From: rdavies1@cc.swarthmore.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Subject: Re: Sanctions for Zimbabwe
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:27:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: cc.CTFHBFD3
Organization: Swarthmore College

In article <1992Apr7.045350.1966@athena.mit.edu> ekundayo@athena.mit.edu (Enuma
Ekundayo Ogunyemi) writes:
>Slight corrections as to who said what (why I don't know):
>
>
>In article <DSDHBWQH@cc.swarthmore.edu>, rdavies1@cc.swarthmore.edu writes:
>|> In article <1992Apr5.144636.25174@mercury.cair.du.edu>
>|> rhuffman@diana.cair.du.edu (Robert T. Huffman) writes:
.......
>None of the previously quoted (|>>)text in here is mine (Enuma Dayo Ogunyemi)
>it is Robert Huffman's.

I apologize - I was commenting on Robert Huffman's comment and not intending to
ascribe his words to you - my first time using this network, so please blame
technical inexperience.

As a newcomer here, visiting from Zimbabwe, I have followed the `debate' on our
Land Act with some interest, but resisting contributing.  Now that the dust
seems to be settling, perhaps I can inject new steam into it.

I think that it is useful to consider the following question: can one foresee
Zimbabwe's current dual agricultural system being in existence in, say, 100
years from now?  If the answer is no (as I think it is), then how is Zimbabwe
meant to get from here to there?  Either through a process of privatization of
the `communal' areas or by breaking up the commercial farms.  The former
process is happening de facto, as use rights are becoming traded (no
individuals can own land in the communal areas, but it is increasingly common
for people to `buy' land by paying for improvements and `fixing it' with local
authorities that they will be entitled to use the attached land.  There is some
evidence of land disputes in these areas - the process is remarkably similar to
the process of enclosures in 13-16th century England.

But although this is happening, it seems clear to me that maintaining large
farms in the better agro-ecological districts compounds the land shortage and
probably contributes to faster degradation of lands in the communal areas. 
Some land reform is necessary.  As other contributers to this debate have
pointed out, there is evidence from other countries of land reform raising
productivity and there is also evidence of underutilized land in commercial
farms in Zimbabwe, although some dispute this.  But I think that the general
case for land reform in Zimbabwe is well made, even if one does not want to
accept the moral argument about returning stolen land.

This does not mean that the particular approach adopted in the Act is
appropriate.  At a purely economic level one must expect the possibility that
land can be compulsorily acquired at a price which does not include
compensation for improvements to seriously reduce all investment in the future
- not simply on designated land.  So one can expect a long term decline in
productivity on commercial farms - and possibly accelerated degradation - even
if they are not targeted for redistribution; this surely is not good policy. 
The main rationale for govt taking this approach is because it does not have
the funds to make this compensation and why should it pay to repossess stolen
land any way?

This seems to have generated some heat in this debate.  I must confess that I
have some problems with the argument, even though I think I am sympathetic to
its underlying point of view.  To speak of a nation or people `owning' the land
is to use the word `own' differently from when I speak of me owning my house. 
Would it be acceptable if the Zim government designated 4 500 black Zimbabweans
to take possession of the commercial farms - would this constitute Zimbabwe
owning its land?  At one level yes (although it is based on a distinction
between Zimbabwean citizens which is unconstitutional and unacceptable).  But I
am not convinced that this type of reform addresses the real issue, which is to
give a much greater number of Zimbabweans access to the land.

And I think that the govt's track record on this makes one dubious as to
whether they will now use the powers they have given themselves to undertake
this more radical reform.  Since independence they have not undertaken any land
reform of significance, using Lancaster House as an excuse.  But as many have
pointed out, there were measures - such as a land tax - which they could have
used to ease the Lancaster House constraints.  Why should we now expect them to
be more committed to land reform?  Furthermore, as the resettlement program -
essentially aborted since 1983 - showed, successful land reform is not
costless, even if the land is free: infrastructural development, extension
support etc is vital.  In the current economic climate in Zimbabwe, it is
difficult to see the govt undertaking expenditures on this scale.  So one must
have misgivings about the actual program, even if one supports its stated aim.

Sorry to be so long.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african