Results 1 to 20 of 77
BBC admits: Zimbabwe land reform ‘not a failure’
Zimbabwe land reform ‘not a failure’
By Joseph Winter
17 November 2010
Zimbabwe’s often violent land reform programme has not been the complete economic disaster widely portrayed, a new study has found.
Most of the country’s 4,000 white farmers – then the backbone of the country’s agricultural economy – were forced from their land, which was handed over to about a million black Zimbabweans.
The study’s lead author, Ian Scoones from the UK’s Institute of Development Studies at Sussex University, told BBC News he was “genuinely surprised” to see how much activity was happening on the farms visited during the 10-year study.
“People were getting on with things in difficult circumstances and doing remarkably well,” he said.
He declines, however, to characterise it as a success.
‘Facts on the ground’
The policy was central to President Robert Mugabe’s re-election campaigns in 2002 and 2008, as he argued that he was putting right the wrongs inherited from the pre-1980 colonial era, when black Zimbabweans were forced from their homelands in favour of white settlers.
But his numerous critics accused him of simply bribing voters, while destroying what used to be one of Africa’s most developed economies.
“What we have observed on the ground does not represent the political and media stereotypes of abject failure; but nor indeed are we observing universal, roaring success,” says the study – Zimbabwe’s Land Reform, Myths and Realities.
Mr Scoones accepts that there were major problems with the “fast-track” land reform programme carried out since 2000, such as the violence, which included deadly attacks on white farmers and those accused of supporting the opposition, and the corruption associated with the allocation of some farms.
The study also notes that most beneficiaries complained about the government not giving them the support they need, such as seeds, fertiliser and ploughing the land.
But he says much of the debate has been unduly politicised.
“We wanted to uncover the facts on the ground,” he said.
Mr Scoones says it is important that the full pictures, with all its nuances, is known and argues that the 10-year study of 400 households in the southern province of Masvingo debunks five myths:
- That land reform has been a total failure
- That most of the land has gone to political “cronies”
- That there is no investment on the resettled land
- That agriculture is in complete ruins, creating chronic food insecurity
- That the rural economy has collapsed.
Investing in the land
The study found that about two-thirds of people who were given land in Masvingo were “ordinary” – low-income – Zimbabweans. These are the people Mr Mugabe always said his reforms were designed to help.
The remaining one-third includes civil servants (16.5%), former workers on white-owned farms (6.7%), business people (4.8%) and members of the security services (3.7%).
Of these, he estimates that around 5% are “linked to the political-military-security elite”.
In other words, that they were given the land because of their political connections, rather than their economic need, or agricultural skills.
Mr Scoones accepts that the proportion of such “cronies” being given land may be higher in other parts of Zimbabwe, especially in the fertile areas around the capital Harare, and that 5% of people may have gained more than 5% of the land even in Masvingo.
But he maintains that they gained a relatively small proportion of the overall land seized across the country.
The researchers found that, on average, each household had invested more than $2,000 (£1,200) on their land since they had settled on it – clearing land, building houses and digging wells.
This investment has led to knock-on activity in the surrounding areas, boosting the rural economy and providing further employment.
‘Under the radar’
One of those questioned, identified only as JM, told the researchers that before being given land he had relied on help from others but now owns five head of cattle and employs two workers.
Many white farmers may be reluctant to return to work in Zimbabwe's agriculture
“The new land has transformed our lives,” he said.
Others say they are much better off farming than when they had jobs.
He says that about half of those surveyed are doing well, reaping good harvests and reinvesting the profits.
Maize is Zimbabwe’s main food crop but its production remains reliant on good rains and output remains well below that pre-2000. Mr Scoones says Zimbabwe’s food crisis of 2007-8 cannot be put down to the land seizures, as those people who went hungry produced a large surplus both the previous and subsequent years.
Before the “fast-track” land reform began in 2000, tobacco, mostly grown by white commercial farmers, was Zimbabwe’s biggest cash crop.
But producing top quality tobacco requires considerable investment and know-how, both of which are lacking among many of the new black farmers.
Instead, they often grow cotton, which has now replaced tobacco as the main agricultural export.
Mr Scoones says those who are struggling the most are the least well-off civil servants, such as teachers and nurses, who have been unable to get credit and do not have the resources, or political connections, to invest in their land.
He hopes that as Zimbabwe’s economy slowly recovers under a power-sharing government, a new programme can be worked out which would give these people the backing they need to succeed.
It is often argued that large-scale commercial farming – as many of the white Zimbabweans used to practise – is inherently more efficient than the smallholder system which replaced it, but Mr Scoones dismisses this argument and says he is backed by several studies from around the world.
He says it is now impossible to return to the previous set-up and even suggests that some of the evicted white farmers may one day work with the new farmers as consultants, marketing men, farm managers or elsewhere in the overall agricultural economy, such as transporting goods to market or helping to transform and add value to their produce.
Many of those who remain bitter about losing their land may are likely to respond: “Over my dead body”.
But Mr Scoones says a surprising number are already taking this option and making reasonable money from it “under the radar”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11764004
I noticed the BBC has toned down their propaganda regarding Zimbabwe since Tsvangirai was let into government. The years until then were especially vicious in their butthurtedness, and its still not great but its not as ridiculous as those days.
At school they taught us that Zimbabwe was like a reverse South Africa because it was racist towards whites. there was some rich white woman talking on the radio about how great life was in the old days before that bastard mugabe..
Anyway yeah this is interesting to observe even the BBC saying this, makes a nice change from the usual "black people cant do anything right" line.
Formerly zenga zenga !
That's interesting to hear, are there any reliable indicators about quality of life before and after land reform started?
This article here makes an interesting statement that might give you a slight answer to your question.
"The United Nations Development Program ranks Zimbabwe dead last among 169 countries based on quality of life - this despite an increase in average life expectancy to 47 years from 37 just a few years ago."
Cheers.
"Machinery in itself is a victory of man over the forces of nature, but in the hands of capital it makes man the slave of those forces" - Uncle Karl
Great to hear whenever progress towards socialism is made anywhere.
fka xx1994xx
As a person of color, I may sympathize. But still, isn't land grabbing wrong, no matter how we look at it? I am not sure how this fits into socialism at all. I understand what happened with the imperialists and all, but how does it justify punishing ordinary people?
Mugabes still a prick though to be fair lol
Mugabes living like a monarch while his countrymen and women starve and children are being tied up and having acid poured on them for apparently being deamons, yeah progressive society, that backs the various religeous institutions there.
It wasn't the white Euro-African's land in the first place. All Mugabe did was take back the land of his people away from white European settlers.
How is that wrong? I have no problem with it so long as it isnt targeting the poor and the destitude.
Do not say that we have nothing,
We shall be masters of all under heaven!
I know of nothing of Mugabe being for this type of method at all. Must realize that, as anti-Mugabe wants to be, he came into leadership when Zimbabwe was completely backwards. There's only so much that he can actually do as leader of such. This land reform of his helped build up Zimbabwe in certain areas, among other things.Mugabes still a prick though to be fair lol
Mugabes living like a monarch while his countrymen and women starve and children are being tied up and having acid poured on them for apparently being deamons, yeah progressive society, that backs the various religeous institutions there.
I take the view of Omali Yeshitela when he says "we support the people of Zimbabwe against Mugabe, but we support Mugabe against the imperialists" or something like that.
Formerly zenga zenga !
The justice or injustice of the expropriation of land depends entirely on context. What socio-economic strata are you expropriating the land from, and who are you giving it to?
What I am saying is, this has happened in most countries - aborigines in Aus., native Americans in US and Canada, and so forth. If people applied the same logic, there would be chaos. Sometimes, it's better to ignore the past.
And why exactly is that?
You seem to completely disregard any class interest on each separate events. This will of course lead to chaos in itself if we were to go by your logic.
But if people continue to grab land on the basis of race, as is happening in Z, wouldn't class interests recede into the background?
Well the recent land reform had nothing to do with "race", per se. If anything, it dealt a larger deal towards such when white settlers from Europe colonized over Zimbabwean land. This land reform is only to re-exchange land back to their rightful owners.
This is, of course, going against the fact that the Zimbabwean people and the traditional tribe leaders love Robert Mugabe.
http://panafricannews.blogspot.com/2...ders-want.html
COMMUNISM !