The Marred history of Land Reform

Welcome back everyone! I would like to thank you for coming back to read even though my content has been very inconsistent. I really only like to write when I have the time to dedicate to writing a whole piece in one go – and yes, I have not had that much free time in the last 2 months! Regardless, you are here reading so, thank you. ❤️

Today I would like to do a historical piece on something that I said I did not want to talk about in the past but alas, here we are. When I had asked, on Instagram, what topics people would like to read about next, this one came up and my response was “I would not touch that topic with a ten-foot pole.” Nonetheless, I wrote it down and now I have decided that I will try and write about it as best I can. I did not want to talk about land reform for a number of reason. The first being that it is an extremely complicated historical event which cannot really be explained in one blog post. Secondly, I am not sure how I feel about land re-acquisition. On the one hand, I personally know white people who were violently ripped away from their homes as a result of the Land Reform Act. On the other hand, I understand why such an act may have been seen as necessary. Execution and corruption aside, giving the black majority an opportunity to own their own land again makes a lot of sense to me. Lastly, this is still a sensitive topic for many Zimbabweans so it needs to be spoken about with a certain amount out sensitivity.

Quick history lesson:

I am well aware that a large number of my readers are not from Zimbabwe so, I will give a quick history lesson on the Land Reform Programme. Under colonial rule, a 1930s land apportionment act was passed which made it illegal for all black Africans to own land, except for 22% of the least arable land in Zimbabwe. The rest of the arable land went to white settlers. In order for white people to settle on some of these lands, many black families were displaced and moved to less desirable locations. – This is the first injustice of the ping-pong game between the black and white communities in Zimbabwe. Being primarily agricultural people, giving black Africans only the least arable land was a huge injustice which began the cycle of poverty for generations of black Zimbabweans to come. Fortunately, there was an attempt for redress upon signing the Lancaster House Agreement and achieving independence. It was decided that there needed to be efforts to distribute land to native Zimbabweans from white settlers who were given land simply because they were white. However, Britain did not follow through to aid Zimbabwe in re-distributing the land (both economically and technically). The British promised to fund the program and compensate white farmers who would loose their land but along came Tony Blair and the rest was history. So, not much was done in the years following independence. Which angered a lot of Zimbabweans because what was the point of independence if they did not get their land and livelihoods back? So, the British left Zimbabwe in an incredibly tough position because after 90 years (from 1890) of colonialism the black majority deserved to have control over their own land. However, without the resources and knowhow of the new Zimbabwean government, what happens to white farmers?

Zimbabwe Independent (Dunn, 2020)

That brings us to the early 2000s when everything went wrong and an injustice was fixed with another. After many failed land reform programs during the 1990s, there was the decision to “fast-track” land reform which resulted in a chaotic and violent mess. Then president, Robert Mugabe, organised troops to march onto white owned farms and “reclaim” them. Many families had to leave immediately to avoid the violence and leave their belongings behind. Alone, this is problematic to say the last, but to make the situation even worse, the land that got re-claimed was used as an aid to political corruption rather than redress colonial wrongs. Therefore, white farmers were not forced off their land for the good of Zimbabwe but to line the pockets of Zimbabwe’s political elite. Land was “gifted” to various party members and their families who had no agricultural abilities. This entire program exacerbated the economic problems in Zimbabwe and left many people homeless and jobless. The economy was hit incredibly hard because not only was agriculture the largest part of the Zimbabwean economy but, it was also Zimbabwe’s main export. Thus, when the people gifted land took over the farms, they did not know how to run them and productivity dropped drastically.

“You can’t imagine how many people come up to me and said, ‘We didn’t agree with you back then. We thought you were too rigid and inflexible. But now we see you were right. You were so right: they were not fit to govern.'”

– Ian Smith

The land grab of the 2000s plummeted Zimbabwe and made many white (ex-)colonisers turn around and make statements like the one above. It became proof that ‘the black majority is unfit to govern.’ Which of course is not true, but I have to admit that the way the land situation was handled does not bode well for anyone in Zimbabwe.

I spoke a lot about how I did not want to talk about this topic so you might be asking why I ended up doing so in the end? Well, I was doing some research unrelated to this topic and an article popped up from September 2020. Apparently in September 2020, the Zimbabwean government promised to give white farmers their land back. It has been a year since then and I am not sure if any of this has actually solidified – I tried to find some information but there is none up to date. Nevertheless, the thought sparked a lot of interest for me because is giving the land back to ex white farmers really the answer to right all of the wrongs that have been committed on both sides? Honestly, what happened (in the 2000s) was extremely cruel but I do not think returning land will make anything better, if anything I think it will lead to thicker resentment. So, for once, I actually have no idea what the best way to deal with this situation is. Educating farmers? But who educates them, who pays for it and eventually we still have to decide who the land goes to… I firmly believe that this long and complicated story was the anchor in Zimbabwe’s decline and because we have never tried to deal with any of the injustices committed, we are perpetually suffering for them. But, I would definitely love to hear from other people what they think about this topic. Seeing as I have no solution in mind, I would love to hear what everyone else thinks: where we went wrong and how we can (if we can), fix it?

P.S. I hate that I quoted Ian Smith – it was simply for illustrative purposes, I despise the man.

A different type of Socialization

Happy almost-weekend everyone! I hope you have all had a good and prosperous week! Today, I come to you with a topic which I still have a lot of questions and assumptions around.

After reading copious amounts of history on former colonies and what happened to them after colonisation; how most of them ‘failed’ according to the Western standard of success, I could not wrap my head around the ‘why.’ Well that is mainly because there is no single reason for this outcome but today I will address one of the reasons that are chiefly responsible for these ‘failures.’ Western culture is one of individuality and this is rooted in almost all of the institutions and social norms in Western countries. The hegemonic dominance that then came with colonisation forced colonies to also adapt to this idea of individualism. However, the culture in the ‘failed’ states is one of communality and togetherness. Adapting from community oriented systems and ways of living to structures which promote individualism is something that countries such as Zimbabwe could not master and probably never will.

http://www.adventuretravelnews.com

From time immoral we have based our living around community and living together. What was mine was everyone’s and a single persons achievements were that of an entire community. This still exists – but it is getting less and less as Western influence permeates each generation. My point though, is that, when Western systems were introduced (introduced being a very passive word compared to how these systems were implemented), African (as well as South American and Asian) communities had to adapt and change their entire way of living. Take capitalism for example, in order to be successful in a capitalist world, a person has to be individually oriented and not worry about how their actions will affect the greater ‘community.’ This change was easy for some but for most of the country it was an unimaginable shift in the way life was viewed. In many respects, individuality is reserved for privileged societies. You can be an autonomous and stable individual in the Netherlands because you have the means and opportunities to sustain yourself through the systems that have been built for citizens. However, in places like Zimbabwe, individuality is seen as more of a burden because the support and help of a community is needed just to get by. This is probably the reason we are still very much community oriented as a people and why we fail in systems that demand us to abandon our communities for the goals of prosperity, growth and development.

“What should young people do with their lives today? Many things, obviously. But the most daring thing is to create stable communities in which the terrible disease of loneliness can be cured.” 

― Kurt Vonnegut, Palm Sunday: An Autobiographical Collage

Now while I talk of the impact this had on the reception of Western institutions, cultures and expectations in these countries very briefly, there is a host of literature out there if you are interested in the topic; which can explain it in much more depth than I have. While I have mainly spoken about this contrast on individualism and communalism in the past; it is something that still very much exists today. I was so shocked when I moved to The Netherlands and I observed how much time people spent alone. When I first moved, I loved it! As I have mentioned, I come from a very tight knit community where everyone’s nose is in everyone’s business so I was quite relieved to move somewhere where nobody cared what I was doing with my life. Dutch people make small talk and that’s about it and I liked that because at home, you can’t breathe without at least ten people knowing about it. But recently, (and I’m not sure if this is because of corona or because I’ve just been away for so long), I long for the inquisitiveness and the constant noise of having people around. I have started to notice how lonely people were in this part of the world. This is not to say that Zimbabweans aren’t lonely or that there are no tight-knit communities in Western countries, the dynamics of socialisation are just very different.

I was speaking with a Dutch friend who could not believe what I was telling her about the way we socialised as a community, how much we shared and how much time we spend together. She thought the concept of ‘sympathising’ was such great, revolutionary idea (because they don’t do that here). For those who do not know what sympathising is; when someone dies within the community, the rest of the community come and console the immediate family of the deceased for about a week or two. People bring food and come and spend days on end with the family; grieving, praying, eating and remembering the person who has died. This is what I mean when I say that we NEED our communities, it is not only about economic interdependence but we have had a system of emotional interdependence from as far back as I went into history.

So yes, we have ‘failed’ in the realms of economics, politics (this is not part of this conversation though), and development. But, I don’t think our togetherness and communality is something we are willing to or are even capable of sacrificing. On this same line, most Zimbabweans have the spirit of ‘if we suffer, we suffer together.’ If someone is left behind, we will go back and get them and start the journey all over again. So, many have argued that this is why we have remained stagnant. There are many country-specific reasons that ex-colonies have ‘failed’ to be prosperous, however, this cultural dynamic is one that really got me to think because it is a dynamic that challenges me being on the cusp of both realities. I would always vote for the community oriented world but I also had to understand that the choice came from a place of privilege; I have never gone hungry and I have never struggled. I am one of the lucky ones who actually has the benefits from both worlds. But, it is still something that needs to be seriously considered as we are living in a time that needs the stability and love of communities more than ever.