Chiefs have no business controlling land
KUDOS to the National Assembly for taking a principled, some might even say a revolutionary, stand by rejecting proposals by the upper house of Parliament, the Senate, to give chiefs control over agricultural land. MPs rejected amendments to the Land Commission Bill made by Senators, among them traditional leaders, and passed the proposed legislation to President Emmerson Mnangagwa for assent without the changes proposed by the Senators.
Land was a key component in the armed struggle which saw young men and women shedding their lives as a sacrifice for the acquisition of the land from its total control by racist white colonial rulers.
Zimbabweans who locate land – agricultural land, that is — as a key player in the revival of this country’s kwashiorkored economy will argue, and do so for plausible reasons, that the state should have overall control of land in order for that asset to benefit not just a handful of traditional leaders with self-interest susceptible to corruption by the monied in our society eager to own more land than is necessary for speculative reasons in some cases.
If chiefs possess carte blanche rights over land, what would stop them from handing back land repossessed from whites by the government for redistribution under the agrarian revolution, or even selling the land at their disposal to fatten their bellies?
Indeed, the much-touted status of Zimbabwe as the bread basket of southern Africa would continue to recede, like a mirage, even after the current economic meltdown has ended had the Senate proposals seen the light of day and the chiefs romped home with their desired superintendence over land.
And come to think of it, how would Command Agriculture which has revived hopes of food selfsuffi fare with chiefs reigning as land gurus?
Consider (yes, you) what the future of Command Livestock or Command Fisheries, even Command Wildlife, would be like with chiefs reigning supreme over land as those projects are within the purview of agricultural land?
And — who knows — the chiefs, or at least some of them driven by an unmitigated desire for supremacy over their fellow Zimbabweans, might even demand payment for hunting game, birds or for catching fish on land under their control.
In fact, the new government of President Emmerson Mnangagwa might seriously wish to consider taking giant steps to end multiple ownership of land by some barons so that those Zimbabweans who still need land the most get their share of that God endowed asset in the quest to end hunger and impoverishment in the countryside where most Zimbabweans live.
As a matter of fact, land, agricultural land, should be made to play a pivotal role in creating wealth for this country and in support of the manufacturing industries producing goods for both exports and for local consumption.
For instance, why not invite foreign investment to produce and promote food technologies and in that way create jobs for rural folk processing and preserving food for local consumption as well as for export?
This pen believes that such a move would end the urban drift by rural folk and, in fact, inaugurate an rural drift by loafers from urban areas, some of whom resort to crime to make ends meet if more jobs were created out there in “the periphery”, as the colonial rulers pejoratively described the countryside, our communal lands where the majority of Zimbabweans live.
One might say without exaggeration that ownership of land by the majority, who happen to be blacks, fills a yawning gap in governance by the people for the people in Africa.
Stated otherwise, black rule without control over land is tantamount to an uncompleted journey in the quest for self-determination by the majority.
It is no doubt that it was on account of that painful reality that Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, now in line to take over from Jacob Zuma as President of South Africa, spoke a few days after his election as leader of the African National Congress about land reform in South Africa with blacks in that country who need that land the most finally laying their hands on that vital source of livelihood for both rural and urban dwellers.
Today, much of the land in South Africa remains in the hands of Boers who ruled that country under apartheid although the ANC, the oldest political party in Africa has been at the helm of government for many years now in that country.
If truth be told, the Boers have been wagging angry fingers at Zimbabwe for trying to export land reform to South Africa, thereby “spoiling our blacks” in the process.
But progressive moves, such as land reform which has the potential for benefitting the poor and poverty stricken in Africa cannot be wished away, as it is like a flood of water one cannot stop with one’s open palms — and at long last South Africans can now smell land distribution on its way to them.
Interestingly, however, Zimbabweans will no doubt wait to see if the West led by the United States of America and Britain and their continental European allies will unleash illegal economic sanctions against South Africa as they did on Zimbabwe following our own land reform programme.
A preponderance of white settlers in South Africa over white settlers in Zimbabwe might restrain the move not to hurt the West’s kith and kin who happen to be a minority among blacks in that country.
Only time will tell.