|
Back to Index
Crisis
Coalition’s response to nationalization of land
Pedzisayi
Ruhanya, Information Officer, Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition
June, 2004
http://www.crisis.org.zw/reports/Land
Nationalisation.htm
Preamble
This paper is a response to the Minister of Special Affairs in the
Office of the President, John
Nkomo's announcement of government’s intention to nationalize land.
This article tries to critically locate this decision taking into consideration
the findings of the National Constitutional Assembly of 1997, the government-sponsored
Constitutional Commission and the findings of the government-initiated
Rukuni Commission. The paper also looks at the implications of fostering
this socialist ideology in a world that continues to turn its back on
anything premised on the teachings of Karl Marx.
The paper also looks
at the discord that this declaration has created within the ruling party
echelons. The paper also serves to contextualise the nationalization debate
within the confines of Zimbabwean crisis. The analysis is a comparative
study of the promises made about the land issue, people’s expectations
and the reality on the ground.
What the Zimbabwean
people said about their Land
The NCA 1997- 2000 campaign was initially dubbed "Building the Zimbabwe
we want" while the Constitutional Commission’s (CC) motto was, "The
people have spoken ".
The views of Zimbabweans to the NCA and the CC were meticulously recorded
in a series of reports.
On June 8, 2008, the
Minister of Special Affairs in the Office of the President and Cabinet
Responsible for Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement, John Nkomo announced
the nationalisation of land. In The Herald of 8 June 2004, Nkomo was quoted
as saying the state wanted to abolish title deeds and replace them with
99-year long leases. Nkomo said, "Ultimately, all land shall be resettled
as State property. It will now be the State, which will enable the utilisation
of the land for national prosperity. We have never said it (the land reform)
was an event but a process. We want a situation where this very important
resource becomes a national asset. We do not believe that land should
be used for speculative reasons. Title deeds are no longer issues we can
waste our time on because the 99-year leases will act as good enough collateral."
In March 2000 after
the "No Vote" Constitutional Referendum, the government embarked
on the fast track land reform programme whose basic tenets were as follows:
- The emancipation
of peasants
- Addressing genuine
land hunger
- Protection of land
occupiers
- Infrastructural
development, among others
President Mugabe in
sharp contrast to Professor Mandivamba Rukuni’s 1994 Land Tenure Commission
set this up.
Rukuni discovered
when he was carrying out his research, that land tenure insecurity was
one of Zimbabwe’s major failures in its land reform programme.
"All resettlement continues to be on a government permit with no
rights for land users for ultimate ownership or leasing. Combined with
the dubious status of land tenure rights in communal areas, this means
that more and more land in the country is settled on a basis of considerable
legal and constitutional vagueness,’’ Rukuni said.
Such a scenario means
that the whole basis or foundation on which social and economic progress
is built is weak. Democracy and human rights are protected better where
there is clarity in terms of the relationship between people and the resources
around them.
Such clarity, according
to Rukuni includes provisions in judiciary institutions that lead to minimal
conflicts and offer workable systems of conflict resolution.
It could be understood
from Rukuni’s argument that economic investment and growth also grow where
national systems offer such clarity and in addition provide a fertile
ground for building trust in the nation. Land tenure is at the centre
of all this since such institutions and systems have to be built from
grassroots level upwards.
At village and community
levels, legal and administrative systems must deliver that trust and competence.
These views are contrary to the proposed nationalisation of land. The
policy destabilises the economy and weakens institutional development
by tenants.
The trillion-dollar
question:
Which of the above reflect what the people said through the NCA or
the Constitutional Commission?
In the Constitutional
Commission, the people said:
- Resettlement programme
should be carried out in a manner which does not cause excessive dislocations,
loss of security of tenure and confidence in the farming sector
- Opinion on the
right of the state to expropriate property for purposes of redistribution
to the disadvantaged was divided, with 52.2% supporting the idea and
47.8 % opposed to the idea. Of those who wanted the state to be allowed
to expropriate property, 30.2% wanted the property to be taken with
no compensation, while 33.8 % wanted the property to be paid for from
public funds while 36 % wanted donor funds to be used to pay for the
properties.
- Every person should
have the right to own property.
- In the communal
lands, chiefs should be the constitutional custodians of the land.
The NCA’s submissions
were as follows:
The NCA heard from the people during their evidence gathering for a new
constitution that the land should be taken by the government but fair
compensation should be given to the previous landowners. Over 60 percent
of the people interviewed by the NCA said the State should acquire land.
They said that there should be private ownership of the land and were
against nationalisation of properties. Over 52 percent of the respondents
noted that women should be given title deeds to their land including communal
properties.
Critique
The intention of the fast track land reform was portrayed as empowering
black people who had been marginalized for over 90 years through colonial
land tenure systems. The Zanu PF slogan in the March 2002 Presidential
election was, "The land is the economy and the economy is the land".
It follows then that the nationalisation of land is the nationalisation
of the economy. This is not unusual considering that during the liberation
struggle, Zanu PF actually believed in the nationalisation of the means
of production as a first step to establish a socialist society as envisaged
by the Marxian theory.
However, on the eve
of Independence Day on April 17, 1980 Robert Mugabe addressed the nation
and made specific undertakings. In particular, he made an undertaking
to protect property rights and added that there was going to be no wholesale
nationalisation.
In his announcement
of the policy of national reconciliation, Mugabe said, "If yesterday
I fought you as an enemy, today you have become a friend and ally with
the same national interest, loyalty, rights and duties as myself. If yesterday
you hated me, today you cannot avoid the love that binds you to me and
me to you. The wrongs of the past must now stand forgiven and forgotten".
It is a fact that
the fast track land reform programme was preceded, characterised and succeeded
by frightening levels of violence against commercial farm workers, commercial
farmers and the black peasantry. It is also now an open secret that thousands
of commercial farm workers lost both their employment and residences on
former white-owned farms. Critics argue that this was a revolution constructed
to devour its own children.
Commenting on the
recent takeover of Kondozi Farm, Vice-President Joseph Msika described
the take over of Kondozi as, "immoral" and the responsible government
ministers as "immoral little boys."
Msika said, "My
position, which is not personal but based on policy, is that we should
not disturb sugarcane estates, citrus estates and other horticultural
concerns in the lowveld and highlands. These are large industries, earning
the country a lot of foreign currency. But they should not remain exclusive
to a few individuals or whites only. More people must be included in the
ownership of the concerns, but not through violence and barbaric ways.
Personally, as the chairman of the Land taskforce, I would not accept
having the army and police descending on the farms to forcibly evict owners,
farm workers or peasants. Such actions cast a bad image on the land issue
that has been a success generally".
Since the Constitutional
Referendum of February 2000, the farm occupations have taken a politically
motivated violent path. It should however, be noted that this is not the
first time when Zimbabwe has seen major political differences amongst
its people on issues pertaining to land policy, leading to political rivalry.
In the 1960s, the
Rhodesian Front was established as a political party and fought white
elections on the back of a burning land issue then, as more liberal whites
sought ownership of the land across the racial divide.
Currently, the emergency
of a major opposition political party in the form of the MDC proffers
challenges to the ruling Zanu PF party’s long held monopoly in determining
land policy.
In a thriving democracy,
the situation would have offered opportunity for rich dialogue and policy
processes, hopefully leading to greater effectiveness and realisation
of development. However, the authorities in Zimbabwe decided to engage
in a violent land reform programme.
Like the recent acquisition
of Charleswood and Kondozi properties, the violence directed at black
farm workers and white farmers as part of political campaigns led to the
freezing of donor support for the land reform programme in a situation
where the government has limited financial capacity to support resettlement
programmes. The proposed nationalisation of land by a bankrupt regime
will further worsen the situation and even drive away the newly resettled
black farmers who aspire to be the new bourgeoisie in Zimbabwe.
It’s also clear from
Msika’s speeches that the fast track land reform programme did not meet
the fundamental goal of empowering black people.
Nationalisation:
Sheer economic imprudence
The fast track land reform programme has reduced food production in the
country and according to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation
(FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP) joint report of May 2004, grain production
this year could be lower than last year’s 980 000 tonnes. The report dated
May 19, says harvesting of the main season crops planted between November
and December 2003 is underway. Based on the mission’s visit to three main
regions, observations along the travel routes and interviews with people
at local level, the mission estimated that the overall food deficit could
be over one million tonnes.
It is startling to
note the level of political and schizophrenic disorder exhibited in government
policy. In the Zanu PF Presidential Election Manifesto during the 2002
Presidential Elections, the party proposed to deal with the ailing economy
by reducing government size and privatisation of parastatals.
This highlights the
confusion surrounding government policy because nationalisation and privatisation
are direct opposites. The prosperity of most industrialised nations is
rooted in long-term investment in agriculture. For instance, the land
reforms in South East Asia not only allowed greater access to land for
the previously colonised and landless peasants but they were backed by
massive investment into rural development leading to high levels of production
and yields for the previously underprivileged households.
Transparency
The Kondozi affair was a clear revelation that the fast track land reform
programme was fraught with inconsistencies. For instance, the land audit
done by Charles Utete, exposed multiple land ownership by high-ranking
government officials. Mugabe fired Peter Chanetsa, the former Governor
of Mashonaland West province after the press alleged that he had six farms
contrary to the government’s policy of one-man one-farm. It was also revealed
that several government officials used their children or spouses to acquire
multiple farms. It is therefore uncertain that, if given the power to
nationalise the land, the process will not deteriorate into a corruption
orgy.
What the Zimbabwean
Constitution says
The current Constitution of Zimbabwe does not provide for the nationalisation
of assets. Nationalisation of assets amount to compulsory acquisition
and should be carried out under a legal process where the issue of compensation
can be addressed.
The current legal
position is that the former colonial power, Britain will pay for the acquisition
of land from the former white commercial farmers. But under the current
proposed move, the government will owns the land. The proposal by John
Nkomo, gives the state too much authority at the expense of the tenants.
Ideologically there
may be a case for the nationalisation of land but there is no economic
justification for turning everyone into a tenant of the State. Alternatively,
the State can introduce land tax as penalty against those who fail to
utilise land.
Conclusion
It is clear from Msika’s comments that the desire to include more people
in the ownership of large-scale commercial farms and to ensure that the
process is equitable has not been realized. The use of the police and
the army to violently remove genuine land hungry peasants and workers
at farms such as Kondozi bears testimony to this.
Visit the Crisis in
Zimbabwe fact sheet
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
|
