Land Reform in Zimbabwe
There has been nothing short of a preponderance of news reports, scholarly articles, and case studies surrounding the fall of Zimbabwe, once proudly known as the breadbasket of Africa. The story is indeed heartbreaking, but one that is crucial for the world to know so that such tragedy never repeats itself again. At the heart of all the chaos lies the issue of land and how to ensure a fairer distribution of land among the white and black populations. Former President Robert Mugabe chose to seize white farms without compensation. While some may argue that Zimbabwe must complete a total redistribution of land to black farmers to resolve the question of land, I advocate that rather than enforcing the expropriation of land without compensation, implementing a government-sponsored program to train a new generation of skilled farmers and award them with land based on their competences would allow the nation to finally reach a point of sustainable development.
Zimbabwe has dealt with the question of land distribution for over a century. In 1930, when Zimbabwe was still known as Southern Rhodesia and a white-minority colonial government was still in power, the Land Apportionment Act was passed, granting 49 million acres of land to white farmers and a mere 17.7 million acres to be shared between black and white farmers. At the time, white Rhodesians accounted for less than 4% of the population, yet were entitled to the majority of the land. Later, after Zimbabwe gained independence, the Lancaster House Agreement was signed, the Zimbabwean government was not to confiscate the land of white farmers for the next ten years. Mugabe operated off of purchasing land from willing buyers, but not much progress was made in regards to land distribution. An article from the Guardian details the situation, “Yet after 20 years of Mugabe’s rule… the picture was not hugely different. Just 6,000 white farmers occupied half of Zimbabwe’s 81m acres of arable land. About 850,000 black farmers were crammed into the rest. Since independence, only 10% of arable land has moved legally from white to black hands.” Simply put, the proportion of land to each farmer was radically different for white and black farmers. This ratio was seen as a legacy of colonialism and Mugabe sought to increase the percentage of land owned by black farmers. It was widely acknowledged that some sort of land reform was necessary to aid the nearly one million black families who were overcrowded on small sects of land.This vast gap was not sustainable in the long-run and Mugabe had to do something to quell the frustrations.
The world now knows of the notorious land-grabs instituted by Mugabe which saw the forceful removal of white farmers from the lands. However, the implementation of the fast-track land reform policy has had egregious results. As Mugabe began to lose support in the late 1990s, he ordered the implementation of the fast-track land reform program as a way to regain the support of those who were frustrated with the sluggish economic growth. The government actively encouraged squatters to invade white farms along with sending troops over to evict white farmers and their families. Thousands of farms were seized and showered on political cronies as rewards from Mugabe. While the Western media has devoted much attention to the plight of the thousands of white Zimbabwean farmers who were harassed, tortured, and forced off of their lands, over a million black farm workers were evicted, affecting millions of other Zimbabweans as well. Ultimately, the decisions regarding land reform had far-reaching consequences that saw the flight of around a fifth of Zimbabwe’s population.
Mugabe’s land reforms did not succeed because he yearned for short-term results and failed to grasp the magnitude of his actions. Promising to redistribute land is a convenient and effective way of garnering support right before a crucial election, but not a viable long-term solution to resolve the issue of land distribution. In Zimbabwe, while some of the farms were redistributed to black farmers, they lacked the resources and equipment to sustain the land due to Zimbabwe’s dire economic situation. Other farms were taken over by squatters or were awarded to Mugabe’s political allies, people who had no knowledge of farming nor had any interest in learning. In both scenarios, the once fertile land that grew vegetables exported to premier European supermarkets became barren, overgrown only with weeds. Eventually, Zimbabwe officially plunged into a famine in 2004, just three short years after the land seizures began. Exiled farmers watched helplessly as their nation, whose GDP was once heavily supported by agricultural exports, became increasingly reliant on foreign aid and relief in order to feed its own people while millions of acres of farming land lay wasted. It was a severe oversight on Mugabe’s end and his land reforms not only failed to fairly redistribute land in order to correct colonial injustices, but only thrusted Zimbabwe into an economic crisis that persists up to this day.
Similarly, Venezuela experienced the same populist land reform policies all enacted in the name of social change. In 1998, around 1% of the population owned nearly 60% of the agricultural land. To rectify that severe inequality, President Hugo Chavez ordered the seizure of millions of hectares where farms and properties lay. Just a few years later, Venezuela found itself in the midst of a food shortage; an article in the Washington Post states that “the government expropriated factories, too, and Venezuela’s domestic food production plummeted” (WaPo). While the nominal goal of the land reform policies was to realize his revolution, he only brought about tremendous suffering and starvation. Chavez disregarded property rights in his attempt to create this veneer of social justice which ended in a severe economic downtown. In essence, encroaching on fundamental rights in order to bring about social change never results in the improvement of the living and working conditions of ordinary people, but always harms the people it was meant to help. Those at the top, including Chavez, remained unscathed while their policies destroyed millions of livelihoods.
A major repercussion of Mugabe’s rash decision to enforce the fast-track land reform policy was the erosion in the trust of Zimbabwe’s institutions and the government’s ability to function as a democracy. According to the government, one of the main goals was to seize “not less than 8.3 million hectares from the large-scale commercial farming sector for redistribution.” His populist ideals of redistribution rendered property rights to be futile, and that served as an indication of the government’s authoritarian nature. Based on a study by the CATO institute, property rights and economic growth are inextricably linked. One can hold the opinion that property rights are a fundamental tenet of democracy and ignoring that right is a bellwether for more rights to be trampled upon, which were exactly the economic and political developments in Zimbabwe. A Gallup poll from 2009 cites that nearly 40% of Zimbabweans immediately mentioned a lack of trust in the government. That is a stunning figure that points to the lack of a functioning democracy in the country.
Based on the economic and political consequences of the land reform policies in Zimbabwe, it is evident that the best solution would be to establish a government-sponsored program to train and develop skilled farmers as well as equip them with the necessary resources to cultivate their land. We have seen that simply showering land on untrained individuals only leads to a waste of valuable assets, but many Zimbabweans suffer from a lack of education and training. The government should continue its policy in the 80s and 90s of buying land from farmers who wanted to sell and then redistributing the purchased land to those who have proven themselves to be disciplined and dedicated to the craft. Farmers should be incentivized to sell their farms by the state either through financial compensation or other forms of compensation. While this process may be slower, the horrific consequences seen in the past two decades have proved that when only the short-term effects are considered, the results may be horrendous beyond belief. By not expropriating without compensating, the government will regain the people’s trust and confidence in its objectives of alleviating poverty while ensuring that the land will be in good hands and will be well cared for.
One notable example that highlights the success of training individuals to farm is that of former Zimbabwean farmer Pieter de Klerk who owned a magnificent farm called
Kondozi in the heart of the lush hills of the Manicaland province. Kondozi was a sprawling estate that produced snow-peas and other vegetables of the highest caliber for upscale European supermarkets. After the land reform policies were passed, squatters began invading his farm, but instead of attempting to force them off the land, de Klerk’s sons taught them to cultivate and grow vegetables. There were institutions established on the farm in order to educate black people on how to become self-sufficient farmers. De Klerk would purchase the vegetables grown by the squatters and there began the cycle of self-sufficiency. At its peak, Kondozi employed around 5,000 workers and supported tens of thousands more when family members were taken into account. Unfortunately, the farm was seized by the authorities and tens of thousands of livelihoods were suddenly disrupted. Nonetheless, the lessons learned from de Klerk’s endeavors can still be applied to Zimbabwe today. De Klerk’s success in helping produce a sustainable generation of black farmers remains a blueprint for the government to follow.
However, implementing an agriculture education program would require the government to be both trusted and held accountable. The government’s brutal plundering of farms completely destroyed the notion of property rights and caused many to lose faith in the government’s commitment to upholding the best interests of its citizens. Therefore, first and foremost the Zimbabwean government must pledge to abide by and fully respect property rights. No serious democracy rejects the right to own property. Moreover, since significant funds would be funneled into establishing such a program, the Zimbabwean government must remarkably decrease its level of corruption. In 2019, Transparency International ranked Zimbabwe 157/180 on its corruption index and the Daily Maverick published a stunning report on the staggering amount of corruption in the country, noting that at least half of Zimbabwe’s annual GDP may be lost due to illicit economic activity. Western nations must convene and change the rules regarding the astonishing sums channeled to the Zimbabwean government as foreign aid within the next ten years. The government should only receive aid in order to develop its training program as well as purchase land from willing buyers to bestow onto the educated farmers. In order to keep the government accountable and to best ensure a lack of corruption, Zimbabwe’s qualifications for foreign aid would depend on the number of trained farmers in a year and any unlawful confiscation of land would result in an immediate end to the foreign aid. The goal is for Zimbabwe to eventually have a sufficient number of farmers who are well-versed in the agricultural sector and are able to feed the country, thereby ending its long standing reliance on foreign relief.
Now, few people care to even bat an eyelash at the struggles of a small landlocked country in Southern Africa, but the effects of Zimbabwe’s land reform policies affect other countries as well. South Africa is currently undergoing a serious debate on expropriation without compensation and until recently many officials were considering revising the country’s constitution in order to allow the farms of white South African farmers to be expropriated. The complaint is that though white population makes up around 8% of the total population, over 72% of the country’s arable land is in the hands of white farmers. Politicians such as Julius Malema argue vehemently in favor of expropriating land and he has flirted with the idea of violence, having chanted “Kill the Boer!” at his rallies(Boer means farmer in Afrikaans). Farmers in South Africa face a precarious routine; Afriforum estimates that farmers are more likely to be killed in South Africa than police officers. The rise in farm murders is undoubtedly linked to the violent rhetoric spewed by politicians like Malema who encourage their supporters to invade and take over white-owned farms. Consequently, it is vital that the issue of land reform is addressed otherwise countries like South Africa with a complicated legacy of colonialism and injustices could very well face significant turmoil in the years to come. Millions of lives could be in jeopardy and we could witness the downfall of another nation.
In conclusion, land reform is not a spur-of-the-moment sort of decision but rather a well-intentioned and thought out process to uplift those who are disadvantaged. When one’s goal becomes retribution, revenge, or political ambition, the policies will fail and the masses are left with dire consequences while the policy makers hardly even feel the effect of the negative repercussions. We must always seek to prioritize the needs of those who will be directly affected by these policies and thus the best course of action to take is to train individuals to farm and to provide them with land that is not expropriated based on their ability to cultivate land.
