The Land reform programme(Zimbabwe) – an in-depth analysis

Land reform – Zimbabwe

The Land Reform Program has been a one of contention among many scholars with some calling it a continuation of the liberation struggle all so known as the Third Chimurenga, while others are calling it a political gimmick. The idea of land distribution was not bad but it’s motivates are under attack by most scholars. The Land Reform Program is not a continuation of the grievances of the Africans during the first chimurenga but a populist policy to gain support of the people as the ZANU PF of the people In the early 2000s election because of it’s timing.

The Land Reform Program is not a continuation of the grievances of the Africans during the first chimurenga as it being reversed by the government of Zimbabwe. The Agrarian reform program is not a continuation of the grievances of the Africans during the first chimurenga as it was designed to please the war veterans who were pressuring to withdraw their support for the ruling government. The fast track Land Resettlement Policyis not a continuation of the grievances of the Africans during the first chimurenga as it was implemented by the government as way lootingmore land. However, the land reform program helped give a source of income to more than one million indigenous farmersandthe programme was able to resettle more than a million people. The main thrust of this essay is analyses if the third  chimurenga is a continuation of the grievances of the Africans during the first chimurenga.The key terms to be defined as the essay progresses are and third chimurenga and First Chimurenga.

According to Banks and Hulme(2012), the third Chimurenga is an Zimbabwean ideology occasionally used in reference to the land reform programme undertaken by the Government of Zimbabwe since 2000. It is as known by many synonyms such Agrarian Reform Programme or Land Distribution Exercise. In the same vein Poverty Reduction Forum Trust (2002), defines the Third Chimurenga as a native concept used to describe the final phase in what Zimbabweans hold to be the liberation of Zimbabwe through economic and agrarian reforms intended to empower indigenous people,

www.wikipedai.comdefinesas term the First Chimurenga as term which originated from Shona word Chimurenga or the Ndebele equivalent Umvukela, roughly meaning revolutionary struggle or uprising. In the same light www.oxforddictionary.com sees the first chimurenga as historical term referring to the Ndebele and Shona insurrections against administration by the British South Africa Company during the late 1890s. It’s also called the Second Matabele War or first Umvukela. From the above definitions one can safely say it is historic term originating from the Shona word Chimurenga describing the first Shona and Ndebele uprising against foreign invaders in the late 1890s.

The Land Reform Program is not a continuation of the grievances of the Africans during the first chimurenga but a populist policy to gain support of the people as the ZANU PF of the people in the early 2000s election because of it’s timing. According to Raftopoulos and Sachikonye (2001), the creation of the MDC was a real threat to the ruling party because it was the first time in Zimbabwe’s post-independence history that an opposition party had succeeded in creating a genuinely national movement. For example, a draft constitution which gave the executive at the expense of parliament, and extend the powers of the government to acquire land compulsorily without compensation, was put in a national referendum in February 2000. The MDC campaigned for a “no” vote and government was defeated in the referendum, by 53 percent of the 1.3 million votes cast. This became a wake up call for the ruling party that they could lose the election.

 

The ruling party was left with no option but to use violence and campaign for land redistribution. The party capitalizing on the fact that land reform remains a powerful issue for any political party to invoke. Zanu-PF campaigned for the June 2000 parliamentary elections on the slogan “Land is the Economy; the Economy is Land.” This helped secure a win for the party with the aid of brutal force and intimidation. The above argument proves with no doubt that The Land Reform Program is not a continuation of the grievances of the Africans during the first chimurenga but a political gimmick made to gain the people’s vote.

The Land Reform Program is not a continuation of the grievances of the Africans during the first chimurenga a sit being reversed by the government of Zimbabwe. According to Newsday (2020) ,the ruling party the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Lands and Resettlement have signed an agreement with white farms who were affected by the Land Redistribution Exercises to compensate them. The ZANUgovernment spent years hoodwinking people that land reform was irreversible; that it would never pay compensation for land.In this regardthe governmenthave gone a step further than compensation, they are returning the actual land. The government is saying they do not have enough money to pay these farm and has chosen to give them as a non financial compensation.

This will spark another controversial chapter, with those who thought they were comfortably resettled being removed to make way for the return of the farmers. The above-mentioned argument proves that the third chimurenga is a continuation of the grievances of the Africans during  the first chimurenga but another inconsistent policy implemented by the government due to it’s reversal.

The Agrarian reform program is not a continuation of the grievances of the Africans during the first chimurenga as it was designed to please the war veterans who were pressuring to with draw their support from the ruling government.In 1997 a war veterans package was launched in order to please the war veterans but due to corruption and those in real need remained neglected. The package for veterans included a once-off payment of Z$50,000 to each veteran, and a Z$2,000 per month pension for life. This created factions within the War Veterans Association because some veterans wanted more. Carver (2008), says the faction led by Chenjerai Hitler Hunzvi, pressured the government saying the needed land or withdraw their support.

The government bowed down to pressure and gave the veterans what the wanted. This faction was at the forefront of the land invasion. For example, the invasion of Twist Farm in Macheke, where they camped two weeks straight so as to intimidate the owners into giving up their land. This shows how the government used the land reform programme to retain the loyalty of war veterans. The above discussion clearly proves the notion of the Agrarian reform program is a continuation of the grievances of the Africans during the first chimurenga is incorrect.

The fast track Land Resettlement Policy  is not a continuation of the grievances of the Africans during the first chimurenga  as it was implemented by the government as a way  looting more land. Assal (2008), stated that most senior government officials were using their funds to fund the land invasions as way to amass land. They government officials were giving money to people to force those white farms who were not complying with the government eviction orders. These people were later told to move to make way for political bigwigs or relocate to another farm. For instance, the former Governer of Mashonaland East Ray Kaukonde.

These government officials took more than one farm at the expense of the landless indigenous people. A good example, is the late former president Robert Gabriel Mugabe who was said to own more than twenty-one farms. This without adoubt shows how the ruling government senior officials used the programme to amass more farms at the expense of the intended benefactors. The points above paints a vivid picture why the fast track Land Resettlement Policy is not a continuation of the grievances of the Africans during the first chimurenga as it was implemented by the government as a way looting more land.

However, the land reform program helped give a source of income to more than one million indigenous farmers. According to The Herald (2015), Zimbabweans able to generate eight hundred million Untied States dollars from tobacco exports. This means that the indigenous farmers were able to generate money for themselves and make a living. This money in the previous era was earned by less than 800 white farmers at the expense of the native people.

In addition to, the government though this programme were able to resettle more than a million households. Osborn, Cutter and  Ullah (2015), postulate that in the era before the programme more than one million families still eked out an existence on sixteen million hectares of poor which was not suitable for farming. This meant that the indigenous people were stuck in waste land called Reserves while the white minority enjoyed the rich land for themselves. The government though this programme was able to resettle more than one million people in a short time compared to the three decades before the programme.

To a greater extent the assertion that the third Chimurenga is a continuation of the grievances of the  Africans  during the first chimurenga is false. Land Reform Program is not a continuation of the grievances of the Africans during the first chimurenga but a populist policy to gain support of the people as the ZANU PF in the early 2000s election because of it’s timing. The Land Reform Program is not a continuation of the grievances of the Africans during the first chimurenga as it being reversed by the government of Zimbabwe.

The Agrarian reform program is not a continuation of the grievances of the Africans during the first chimurenga as it was designed to please the war veterans who were pressuring to withdraw their support from the ruling government. The fast track Land Resettlement Policy is not a continuation of the grievances of the Africans during the first chimurenga as it was implemented by the government as a way looting more land. However, to lesser extent the assertion a has bit of truth the land reform program helped give a source of income to more than one million indigenous farmers and resettled more than a million landless indigenous people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERRANCES

Assal, M. A. M., (2008). Land Violence and Compensation, Workingpaper, Michelsen Institute. Available at http://www.cmi.no [Accessed on 03September2020].

Banks, N. and Hulme, H., (2012). The Land Occupations Movement and Democratisation: The Contradictions of the Neoliberal Agenda in Zimbabwe,WorkingPaper171.

Carver, R. (2008). Zimbabwe: A Strategy of Tension. OECD, Global Forum on International Investment.

Newsday (2020). Zimbabwean Government Compensation For White Farmers. Alphamedia: Harare.

Osborn. D., Cutter. A. and Ullah. F., (2015). Land, Housing and Property Rights in Zimbabwe. Stakeholder Forum Report.

Poverty Reduction Forum Trust, (2002). Study on Rural Poverty in Manicaland: The Case of Mutare Rural. Report. Harare. Available at http://www.prftzim.org, [Accessedon12July2020].

Raftopoulos, B. and Sachikonye, L. (2001). Striking Back: The Labour Movement and the Post Colonial State in Zimbabwe 1980-2000.Weaver Press: Harare.

The Herald (2015). The Land Reform Programme Bears Fruits. Zimpapers: Harare.

www.oxforddictionary.com

www.wikipedai.com