies. Real men and women, who were working the land and providing for their families in ways they wouldn’t have been able to, prior to them getting land. I came across individuals who were employing others and diversifying in terms of projects on the land. The multiplier effect that Land ownership had created for the individuals, was fascinating to see. What I noticed is that, the critics of land reform have an obsession with formal employment for the generality of the population, whilst the new farmers have different informal arrangements for acquiring and engaging labour. These informal arrangements are perpetuated through family links, communal agreements and other forms of exchanges. These dynamic economic processes that occur within small-scale farms and which fall outside of the formal economy would ideally fall off the standardised economic assessments of inputs, production, labour, capital returns on investment and formal systems, thus, would not be favoured as they do not feed into the narrative of what a functional economy looks like.

Finally, our basis for any subject matter, should be holistically informed. Despite the dominant narrative, there are resettled farmers that are thriving and making a contribution to both society and the economy in one way or another. In my analysis, the redistribution agenda is showing signs of it working. It might have been a long time coming, but more people, and particularly people of colour, are partaking in the national economic slice. That narrative, needs to start taking root.

?

Tanaka Maimba is an Andrew Mellon Scholar and Management Consultant based in Pretoria, South Africa.