|
Back to Index
Land
Nationalization
Media Monitoring
Project Zimbabwe (MMPZ)
Extracted from Media Weekly Update 2004-23
Monday June 7th – Sunday June 13th 2004
GOVERNMENT’S
controversial agrarian reforms were plunged into further chaos during
the week following a government proclamation that it intended nationalising
all productive land in the country. According to an announcement
by Lands Minister John Nkomo carried in The
Herald and Chronicle (8/6), the move would result
in the State replacing title deeds with 99-year leases for crop
fields and 25 years for conservancies. But the papers – like the
rest of the government-controlled media – made no attempt to seek
a legal context or time frame to this latest crucially important
national policy announcement. Neither did they interpret or explore
the constitutionality of the decision.
Rather, their
news stories passively amplified the proposed land nationalisation
policy as the answer to rationalising the authorities’ contentious
land reforms. Veiled criticism of the plan only appeared in The
Herald’s Nathaniel Manheru column (12/6) and the equally vituperative
Lowani Ndlovu’s Uncolonised editorial in The Sunday Mail.
The private
media however questioned the rationale behind the edict. They sourced
views of independent commentators, including the opposition MDC,
who argued that the government plan was unconstitutional and would
adversely affect badly needed investment in the country’s prostrate
agricultural sector.
In fact, the
unquestioning nature of the government media was illustrated by
the initial reports on the issue in The Herald and Chronicle
(8/6). They passively welcomed the 25-year leases for wildlife conservancies
saying this "would allow many people to partake in the
lucrative sector" and quoted Nkomo saying that with
the new development "it will now be the State which will
enable the utilisation of the land for national prosperity".
Similarly ZTV
(9/6, 8pm) did not interrogate Nkomo over government’s fickle land
policies when it allowed him to justify the proposed nationalisation
programme on the grounds that land in Zambia and Mozambique was
also state-owned. ZTV
(10/6,6pm) also allowed agriculture consultant Africa Makasi to
make a similar comment.
However, both
bulletins failed to question the successfulness of the programmes
in those countries, a point addressed by The Sunday Mirror
(13/6).
While acknowledging
that nationalization of land was not a new philosophy, the privately
owned weekly noted that the programme had largely failed in other
African countries, which implemented it in the 1970s and early 1980s.
But the government media would not inform its audiences about this
unflattering fact.
Rather, The
Herald (11/6) continued with its celebration, and even suggested
a shorter lease of 50 years for farms because "life expectancy
hardly exceeds 70 years". The paper argued that leaseholds
would deter lazy people from "grabbing a farm, lawfully
or otherwise" and would "allow an opportunity
for the farm to be given to someone else after the confirmed leaseholder
passes on, there being a high probability that the current farmer’s
offspring may have absolutely no interest in farming".
This patently
absurd line of thought was presumably introduced in order to avoid
the fundamentally important issue of how any leases – least of all
short ones - would affect the commitment to invest in a property
that is likely to be reallocated and the bigger question of national
agricultural development. Nor did it explain how short leases would
boost farm production. ZTV
(10, 6pm), Power FM and Radio Zimbabwe (11/6, 6am) similarly glossed
over such issues.
The private
media were rather more realistic. Studio 7 (8/6) revealed through
constitutional law expert Lovemore Madhuku that the government plan
was not only "legally impossible" but "unconstitutional"
as it violated Section 16 of the Zimbabwe Constitution, which protected
private property rights. He said the announcement "so
far has no legal instrument" because for government
to convert all land into State property, it needed to amend the
constitution, which requires a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament.
The Standard (13/6) and Sunday Mirror also quoted
Madhuku raising similar views. He told The Standard that
if government was to be allowed to nationalise land then "we
are all doomed because they (government) can even take our houses".
For balance
Studio 7 (9/6) quoted government lawyer Johannes Tomana contending
that government’s plans to convert title deeds to leases was legal
because it was "in keeping with the initial amendment
to the constitution, which allowed the State to compulsorily acquire
land".
Ironically,
Madhuku’s criticisms of the government plan found unlikely allies
in the government print media columnist(s) Nathaniel Manheru and
Lowani Ndlovu, whose views on topical issues usually reflect or
defend government policies. Manheru, for example, noted that plans
to nationalise farmland was "certainly and clearly ahead
of prudence and law" adding that Nkomo’s "(mis)communication"
was "in fact an embarrassing knee-jerk meant to deflect
a deluge of criticism he has suffered lately on account of his errant
staff", The Herald (12/6).
Ndlovu’s column
in The Sunday Mail (13/6) described the move as
a "mere political pronouncement, an empty talk, not supported
by any administrative instrument or administrative action, let alone
by law", adding that any proposition to nationalise
land outside the already "settled legal approach"
was "mumbo jumbo that only invites confusion and needless
misunderstanding".
MMPZ notes that
it is surprising Information Minister Jonathan Moyo allows such
abusive criticism of such a senior government official and chairman
of the ruling party in the papers that he controls. Be that as it
may, it was a unique event to see the columnists’ opinion tallying
with alternative opinion recorded in the private media. For example,
SW Radio Africa (9/6) and The Standard quoted Justice for
Agriculture officials saying the proposed nationalisation programme
had caused so "much confusion" among the
farming community and explaining why government should retain individual
title to land, which could be used as collateral and would encourage
investment.
Johnny Rodriguez
of the Zimbabwe Conservation Taskforce agreed and told SW Radio
Africa that the move to nationalise conservancies would spell disaster
for Zimbabwe’s wildlife. He said this was because most conservancies
were protected by investment guarantees with foreign governments
and were surviving on the back of "massive foreign investments"
from countries like Britain, America, Germany and South Africa.
Political scientist
John Makumbe also told The Standard that the move was the
"final nail in the coffin in the country as no-one will
commit money on land he or she does not own" while
MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai dismissed the whole idea as an "outdated
concept, which is unproductive". Tsvangirai was similarly
quoted in The Financial Gazette (10/6). And even James Murumbi,
a resettled farmer on the outskirts of Harare, told Studio 7 (10/6)
that government’s plans were "retrogressive and bound
to discourage agricultural investment". He said he
was unlikely to invest further in a property that was likely to
be taken away, adding that most farmers were left confused by the
government move, and were not sure how to proceed, a statement which
flew in the face of Minister Nkomo’s claims that the move will "generate
a lot of confidence" among farmers (ZTV, 10/6, 8pm).
In fact, The Sunday Mirror observed that the logistics of
implementing the programme were not clearly spelt out resulting
in confusion surrounding the announcement.
In a related
matter suggesting government confusion, Studio 7 (9/6) reported
that the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Agriculture had been
tasked to verify government claims that the country will have a
bumper harvest this year.
Meanwhile, in
an apparent attempt to obtain the opposition’s approval of government’s
chaotic land reform programme (and to demonstrate the fickleness
of the MDC) The Herald (10/6) deliberately distorted
comments made by MDC MP David Coltart who, it said, had changed
his stance on the land issue during a parliamentary debate on the
Acquisition of Farm Equipment Bill. The paper claimed that Coltart,
a "fierce opponent" of land reforms,
had made a "U-turn" and now embraced land
redistribution "which he said was unfairly taken away
from the locals by colonial settlers". But the paper
failed to explain how such statements represented a policy change
by Coltart who was quoted in the same report saying the MDC had
always advocated equitable land redistribution. Said Coltart: "We
have always maintained that position that the landholding in this
country was unjust and inequitable." ZBC also carried
the same misrepresentation.
Visit the MMPZ
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
|
