Back to Index

Land reform programme in Zimbabwe: disparity between policy design and implementation
Medicine Masiiwa, Institute of Development Studies, University of Zimbabwe
May 2004

Kubatana sourced this material from the Southern African Regional Poverty Network website:

Download this document
- Acrobat PDF version (124KB)
If you do not have the free Acrobat reader on your computer, download it from the Adobe website by clicking here.

Note:
An adapted version of this paper appears in the edited collection Post Independence Land Reform in Zimbabwe, published in May 2004 by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung in Harare. The collection of essays was edited by Medicine Masiiwa. Other contibutors include Nelson Marongwe, Sam Moyo, Lovemore Madhuku, Godfrey Magaramombe and Maxwell Madhara. Further information on the publication can be obtained from the editor at feszim@africaonline.co.zw

Introduction
Land is a natural resource that has always been hotly contested among groups of people living between the Zambezi and the Limpopo. Before the arrival of the first European settlers over a century ago, bloody tribal and ethnic battles were fought for land. The Europeans found two major tribes, Shona and Ndebele living in the now Zimbabwe. The livelihood of the former tribe was based on agricultural and pastoral activities while that of the latter was largely based on highly organised military structures. In both cases, the nucleus of the government was composed of the Chief, supported by councillors and headmen

The colonial conquest of the country by the British in the late 1880s destroyed these systems and subordinated the African people in both political and economic terms. Economic subordination started by the passing of the Land Apportionment Act in 1930, which formalised racial separation of land. Africans lost their coveted land and substantial economic power as they were driven to marginal areas with inherently poor soils and erratic rainfall. Although farming was part of their livelihoods and the sole source of food and income, a series of repressive legislation prohibited them from participating on the mainstream of the economy. This, apparently led the disgruntled majority blacks to take arms and fight a protracted war against the injustices. In 1980, they won political independence and the new ZANU PF government promised the empowerment of the people by giving them land. A policy tool identified for this purpose was the land redistribution and resettlement programme.

Concluding Remarks
The inception and subsequent implementation of the second Phase of the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme opened a challenging chapter in the history of Zimbabwe's Land Question. Indeed land hunger had become more pronounced by 1998 as witnessed by the growing impoverishment. The invasion of farms as first
demonstrated by the Svosve people is a clear testimony of the dimension of the problem the government was facing (The Herald, 22/06/98). However the subsequent unfolding of events pertaining to the land issue also reflects the extent to which developments, which had gradually began developing in the early 1990s had taken centre stage. Notably, issues pertaining to governance and politicisation became more pronounced in the process.

The polarisation of positions between the government, commercial farmers and donors on how the land reform programme was to be implemented became of major concern. The lapse of the Lancaster House Constitution and its subsequent amendment by the government to allow for compulsory acquisition of land became a point of departure among the various stakeholders. The bone of contention was not only about compulsory acquisition, but also about the payment of compensation (Tshuma 1997). President Mugabe had repeatedly said that the government was not going to pay for the soil. Instead compensation was to be paid for improvements only. His argument was that payment of compensation for farmers who lost their land through compulsory acquisition was the responsibility of the former colonial master - Britain (The Herald, 16/10/97, 28/11/97). The British, on the other hand, argued that they had no obligation to fund the land reform on colonial basis. Hence their commitment to the land reform programme was one of moral obligation to alleviate poverty (The Financial Gazette, 08/09/98).

Indeed it was clear at these early stages that elements of suspicion and mistrust were creeping into the Land Question. Moyo (Zimbabwe Mirror, 2-5 February 1998) correctly noted that the government tended to rationalise land acquisition and redistribution on the basis of historical grievances and political demands at the expense of valid economic rationale. This was noted in some land acquisition criteria used. The then Minister of Lands and Agriculture, Kumbirai Kangai even said " . . . some white-owned land was acquired because of social and political reasons including the use of bad language by some white farmers . . . ." (The Herald, page 1, 05/02/98). This became a reality when the government faced mounting pressure from the civic organisations (NCA, ZLWVA, CFU) and the leading opposition political party (the MDC). By the year 2000, the land issue had become highly politicised so much that even the judiciary could not handle the land cases (2000).

In the face of such mounting contradictions, the government failed to attract both national and international donors to support the land reform programme. Efforts (both local and international) to bring normalcy to the programme implementation process failed to yield positive results. Among such efforts was the Commonwealth Meeting on Zimbabwe's land crisis which was held in Abuja (Nigeria) in September 2001. The meeting indeed recognised the historical injustices pertaining to the land issue. But in its communiqué, it resolved that there was need to restore the rule of law by, among other things, stopping farm occupations (The Daily News, 08/09/2001). Despite positive assurances given by the government, the post-Abuja period witnessed the invasion of more farms. To date, only 600 of the original 4500 white owned farms are still in operation (Crawford: Daily News, 09/07/03).

While the dust is still settling down, the government claims that the Fast Track Land Reform Programme is over and has been a resounding success. Using its stringent budgetary means, the government has managed to resettle close to 200 000 on both A1 and A2 resettlement The need to provide infrastructure and other support services is yet to be done. Although the government claims that it was a success, the task now is to rationalise developments on the ground. Even President Mugabe acknowledges that "..things did not go well with the A2 land reform programme. Some people gave themselves more than one farm . . . " (Daily News, Page 2, 06/07/03).

Is SA going the same way as Zimbabwe?
This is not a question which can answered by a simple yes or no. One has to look at similarities and differences of the land problem in the two countries.

Similarities
Both countries have experienced settler colonisation and the black majorities in both countries were dispossesed of land. Land was a form of disempowerment for the blacks. In SA in 1913, the Black Land Act placed vast areas of land under the sole control of whites. Black were given traditional lands where they were believed to have traditionally lived. The 1913 Act was followed by the Black Trust and Land Act of 1936, which allocated 13% of SA land to blacks although they comprised 80% of the population.

Similar Acts were put in place in Zimbabwe. The Land Apportionment Act in 1930, formalised racial separation of land and paved way for economic subordination for blacks. The blacks lost substantial economic power as they were driven to marginal areas with inherently poor soils and erratic rainfall. Although farming was part of their livelihoods of the people, and the sole source of food and income, a series of repressive legislation prohibited them from participating on the mainstream of the economy.

The extent of land dispossession in both counties inevitably led to economic subordination of the black people and this had a severe impact on poverty, environment and human rights. As a result the black people in both South Africa and Zimbabwe fought armed wars to correct the injustices. The current land reforms in the two countries thus, cannot be taken in an economic context alone. If a broader picture is taken, land reform is about addressing historical social injustices, human rights violation as well as restoration of the dignity of the black people in the two
countries. People in these countries view land reform as a strive to build freedom from poverty, dependence, economic deprivation and exploitation.

Despite historical similarities between Zimbabwe and South Africa, there are also fundamental differences in their economies, which can impact on land reforms in the two countries. The economy of Zimbabwe is based on agriculture. More than 70% of its people earn a living from agriculture and this may explain why there was so much
pressure for land, leading to farm occupations. on the other hand. South Africa's economy on the other hand is based on mining and industry. As a result there is more land pressure for residential purposes than for agriculture. In addition, the framework for land reform in South Africa is more advanced that in Zimbabwe. This alone means that there is greater potential in South Africa to address the land issue more efficiently than in Zimbabwe. To a lesser extent, there are some land occupations in South Africa. However mass land occupations, as is the case with Zimbabwe can be avoided if current modes of land reform (restoration of ancestoral land, acquisition of land and securing land tenure) can deliver results to the satisfaction of the black majority.

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP