Land reform: the way forward
http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk
13.02.13
by Dr Admos Chimhowu
Fast Track Land Reform is fast becoming an interesting area of intellectual
and policy exchange as more empirical evidence of its outcomes emerges. The
most recent event, aptly titled Land Reform in Zimbabwe Revisited: A
Qualified Success?, took place at Chatham House at the end of January. The
event focused on the evidence emerging from the new book Zimbabwe Takes Back
its Land (Kumarian Press) written by Joe Hanlon, Teresa Smart and Jeanette
Manjengwa.
Even on a cold winter evening in London the event had all the elements of
intrigue that have come to be associated with this issue. There was a
capacity audience, a highly polarised debate and even a small, spirited but
peaceful protest mounted by Zim Vigil outside.
Sir Malcom Rifkind MP was the discussant. Many may not know that he lived
and worked in then Rhodesia in the late 1960s and wrote a very insightful
MSc thesis on the Politics of Land. His views on the book were very
carefully calibrated – recognising the rich historical analysis and the
candidly presented empirical evidence. He focused on his own recollection of
the polarised discourse in the Rhodesia parliament in the 1960s and also
reflected on the post-independence dynamics. Addressing directly the now
infamous 5th November 1997 Clare Short letter (about the British Government
not taking responsibility to fund land reforms), Sir Malcom maintained the
official UK government line that this should not be a British responsibility
but one for Zimbabwe to prioritise.
Teresa Smart and Jeanette Manjengwa gave insights into the key findings of
the book, arguing that notwithstanding all the criticisms of Fast Track,
there is evidence that many smallholders who got land are using it to better
themselves. Much of the discussion on the new book focused on its findings
and it was clear that the polarisation that has characterised the land
reform discourse continues. Some of the early evidence soon after 2000
pointed to a decline in production and productivity but more recent findings
are showing a need to relook at what is happening on the land.
The publication in 2010 of Zimbabwe’s Land Reform: Myths and Realities
marked a turning point in what has become a highly polarised discourse on
the FTLR in Zimbabwe. This book was not only a marker of a new
counter-narrative, seeking to challenge a generally accepted view that Fast
Track Land Reform had been an unmitigated disaster, but it also sought to
introduce some academic rigour into what had become a politicised lay and
professional media discourse.
Adding new evidence, Zimbabwe Takes Back its Land supports this new
narrative. It argues that FTLR in Zimbabwe has worked well for some, but
could work better for more people with additional support. There is evidence
of beneficiaries investing in and using land to improve their lives. This
should not have been a surprise, because we know from past experiences of
self resettlement that eventually people use the land to better themselves
with or without state or other support.
At the Chatham House meeting there was a wide-ranging discussion, including
on how the FTLR empowered women; lessons from Zimbabwe for South Africa; the
need for support services for the beneficiaries; the need for more analysis
of those who lost out; issues of employment and labour on the FTLR farms and
patterns of emerging social differentiation on the farms. Others raised the
contradictions between FTLR as being a success in tobacco production, while
the country is still appealing for food aid. There were also challenges from
the Commercial Farmers Union representatives who had flown in for the
meeting on some of the figures used in the book.
As evidence accumulates that the FTLR was not an unmitigated disaster, there
are, in my view, some new dilemmas to address. There are:
1 How can key actors begin to recognise and accept this growing body of
evidence without being seen to endorse the methods used to achieve asset
transfer? With South Africa facing similar challenges, any suggestion that
massive dispossession undertaken at speed can produce good results in the
long term would create problems for some interest groups. But then is
dismissing FTLR as an unmitigated disaster still tenable in the face of
growing and credible evidence? We know that land reform can work to create
the basis for long-term development (e.g. from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan
and China), but what conditions need to be put in place now?
2 If it is accepted that the FTLR has worked to improve some (not all)
people’s lives should it therefore not be accepted and supported (with all
its history and faults)? This is particularly important for donors whose
next question would be how to engage with the beneficiaries without being
seen as endorsing the process through which these outcomes were achieved. It
seems to me that this dilemma can be resolved if the legal issues that
remain unresolved are addressed- especially the issue of compensation. This
is for the GoZ to work through and can potentially unlock further support
for the FTLR beneficiaries.
3 With elections looming in Zimbabwe the various political groups also have
a crucial dilemma. Accepting that FTLR has worked for some and is beginning
to yield results hands over political advantage to those who led or allowed
this to happen. Rejecting the evidence though begins to sound insincere. It
seems to me that this one will only be resolved after the elections! – Dr
Admos Chimhowu is a Zimbabwean scholar working at the University of
Manchester. First published by zimbabweland.