Land Redistribution:
Not a Black and White Issue
By: J. Dean Grimes
Created for Sierra Nevada College: INTL415, Summer 2015
CONTENTS:
1. History of Land Redistribution
2. Not a Black and White Issue
3. Problems
4. Suggested solutions
5. Conclusion
6. References
The History of Land Redistribution
Land redistribution “officially began in 1980 with the signing of the Lancaster House Agreement, an effort to more equitably distribute land between black subsistence farmers and white Zimbabweans of European ancestry, who had traditionally enjoyed superior political and economic status(Wikipedia, 1).” In 2008, Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe, lost a crucial vote in Parliament that would have granted him lifetime power, and, in an effort to regain strength within Parliament and among the people, Mugabe began to utilize land redistribution as a means to regain support from his constituents. This action resulted in the violent reclamation of property (particularly farmland), and the redistribution of wealth among black Zimbabweans. In principle, the idea of land redistribution seems fair and just, but, there are several unintended adverse issues resulting from this concept, idea, and law. For example, the white farmers in Zimbabwe employed hundreds of workers. These farmers knew how to farm exceptionally well whereas the new land owners have little to no knowledge in this field, and the violent reclamation of these farms has become a form of reverse racism that has left hundreds of white third generation farmers homeless and without a country. “I am a Zimbabwean. I was born here, I bought this farm, I paid off the loan, and now the government wants to come in and take it (Mugabe and the White African).” The aforementioned statement clearly sums up the issues at stake and at hand. One cannot simply “take” land that was purchased legally, managed exceptionally well, and provided homes and income for thousands of workers without consequence. Throughout this paper, I will identify and dissect the issues, provide potential solutions to the issues, and discuss the political ramifications for the United States should they chose to become involved in the process of recovery.
There is, however, the other side of the argument which stems from the 1890’s and the British South Africa Company (BSAC) takeover, in which, “Over 3000 white soldiers who assisted in the BSAC takeover of the country were given land grants of 1,200 hectares (3,000 acres) or more, and black people living on the land became tenants. Later, Land Apportionment and Tenure Acts reserved extensive low-rainfall areas for black-only tribal-trust lands and high rainfall areas for white ownership, which gave rise to cases of black people being excluded from their own land. White settlers were attracted to Rhodesia by the availability of tracts of prime farmland that could be purchased from the state at low cost (Wikipedia 3).” Which then begs the question, “Who stole land from whom, and is land something you can really purchase anyway? To answer these questions, we need to dive a little deeper into the history of Robert Mugabe, and the motivation for land reclamation/ redistribution, his motives for using this to remove third generation Zimbabweans from land that they worked hard to cultivate, and what’s happening to these newly displaced people, as well as the economic impact land redistribution has made.
Robert Mugabe came into power as the current President of Zimbabwe on December 22, 1987, and “rose to prominence in the 1960s as the leader of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) during the conflict against the conservative white-minority government of Rhodesia. Mugabe was a political prisoner in Rhodesia for more than 10 years between 1964 and 1974. Upon release Mugabe, along with Edgar Tekere, immediately left Rhodesia with the assistance of Rekayi Tangwena in 1975 to kick-start the fight during the Rhodesian Bush War from bases in Mozambique. At the end of the war in 1979, Mugabe emerged as a hero in the minds of many Africans. He won the general elections of 1980 after calling for reconciliation between the former belligerents, including white Zimbabweans and rival political parties, and thereby became Prime Minister on Zimbabwe's independence in April 1980.
Soon after independence Mugabe set about creating a ZANU–PF-run one-party state, establishing a North Korean-trained security force, the Fifth Brigade, in August 1981 to deal with internal dissidents.[2] Mugabe attacked former allies ZAPU in which the Fifth Brigade crushed an armed rebellion by fighters loyal to his rival Joshua Nkomo, leader of the minority Ndebele tribe, in the province of Matabeleland. Between 1982 and 1985 at least 20,000 people died in ethnic cleansing and were buried in mass graves.[3][4] Mugabe consolidated his power in December 1987, when he was declared executive president by parliament, combining the roles of head of state, head of government, and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, with powers to dissolve parliament and declare martial law.
In 2008 Mugabe suffered a narrow defeat in the first round of a presidential election but he subsequently won the run-off election in a landslide after his opponent Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew; Mugabe then entered a power-sharing deal with Tsvangirai as well as Arthur Mutambara of the MDC-T and MDC-M opposition party. In 2013, the Election Commission said Mugabe won his seventh term as President, defeating Tsvangirai with 61 percent of the vote in a disputed election in which there were numerous accounts of electoral fraud.[5][6] Mugabe was elected as the Chairperson of the African Union (AU) on 30 January 2015.[7] He had previously led the AU's predecessor, the Organization of African Unity in 1997–98 (Wikipedia 2).”
During the 2008 elections, Mugabe determined that the best way to regain control of Parliament and the popular vote was to place a heavy emphasis on land redistribution and his Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) roots combined with his historic leadership as a rebel against white minority rule. Seizing an opportunity to regain power and influence, Mugabe began reclaiming land owned by white farmers through their forced and violent removal. Since 2008 hundreds of farmers have lost their land, thousands of workers have been displaced, the country has lost billions of dollars in exports as a result, and what used to be Africa’s great bread basket is now a wasteland with dilapidated infrastructure and farms that have nothing growing on them but weeds.
Not a Black and White Issue
Aside from the fact that land redistribution is an overwhelmingly complex issue and it is not, forgive the pun, as black and white or as clear as it could be, the issue really comes down to land ownership. To solve this issue, this author has determined that land belongs to the people that live there. History has little or nothing to do with anything in this day and age, in this century, in this new millennia, in this time. Rather, land ownership in today’s world comes down to you, me, us, I, and them. Meaning, can I get along with you, can we get along with them, can they get along with us, and can we all work together to accomplish one goal? And what purpose does fighting over land provide? I liken it to this: My grandfather fought very hard, suffered many great losses, endured many hardships, and suffered at length as a farmer until he was around 45 years old, and he sold his first batch of wine grapes to a guy named Robert Mondavi in 1975. His efforts have since transferred to me, and now I am in control of the land that he worked hard to pass on to myself and other members of my family. Does the government have a right to take this land back? Yes. Will they? Who knows, but if they attempted this, what grounds would they have to remove me from it?
As a grape grower, I am contributing to society in several ways: One, I pay taxes based on my revenues thereby contributing to the economy. Two, I purchase equipment and supplies from local and national vendors, and three, I employ thousands of workers and I provide homes for migrant workers and others who are in need. Is this not a great contribution to society? Does what I do not affect the rest of the nation, our economy, and benefit the exportation of California wine to other nations thereby boosting US export power? If the answer to these questions is yes, then it seems, that land redistribution may become quite a problem should they remove me from my land and replace me with someone who has no knowledge of grape growing, no understanding of the economics of the industry, or has no understanding of how to employ people, contribute to local, statewide, and national prosperity.
Why? Because my forced removal leaves a deficit throughout the community. When there is a deficit in community, a void and a vacuum forms wherein anything can happen. Anger, resentment, fear, and distrust would be an additional result of these actions. And, this pathway leads to a darkness that Zimbabwe and other nations/ states who try to employ this method of reclamation are just beginning to feel.
The reality is that no one can really own land in the first place. Land was originally free. It was a gift that came with life just as food, air, and water once were. But, somewhere in history land became something you could purchase, and the resulting land ownership laws, rules, clauses, and debates/ wars about who owns what have ensued. But, there is no real right and wrong here, because ultimately, land belongs to everyone as much as air and water.
Solutions
Solution 1: Forcibly remove Mugabe and others who seek to forcibly remove legal land owners. But then, who has the power to do this? The African Union (AU)? The United Nations (UN)? The International Criminal Court (ICC)? The United States? A coalition of nations? Invasion of the country to re-establish true democratic law rather than democratic socialism? Ultimately, there is no clear cut answer to this question as none of the aforementioned have the actual power to remove Mugabe and others like him. However, perhaps there is a loophole that I am unaware of. Perhaps Mugabe could be tried for crimes against humanity in the ICC, perhaps the US could selectively eliminate Mugabe. Yet, Mugabe is a hero to many. Would this not cause further resentment? Hatred even? Ultimately, this solution cannot be worked out without the thoughts and contribution of many great minds.
Solution 2: Honor and reimbursement. This solution suggests that land selected for redistribution be purchased at fair market value by the Zimbabwe government, and then be distributed to selected Zimbabweans, who, for a period of time, would learn how to farm the land by the farmers who are leaving the land during a period of transition. This transition period would enable old land owners to humanely leave their farms while ensuring little to no economic loss, little to no loss of employment, and little to no overall societal impact. Honoring land agreements proves truth can prevail. The truth in Zimbabwe’s case is that land was taken from Africans, distributed to the British, and now, the African’s want what was originally rightfully theirs. However, this is the modern world, not the 1800’s, and the question remains, “Is a 3rd generation farmer who bought his or her own land legally, responsible for what someone did one hundred years ago?” There is no answer to this question, therefore this solution is moot, and becomes void upon the onset.
Solution 3: Start over. Perhaps, and this is just an idea, but, perhaps the real solution is this: Give new unowned land in Zimbabwe to those who are in need. Perhaps Mugabe could start building homes instead of taking them. Perhaps the government can train new farmers by investing in education. Perhaps allowing legal land owners to maintain their land might encourage growth in the Zimbabwe economy. Perhaps focusing on growth rather than destruction would serve this country, and others like it, exceptionally well. Perhaps focusing on building up rather than taking down might be a worthwhile investment. Perhaps Mugabe wouldn’t have to worry about losing his power if he could peacefully transition it to someone who has the interests of all Zimbabweans at heart. Perhaps Mugabe could encourage people to change the social consciousness, and move toward a social mindset that encourages the equality of all people, and focus less, if at all, on separatism, racism, and social classism. Perhaps Mugabe could move toward an us instead of a them. Perhaps Mugabe could set a precedent of equality and concentrate on the ideals of Ubuntu, the connectedness of humankind, and perhaps he could become a leader that sets the example of unity and equality that other nation states would follow. Perhaps, Mugabe could accept the world as it is instead of focusing on the problems and social injustices of the past, and never forget, rather embrace the history of his country and create a new policy of tolerance, love, peace, and preach the connectedness of humanity to his people. And, perhaps Mugabe could teach leaders of other nation states to do the same.
Conclusion
Land redistribution is a real problem. Its overarching effects reach into the pockets of thousands who no longer have jobs, destroys the economic prosperity of nations that enforce it, and provides no real solutions for the greater issue at hand which is how to unify a nation state’s people. Legal solutions cannot have a great effect on the equal distribution of land because, in reality, the person legally living on the land is the true and rightful owner. Honoring land ownership, but continuing to redistribute land through the legal repurchasing of land may be an answer, but it is a temporary solution at best because it merely covers a wound that is deeply engrained in the social consciousness of the state’s people which is essentially the problem of racism and classism. The real solution to land redistribution is solving racism, classism, and changing the social consciousness which basically entails the promotion of tolerance and the understanding that we are all one unified people under one unified nation/ state. Eliminating the idea that there are differences among us is the key. Regrouping, pressing the re-start button, investing in infrastructure, building new homes and putting people to work by building them, training new farmers, giving unused land to people that are homeless, providing resources for people to get healthy when they are sick, giving back to the community that gives to you, and beginning a new chapter in your nations history is the best way to solve this problem. There are no easy answers, but there is a way. It is a march toward forgiveness, toward acceptance, toward loving each other, toward understanding each other, toward growing with and for each other. The solution therefore is not us versus them, or me versus you, but conveying a message of equality that is so powerful, that it changes the social consciousness of a nation, and the nations that follow your example.
References
Movie 1: https://www.netflix.com/title/70119673
Wikipedia 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Zimbabwe
Wikipedia 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe
Wikipedia 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people_in_Zimbabwe
No comments:
Post a Comment