COMMENT

THREE decades later, land redistribution in Zimbabwe is still not complete and disputes around the allocations, misallocations, removals, displacements as well as developments such as renting out of land to former farm owners; and eyebrows raised over land left lying fallow continue unabated. All this while production on the farms remains far less than can feed the nation; an irony of baffling magnitude considering how endowed the country is by rich fertile soils, moderate climate and an industrious and more than adequate labour base.

It is prudent to note that Zimbabwe has implemented the land reform in three phases in three decades. The first phase, going from independence in 1980 through 1985, consisted of market sales of land through State land acquisition and redistribution. It also entailed intensive illegal land occupations and substantial land transfer, though not as much as the authorities wanted. 
The second phase, from 1986 until 1999, enabled the State to acquire land through expropriation and market mechanisms.

The third, which was the fast track land reform programme began in 2000 and entailed intensive land expropriation alongside illegal land occupations. It has continued to date. 
Across these three land reform phases, previously disadvantaged blacks, especially the non-landed, which includes poor land-short farmers, the landless, agricultural workers, poor urban workers and the unemployed, sought land reform to redress racial and class inequalities, foreign domination and historical loss.

Some of the better-off black middle class, entrepreneurs and political elites also gained land, sometimes claiming to be “landless”, due to past racial and class-based segregation and exclusions. 
It should be recalled that land reform was, for some, intended to “de-racialise” commercial farming. More critically, redistributive land reform in Zimbabwe was conceived to relieve landlessness and “overcrowding”.

Although by and large the exercise has been redistributive, what continues to soil the process and dog progress is the manner in which it has been conducted.
The redistribution exercise is still going on punctuated with daunting irregularities; double allocations; disputes over who was allocated which portion of a farm.

Against a background of recurring fresh farm invasions and disruptions reported in a number of areas in the country, the Tzoro Farm in Centenary, Scippers Farm in Gweru and Muriwayi Farm in Beatrice, are latest examples among many others countrywide. 

The remaining white minorities on the farms have become very vulnerable amidst reports that the only safe ones are those who have some sort of protection from the ruling party.  
The jury is still out as to whether the protection is by way of expressing solidarity with the revolutionary party; whether it is by way of bribes; or both.

The allegations of bribes-for-protection for remaining whites on the farms, if true, portray rot in the dealings of some officials entrusted with the responsibility of redistribution and allocation of parcels of land. 
However, because of the sensitivity of the matter, it has often been difficult to get to the bottom of the truth or lack thereof of claims of bribes-for-protection. Be that as it may, it is but a fact that there are some white farmers legitimately still on the farms.

The contentions over land, however, have ceased to be only about black against white, but have since assumed a black on black phenomena, which is seeing indigenous black people fighting each other on land matters around issues of who gets an offer letter; who got it first on the same piece of land; who gets the offer letter for which parcel of land and supported by whom? 
Where this has occurred, it has emerged, more often than not, that it has been based on connections, patronage and cronyism as the trading currency of (1) Who gets a farm and who doesn’t; and (2) who gets which farm?  
It is but a fact that some farms are choicier than others. Apparently the closer to the cities, or the more connected a parcel of land is to the road network, markets and even the redder the soils, the more the allocation of particular land becomes contentious.

Incidents of some new farmers having their allocated land usurped by “big chefs” because the said farm is more preferred are common. And in such cases many a new farmer have been booted off some prime land by a chef with more connections and clout.
What has also emerged as particularly problematic is the lack of clear cut lines of who is calling the shots.
 While legally it is the Ministry of Lands which is the sole allocating authority, some party structures within the provinces have often weighed in on the redistribution matters in ways that bear undue pressure on the processes.

The Tzoro wrangle exposed in particular conflicting decisions between the ruling party and the lands committee, betraying a lack of adherence on division of labour as to who allocates farms. Double allocation of same pieces of land is also rampant.

What is also evident in some of the wrangles is possible intra-party fighting along the lines of those who went to war versus those who didn’t, against the backdrop of a sense of entitlement by war veterans.  
The vulnerability of unassuming workers on farms, who oftentimes are caught between warring sides of the old owner and new one is also something of particular concern. Sometimes roused and sensitised along racial lines with the “sellout” trump card often played in order to coerce and manipulate, the workers have often felt they had no choice but to side with farmers who are fellow blacks even though evidence on ground reveals from time to time that many of the new black landowners do not pay a living wage to the same labourers they expect allegiance from.

Media reports have been awash with this or that new land baron going for months without paying his/her workers’ any wages.
If there is one thing the lack of adequate production in the farming sector has highlighted it is this: we have landowners but not farmers. Yet the process continues to produce more of the same.
It is our hope that a working system devoid of hiccups be put in place to clean up the murky exercise. What the country needs is a coherent, co-ordinated, clear, transparent and systemic land re-distribution exercise that can stand the test of time as well as hold up to any scrutiny, because clearly the one we have had for the past 33 years has been way below the mark.

Zimbabwe needs a process that can acquit itself well in terms of audits and other assessments and evaluations that are necessary in an accountable and democratic society.  
Surely this is not too much to ask in this day and age of technology; in this day and age of communication at lightning speed; and in a country with such an immense level of intellectual capital. 
The country at 33, has more than come of age. Its systems and programmes should reflect the same.