Land reform: The new question in Zimbabwe

HOWDY folks! Addressing ruling party youths in Gweru about two weeks ago, ZANU-PF Youth Affairs Secretary Cde Kudzai Chipanga implored Government to repossess farms that still remain in the hands of a few commercial white farmers and allocate them to landless youths.

He argued that the current generation of youths was too young to benefit from the land reform when it started.

Said Cde Chipanga: “There are those (white-owned farms) that still lie idle, with (white farmers) still holding on to them because they have connections with ‘chefs’. As youth, we say no, let’s get those farms re-allocated so that the majority can benefit.”

It is common knowledge that youth are the majority in this country, representing more than two thirds of the population.

I think Cde Chipanga’s hammer hit the nail on the head in calling for land to be allocated to young people, the majority of whom are currently bearing the brunt of unemployment.

Gentle reader, you may remember my article of last year, sometime in October, titled “Land reform not yet over”, in which I argued that as long as young people still don’t have land, it would not be proper to say land reform is over.

I argued then that if the land question has already been perfectly answered in Zimbabwe, then there is a new question still waiting to be answered.

That question is being asked by the youth everyday: “Where is our share?”

You see, the Second Chimurenga was fought by young people who were determined to reclaim their land which had been dispossessed by white settlers, condemning natives to rocky, thorny and barren lands such as Gwayi and Shangaan.

Winning the war, therefore, did not just imply the return of black majority rule, but also giving back land to its rightful owners. Without land, freedom was going to be meaningless.

But the problem today is that very few young people have land.

The majority that have it actually got it through inheritance.

Now, it appears young people who need land have to buy it at exorbitant market prices as we always see in the classifieds. Does it now mean that youths have to buy their own freedom, if we agree that freedom is land?

Why should we pay for something that has already been paid for through the priceless sacrifices of gallant sons and daughters such as Cdes Moudy Muzenda and George Rutanhire?

In my intervention of 2016, I, however, propounded land resizing to ensure those with bigger farms — black, white or pink — give some to youths as land currently occupied by white farmers may not be enough to allocate to every youth looking for land.

Folks, that land reform is irreversible should not be merely construed in terms of us saying we are not giving back the land to white former settlers. No. It goes beyond that. You see, one of the principles of good governance mentioned in Section 2 (j) of the Constitution is “the equitable sharing of national resources, including land”.

Actually, Section 289 (c) weighs in saying “the allocation and distribution of agricultural land must be fair and equitable, having regard to gender balance and diverse community interests”.

That being said, as long as it can be proven beyond doubt that the land reform process did not adequately address issues of equity and fairness amongst the indigenous people targeted as beneficiaries, then we surely can say land reform ought to be somehow reversible.

We have to first dichotomise this issue into the current status of the land reform exercise in Zimbabwe and the pattern under which land allocation has hitherto taken place, if we are to meaningfully understand it.

Land and Rural Resettlement Minister Dr Douglas Mombeshora hinted last year that there is virtually not much land left for new allocations, implying we have come to the twilight of this programme.

Said Dr Mombeshora then: “From the land that we have, not much has been left for distribution. We have 900 000 hectares that are left, but this will mainly be reserve land as we cannot afford to give all the land that we have.”

And when it comes to allocation, by 2013, about 276 620 indigenous households had taken ownership of 12 117 000 hectares of land.

What can we hypothetically deduce from the above if we are to reconcile it with the “new question” I alluded to earlier using the constitutional provisions cited as the yardstick?

Equity and fairness begin to cry as youths encourage them, “Cry equity, Cry fairness — Cry!”

But before narrowing it down into a youth affair, let’s try to situate the whole scenario in the national context.

Folks, the 2012 Census stated that there are 3 076 222 households in Zimbabwe.

And since only 276 260 households benefited from the land reform exercise, one might want to imply that only 8,98 percent of total households in Zimbabwe benefited from the exercise, while the remaining 91,02 percent did not. But that is not my main worry. What worries and pains the most is that when it comes to youths, only a paltry 727 households got land.

Out of the 276 620 beneficiary households!

It’s even worse under the A2 model where just 76 youth households benefited out of the 18 967 total beneficiaries. The very model under which land utilisation is now between 45 and 50 percent!

Folks, youths represent 67 percent of Zimbabwe’s population.

There is, therefore, no equity to talk about when we have the majority of the population still landless.

These are the very youths bearing the brunt of high unemployment and have now become very vulnerable to just about anyone holding 30 pieces of silver.

They are now ready to sing for their supper.

To many youths, the land reform programme had already ended by the time they started to make conscious enquiries about it, which resulted in them being excluded.

Others probably had no money or did not have proof of funds to allow them to apply for A2 agricultural land then.

I believe that many youths would want another land reform programme, solely targeting them as beneficiaries, to happen.

Such land reform would be informed by the strong desire to de-politicise the land issue and present it as an inclusive programme to improve the livelihoods of the majority of marginalised Zimbabweans while arousing agriculture production.

Anything short of that is land deform, not reform.

With small pieces of productive land to rear some animals, grow their mushroom, vegetables, tobacco and other crops, every young person could be included in the mainstream economy and contribute meaningfully.

Surely, agriculture cannot be the backbone of our economy if youths are nowhere near that economic spine.

Folks, remember, one of the objectives of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme was “to create conditions for sustainable economic, social and political stability”.

Can we say there is now harmony in that trinity?

No, definitely not without enough land for the youths!

Now, some will start asking: “But where will the land come from when there is no more land to dish out?”

This is where we have to peg the extent at which land reform is “irreversible” in Zimbabwe.

I have already given the example of A2 farms where less than 50 percent of that land is lying idle.

Folks, here we are talking about circa two million hectares of land that is viable for commercial agricultural business not being utilised.

Should it continue as business-asusual in such enclaves?

Or some offer letters should be reversed, with that land being allocated to landless youths?

Unproductive farms should be repossessed, or the owners should remain with smaller pieces of land that they can manage.

A2 farms are not camping zones or places where one goes once in a while to shoot rabbits and antelopes now finding habitat in growing grass. Kurima “sora beans”! We cannot go anywhere as long as we allow that kind of behaviour.

Youths must be given a chance in agriculture. They deserve their day on the farm. They are only in the streets because they have found no place for them on the farms.

All they are looking for is a decent way to live the Zimbabwean Dream!

Later folks!