The minister of lands and rural resettlement, Douglas
Mombeshora in a recent interview announced that the fast track land reform
programme (FTLRP) had come to an end. The announcement got front page coverage in the Herald newspaper,
though not as the prominent story.
The pronouncement was however not accompanied by the usual celebratory
pomp, fanfare or rally in characteristic
fashion of the ruling Zanu Pf party. This is probably because the statements from
the minister are probably not a government declaration even though the media headline
implies so.
But it most certainly points to the fact that government holds
the view that the FTLRP is now over. It
does not anticipate that there shall be either groups of landless peasants, war
veterans or youths that shall forcibly settle themselves on the remaining
commercial/private farms. It also means that
there shall be no direct state support for the establishment of new re-settlement
schemes. In fact those resettlement schemes that were more political than
administrative will probably face the eviction brigades. The latter being true for both rural as well
as urban areas.
And the hints at this have already been witnessed in Mazowe
where resettled farmers were arbitrarily evicted and the new conflict of land ownership
on the outskirts of cities where offer letters were used to turn farms into unrecognized
residential areas only to have the courts return the land to the original private
owners.
All of these processes have been referred to by government as
‘rationalisation’. It includes the now
long delayed ‘land audit’ as well as the still being mulled ’99 year lease’
policy. It’s a rationalization that by name betrays what
essentially was the haphazard nature of the FTLRP. It is also intended to be a means through which
to not only protect existing private investment in land eg, the Chisumbanje
ethanol plant but to also attempt at building investor confidence in land.
The popular perception as to whether the FTLRP is actually
over is probably a mixed one and is yet to be nationally measured by agriculture
experts. Furthermore, the fact that the
land audit has not been completed means that the minister may have spoken too
soon.
The given assumption however, especially by those that were
and have been at the forefront of the FTLRP will be that whether its actually
over or not, it has been a success. For those that are in the political opposition
or even in civil society and agricultural labour unions, they may still argue
that it has not served its stated purpose of land for all. These and other views are going to be with us
for a very long time.
What remains pertinent is that we have the broadest possible
public debate about the full import of the FTLRP beyond its politicization. This will entail examining the facts and the figures
of who was settled where, why and the actual impact on their livelihoods. Such a process must not be for government bureaucrats
and political apparatchiks only. It must
be a public and people centered assessment of the realities and perceptions of
the FTLRP.
The argument against such a
people centered assessment from the state will be that there is no
money. This would be an inadequate argument
because if the state claimed that the FTLRP was in its essence a people
centered exercise, it should be up to the people to judge its success, failures
or lack of continuance.
The real reason why the state may avoid this route is
because it knows that there will most probably be a clamour for fairer methods
of land distribution beyond political partisanship and a call fro greater
certainty of tenure. The latter point
would have a direct bearing on political control and power over those that do
not have full legal ownership of the land they live on.
Furthermore we must examine the ambiguous ideological
pretext that informed the FTLRP then and now.
From the radical nationalism within a highly politicized national
framework to the now ever apparent state-capitalism and neo-liberal framing of
land use (bio-agriculture, contract farming, multiple farm ownership) it is
clear that the common fact in both is a the controlling a political elite that protects
its interests. These could be economic, over and about land ownership itself and
also poised to utilize land grievance for political instrumentation.
This brings forward the dilemma of the continuing debate of
how positively revolutionary were the intentions of Zanu Pf when it embarked on
FTLRP which it is now saying has ended. This
includes issues to do with the structural dimensions of land ownership, use, and
the now increasing interaction between urban and rural (peri-urban) land
use. These and many other questions can
have scientific, political, social and economic answers. They however point to the fact that the FTLRP is not viewed as having a sudden end both as policy and in relation to its societal impact. In the final analysis the determination of its end, success or failure remains with the people of Zimbabwe, not by default, but by way of direct judgement. A referendum anyone?
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment