Zimbabwe’s New Land Policy As Replacement Capitalism

By Takura Zhangazha*

Zimbabwe’s President Mnangagwa recently announced a change to land policy within the context of under what we now historically refer to as the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP).  This was done at a routine weekly cabinet briefing by his minister of information. 

This new land policy essentially changes the tenure system for the beneficiaries of the FTLRP. There will be changes to the 99-year lease regime to one in which ‘bankable’ title will be given in various forms in order for farmers and investors to either get new loans or on the other side, lose land for failure to pay whatever they owe.

As reported in various online and mainstream platforms, this is a significant shift to the FTLRP.  One that appears to generally be welcomed by 99-year lease or offer letter farmers who were not defaulting on their state guaranteed loans. 

This new framework will prioritize (no surprises) veterans of Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle, youths and women that are already beneficiaries of the FTLRP. 

This new policy will also be appealing to current and potential urban land developers whom it identifies as another priority target group of investors/businesses. 

The referred to ‘bankability’ of the tenure system also immediately means that the financial services sector is another key priority target group.  Especially where and when they can invest in a loan system that can/will cyclically allow them to retain physical capital.  

Be it on behalf of individuals or corporate entities such as urban land developers that already either have permits, 99-year leases or offer letters. 

It will however not affect colonially designed communal land tenure.  That land will still fall under the purview of traditional leaders and Rural District Councils (RDC’s). 

This is also a new policy that will take a little bit of time to be effected due to necessary legal processes that follow such government announcements.

But be that as it may, it is a huge and economically significant one seeing as it is coming from cabinet and in the name of the current president of Zimbabwe, it must be taken with the utmost seriousness it deserves. 

Especially where it has occurred after an already given government position on a compensation deal for former white commercial farmers as provided for by the constitution for developments on the land at least.

Even if it is not yet fully formulated for the purposes of governance and remains a policy announcement.

In this new and sort of expected development there are however some ideological, political and economic considerations that must be part of the public debate or acceptance of the emergent new land policy.

The first being the ideological question of when the liberation struggle was fought was this the envisioned land tenure system?  What exactly did ‘Ivhu kuVanhu’ as a major motivation for the liberation struggle entail? 

The answer to this is multifaceted because we are at least 44 years after independence and its promises.   From our socialist ideals at the inception of our freedom through to our highly unpopular neoliberal  Economic Structural Adjustment Programmes (ESAP’s) and now our newfound state capitalist projects wherein the government is functioning on behalf of private capital in its variegated local and international interests.

Ideologically this new land policy is a return to the privatization of land that though acquired with the ‘revolutionary’ premise of ‘land back to the people’  reflects more of governments intent to do what I would call ‘replacement capitalism’.

It is a pretty basic concept.

It’s a return to a past or pre-FTLRP land ownership political economy.  Except for the fact that the now majority land owners are black, not white.  Almost as though we are flipping an ahistorical coin. 

Those that benefitted from the FTLRP are being given an opportunity to either use it as a bankable investment or sell it to the highest bidder based on the tenure granted to them by government.  Or to lose it based on the fact that they will now be able to get bank loans which if they do not remit, their land will be lost to financial services institutions or loan sharks. 

This is neoliberalism writ large.  Or as a close cde of mine reminded me recently, it can be a form of ‘Socialism for the Rich or Politically Connected’.  

Except that the beneficiaries of the FTLRP are not all rich or politically connected.   They are as vulnerable to these emerging government facilitated market trends as much as the communal farmer with the newly proposed policy. 

Politically though, this is a relatively populist move for many farmers that can either pay back the state backed loans they acquired during the height of the FTLRP or those who recently got the necessary state leases and offer letters.  They will be sloganeering all the way to the banks so long they can develop their acquired farms or pay back the money in one form or the other (sub-lease or sell). 

The key political issue is that it is likely that with this policy, the ruling Zanu PF party intends to create a specific farming political class that it will protect, nurture and create new political meaning about the FTLRP.  It already has the seedlings for this and in all likelihood with this new policy will expand it.  Both at a technical, political and economic level.

And it is the latter that I will seek to lastly deal with.  The economic effects of this are that if you are already a landowner via the FTLRP, you are basically in a position to expand or retain your capital with the support of not only this new policy but also your ability to maneuver around financial investments on your property. 

This also means that government expects that you will understand the necessity of a ‘trickle down economics' benefit for your investments based on the land that you got under the FTLRP to create be it employment or find new ‘markets’. 

In all of this, there is an unwritten and unspoken assumption from officials in the government and the ruling party that Zimbabwe’s agricultural and urban development sector can rise in the same manner that either China or Singapore did.   Mainly via prioritizing private but sitting government friendly global and local capital.

But also giving the impression that they know better in land policy mimicry that will pass the test of time because of radical historical nationalism.  Without revolutionary praxis but impressionable neoliberal false populism. 

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)