Zimbabwe
Land tenure issue merits a referendum
13 August, 2010 | By Takura Zhangazha
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOVERNMENT’S policy ambiguity concerning 99-year land leases for
farmers has been interestingly challenged by a re-ignited debate
concerning the bankability of such leases. When Finance minister
Tendai Biti mentioned in his mid-term fiscal policy review statement that
there was need to ensure that the new farmers acquired collateral by
considering issuing title deeds to farmers, MPs appeared somewhat
confused. Some, probably Zanu PF MPs, jeered at the proposals and the
MDC MPs jeered back when Biti emphasised matters of posterity and
productivity. And it would appear that the matter seems to have rested
there. There have been no further official pronouncements as to what is
going to happen. Neither has the banking sector issued a comprehensive
response to the proposals. What is known however is that there was a
period in which the Agricultural Bank (Agribank) gave out some small
government-backed loans to new farmers based on using livestock as
collateral in the last season. Whether these loans were repaid might be a
matter for the banks to disclose, a move that would probably be most
helpful to the public.
control. The government then instituted the 99-year lease agreement for
some of the new farmers in the hope that this would allow them
security of tenure and therefore the ability to acquire bank loans or
investments that would boost their productivity. In the aftermath of the
inclusive government and the proposals to Parliament in last month’s
fiscal policy review, this issue has been given a much more political
dimension due to the proposal for full land tenure as opposed to 99-year
state leases.
Zanu PF is clearly opposed to this as it would seemingly rationalise what
they have all along called a third Chimurenga. The rationalisation would
be in the sense that once full land ownership is given to the individual
farmer, the state would no longer have any direct bearing on either the
particular usage of the land or alternatively the government no longer
being able to threaten any resettled farmer with state repossession of the
farm for any reason that may range from the political to the economic.
This proposal, as far as Zanu PF would be concerned, would mean that
their third Chimurenga has passed the irrational phase and can no longer
be used as a political instrument.
For the MDC it would seem that the issue of land tenure has been part
of their policy plans for some time now. Their combined calls for a land
audit as well as rationalising the land reform has been in the public
domain for a while now. Zanu PF has however sought to politicise it by
saying it is a disguised yearning for a return to the pre-2000 land
ownership patterns. This is however a moot point because even the new
farmers have generally indicated that they too would like to be able to
acquire resources outside of the state allocations.
Of these two positions, given the still prevalent sensitivity of the land
question in Zimbabwe, one cannot find an easy answer. It is no longer
feasible to simply argue for the privatisation of all land because of the
FTLRP.
If one were to merely privatise the land that was redistributed after
2000, what is to prevent the new farmer from re-selling that land to the
highest bidder and thus making national land ownership, once again, the
preserve of the few? Even where one were to argue that there is a need
to ensure state protection, what prevents the state’s role in 99-year
leases from becoming one of unbridled state capitalism, wherein the
state directly interferes with issues of land usage on all commercial
farms? Ethiopia is an example of such unbridled state capitalism. Its
government opted to lease large tracts of its land to foreign based
companies whose interests are to feed their own countries’ domestic
demands as opposed to the needs of Ethiopian citizens.
The solution to Zimbabwe’s land tenure problem requires a holistic
approach. This approach must be one that analyses both the communal
areas and those that are now referred to as resettlement areas both
before 2000 and after.
The government must examine in a less political manner what it views
as the key priorities of land reform. It has said that it wants production
to increase as well as to ensure the empowerment of all Zimbabweans.
In order to arrive at this, the solution resides in the state taking on a
democratic role on issues of land reform.
It has to consult the people in the aftermath of 2000, and in the context
of the inclusive government, what they expect of land reform and land
tenure. The general public consensus may be that the land must be given
to the people, but it is now the methodology that needs public assent,
not elitist assumptions of those in government. Indeed, this would be a
matter that on its own, merits a national referendum.
Takura Zhangazha is a Harare based political analyst.
Courtesy
Land tenure issue merits a referendum
13 August, 2010 | By Takura Zhangazha
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOVERNMENT’S policy ambiguity concerning 99-year land leases for
farmers has been interestingly challenged by a re-ignited debate
concerning the bankability of such leases. When Finance minister
Tendai Biti mentioned in his mid-term fiscal policy review statement that
there was need to ensure that the new farmers acquired collateral by
considering issuing title deeds to farmers, MPs appeared somewhat
confused. Some, probably Zanu PF MPs, jeered at the proposals and the
MDC MPs jeered back when Biti emphasised matters of posterity and
productivity. And it would appear that the matter seems to have rested
there. There have been no further official pronouncements as to what is
going to happen. Neither has the banking sector issued a comprehensive
response to the proposals. What is known however is that there was a
period in which the Agricultural Bank (Agribank) gave out some small
government-backed loans to new farmers based on using livestock as
collateral in the last season. Whether these loans were repaid might be a
matter for the banks to disclose, a move that would probably be most
helpful to the public.
- A number of economists have
regularly called for the
privatisation of state land.
And this call had initially been
with particular reference to
communal areas that are in
the control of the state. When
the fast track land reform
programme (FTLRP) was
undertaken, the issue of
tenure also affected the
control. The government then instituted the 99-year lease agreement for
some of the new farmers in the hope that this would allow them
security of tenure and therefore the ability to acquire bank loans or
investments that would boost their productivity. In the aftermath of the
inclusive government and the proposals to Parliament in last month’s
fiscal policy review, this issue has been given a much more political
dimension due to the proposal for full land tenure as opposed to 99-year
state leases.
Zanu PF is clearly opposed to this as it would seemingly rationalise what
they have all along called a third Chimurenga. The rationalisation would
be in the sense that once full land ownership is given to the individual
farmer, the state would no longer have any direct bearing on either the
particular usage of the land or alternatively the government no longer
being able to threaten any resettled farmer with state repossession of the
farm for any reason that may range from the political to the economic.
This proposal, as far as Zanu PF would be concerned, would mean that
their third Chimurenga has passed the irrational phase and can no longer
be used as a political instrument.
For the MDC it would seem that the issue of land tenure has been part
of their policy plans for some time now. Their combined calls for a land
audit as well as rationalising the land reform has been in the public
domain for a while now. Zanu PF has however sought to politicise it by
saying it is a disguised yearning for a return to the pre-2000 land
ownership patterns. This is however a moot point because even the new
farmers have generally indicated that they too would like to be able to
acquire resources outside of the state allocations.
Of these two positions, given the still prevalent sensitivity of the land
question in Zimbabwe, one cannot find an easy answer. It is no longer
feasible to simply argue for the privatisation of all land because of the
FTLRP.
If one were to merely privatise the land that was redistributed after
2000, what is to prevent the new farmer from re-selling that land to the
highest bidder and thus making national land ownership, once again, the
preserve of the few? Even where one were to argue that there is a need
to ensure state protection, what prevents the state’s role in 99-year
leases from becoming one of unbridled state capitalism, wherein the
state directly interferes with issues of land usage on all commercial
farms? Ethiopia is an example of such unbridled state capitalism. Its
government opted to lease large tracts of its land to foreign based
companies whose interests are to feed their own countries’ domestic
demands as opposed to the needs of Ethiopian citizens.
The solution to Zimbabwe’s land tenure problem requires a holistic
approach. This approach must be one that analyses both the communal
areas and those that are now referred to as resettlement areas both
before 2000 and after.
The government must examine in a less political manner what it views
as the key priorities of land reform. It has said that it wants production
to increase as well as to ensure the empowerment of all Zimbabweans.
In order to arrive at this, the solution resides in the state taking on a
democratic role on issues of land reform.
It has to consult the people in the aftermath of 2000, and in the context
of the inclusive government, what they expect of land reform and land
tenure. The general public consensus may be that the land must be given
to the people, but it is now the methodology that needs public assent,
not elitist assumptions of those in government. Indeed, this would be a
matter that on its own, merits a national referendum.
Takura Zhangazha is a Harare based political analyst.
Courtesy
| All rights reserved. |
| Ethio Quest News Together We Can Make It! |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Previous Stories Rights campaigner Mukoko, 15 MDC activists re-arrested 05 May, 2009 | by Charles Tembo ( ZimOnline ) HARARE – Prominent human rights campaigner Jestina Mukoko and 15 other activists from Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC party were on Monday rearrested and will be in custody awaiting trial beginning in July....More |
| Zimbabwe Zimbabwe is a landlocked country in southern Africa, lying between latitudes 15° and 23°S, and longitudes 25° and 34°E. Most of the country is elevated in the central plateau (high veld) stretching from the southwest to the northwest at altitudes between 1200 and 1600m. The country's east is mountainous with Mt. Nyangani as the highest point at 2,592 m. About 20% of the country consists of the low veld under 900m. Victoria Falls, one of the world's biggest and most spectacular More from Wikipedia |
| Ethiopia's History of National Resistance for African Unity & Dignity |
| Land reform in Zimbabwe Land reform in Zimbabwe officially began in 1979 with the signing of the Lancaster House Agreement, an effort to more equitably distribute land between the historically disenfranchised blacks and the minority-whites who ruled Zimbabwe from 1890 to 1979. The government's land distribution is perhaps the most crucial and the most bitterly contested political issue surrounding Zimbabwe today. More |
