Act as  a peer reviewer and write a detailed review of this research paper.

Be strict and critical. : Reflection on Idiosyncrasies of Robert Gabriel Mugabe and Zimbabwe land issues
Abstract
The advent of Britain in Zimbabwe then known as Southern Rhodesia in 1890 reflected the colonisation period up to the country's independence in 1980. The end of colonial rule brought forth land acquisition and land distribution policies. While the “willing buyer-willing seller” did not meet its expectations in 2000, President Robert Gabriel Mugabe established the Fast Track Land Reform Program as part of a formal land reform and resettlement program, which stirred debate in the region and abroad. This research intended to analyse how Mugabe's idiosyncratic factors have shaped land issues and foreign relations during his political life. This study is anchored on poliheuristic theory to analyse Mugabe's idiosyncrasies. Mugabe’s leadership style and decision-making on the land reform policy have been associated with several idiosyncrasies such as verbal style, cognitive consistency and personal behaviour. This paper contributes to idiosyncratic literature by analysing Mugabe's statements and speeches. Future studies can make a comparison of Mugabe and his successor Mnangagwa’s foreign policy decision-making processes regarding the land issue in Zimbabwe.
Key Words: Idiosyncrasies, land policy, decision-making, leadership, Zimbabwe
Introduction
Land policies have been conducted worldwide and for various motivations. Moyo (1995) presents that the land questions and distributions have not only manifested in Africa but also in other continents such as America, Europe and Asia.  In his book Jacob (1998), titled, Who Owns America: Social Conflict over property rights, presents the conflicts that dominate land use and tenure. The decision-making and unequal distribution of land often stir up conflicts in societies and consideration for land reforms and redistribution. Marewo (2024) reinforces the vitality of land in Africa as a driver for economic development. In the case of Zimbabwe, former President Robert Gabriel Mugabe's land reform policy in its attempt to historical imbalances comes in with critical analysis. For this paper, the author used Mugabe short of his full name President Robert Gabriel Mugabe. 

On the 21st of February in 1924, Zimbabwe's former President Mugabe was born and died on the 6th of September 2019 at the age of 95. Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2015) states that Mugabe born in 1924 has reigned in political power since 1980 at the country's independence. Zimbabwe attained its Zimbabwe in 1980 since the colonial era in 1890 by the British. The unfolding historical events and liberation wars in Zimbabwe since the colonization period reflect that Zimbabwe has been in the eye of its foreign actors. Ndimande and Moyo (2018) state that Mugabe’s ideas, views, personality and experience as an African nationality are all referred to as Mugabeism. The independence of Zimbabwe versus the country's land resources reinforced Mugabe's geopolitical strategic populism in the region and abroad. Mugabe served as Prime Minister of Zimbabwe from 1980 to 1987 and then became President from 1987 up to 2017 after succession by Emerson Mnangagwa (Ndlovu-Gatsheni and Runhanya,2020). How Mugabe is being remembered in the country in terms of his work and nation-building is another whole area of research study. However, his birthday has been declared a national holiday to celebrate the youths under Zimbabwe Statutory Instrument 2017-143 Public Holiday Declaration, Robert Gabriel Mugabe National Youth Day. It is important to note that Mugabe has guided Zimbabwe's decision-making process of domestic and foreign policy during his political terms (Ndimande and Moyo, 2018). This paper sought its fit to analyse his idiosyncrasies and contribute to the discussions related to his leadership style's code of conduct towards land issues.
Idiosyncrasies are increasingly becoming an important factor in decision-making. Leadership style often contributes to the country's national and foreign policy making. Preston (2000) states that leadership preferences, beliefs or history dominate the policy-making, It can be assumed that the Zimbabwe national and foreign policy at the time Mugabe was President was greatly influenced by his personality and idiosyncrasies. The land and agricultural issues continue in Zimbabwe's economic headlines. This study seeks to analyse the idiosyncrasies of Mugabe in Zimbabwe's land policy. Given the occasions and opportunities he presented speeches or statements concerning the land issue, Mugabe left a mark with his statements.  The decision-making on land distribution was done in the political context and leadership of Mugabe. The land policy as outlined by Mugabe started soon after Independence in 1980 and the fast-track land reform in 2001(Marewo,2024) and was a response to delays in the full implementation of land distribution. In this case, Zimbabwe became more of the centre of international attraction in 2000 because of Mugabe’s controversial land reforms (Zimudzi,2002; Townsend and Copson,2005) The authors further strengthened that the land policy in Zimbabwe has always been a critical and controversial concern since the 1990s. Despite such controversies, Mugabe's socialist approach and pragmatic characteristics motivated him to address the land issue. Indeed, some aspects influence how a country's leader makes decisions such as psychological factors or local and international surrounding environment. This study therefore saw it critical to revisit the idiosyncrasies of Mugabe and his leadership style. To achieve this, the study revisited Mugabe's public statements and speeches during his reign. 
Literature review 
Land Reform Policy 
The 1979 Lancaster House Agreement signed on the 21st of December which ended the conflict and brought Zimbabwe's independence, had great significance for the land reform policies. Mlambo (2005) states that there has always been a struggle for the ownership of land between the Whites and the Africans. Onslow (2020) states that the Lancaster House Agreement was established on a willing buyer and willing seller basis for land redistribution. It effectively guaranteed that land transfer would be based on the willing buyer, and willing seller basis for the first ten years after independence. Lancaster House Agreement 1980-1990 specified that no amendments or alterations were possible for the next ten years. However, in the 1980s, the legal framework and a lack of financial resources slowed the pace of land reform. In addition, the white farmers were not willing to sell the land, only a few were ready to sell and let go of the land (Moyo,2014). In this case, Mugabe and his government could not embark on land reform as the Agreement restricted alterations before the end of the stipulated timeframe. 
Having observed the constraints and limitations of the willing buyer-willing seller, Mugabe's land reform program was also after an observation that there is resistance to the willing buyer-willing seller process. The Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP), which began in 2000 and its extensive land expropriation as well as 'illegal land occupations. The FTLRP was introduced to speed up the redistribution of land. In addition, Mugabe embarked on FTLRP after having observed that the colonial regime had subjected the majority of the black people to poor lands commonly known as reserve areas or disguised as purchase areas for large and small-scale black farmers. There were a lot of concerns and debates surrounding the land policy. Some hoped that land reform would 'de-racialize' commercial farming (Nkomo, 2001). More importantly, in Zimbabwe, redistributive land reform was intended to alleviate landlessness and 'overcrowding' (Moyo, 2014). Mugabe set out to consolidate control, and his increasingly autocratic authority and decision-making often went uncontested. It is established that Mugabe has been on the point in dealing with Britain after independence. Mlambo (2005) states that despite a critical analysis of the land reform process by Mugabe, the land issue ought to be addressed one way or the other. 
Idiosyncrasies 
Butt et al., (2022), provide that the term idiosyncrasy refers to an unusual behaviour of a person towards a certain perspective or phenomenon. The authors further acknowledge the use of idiosyncrasies in foreign policy-making and international relations.  Idiosyncrasies are important factors in revealing a leader's competencies. Ciot (2014) provides those idiosyncrasies in foreign policy as cognitive idiosyncrasies, social perception idiosyncrasies, motivational idiosyncrasies and emotional (affective) idiosyncrasies. Thompson et al., (2004) state that cognitive idiosyncrasies are structured on framing, anchoring, and availability and over-evaluation. Whilst, Butt et al., (2022) state that social perception idiosyncrasies are influenced by political decision-making in international relations. Thompson et al., (2004) further provide social perception idiosyncrasies in the form of self (transparency and a perspective approach) and others (rigid perception and extremism). Motivational idiosyncrasies are rooted in one's personal goals, targets and ambitions.  Thompson et al., (2004) state that often a leader is motivated by goals of self-realization, closure, cooperation and responsibility. In addition, the authors presented that emotional idiosyncrasies as a fourth type of idiosyncrasy are based on wrong reasoning, incorrect belief and an imperfect causal and effect relation between emotions and behaviour. Indeed, emotions affect how an individual accepts certain information and makes a decision. Hence, such traits make one a unique individual in the conduct of the decision-making process in domestic and foreign policy relations. Hence, it is important to critically analyse the idiosyncratic factors of a leader to understand the conduct of decision-making. 
Individual decision-making analysis 
The individual decision-making model assumes that leaders act on how they interpret the dynamics of the global political arena when making decisions. According to Rosenau (1980), the decisions made by an individual have either intended or unintended consequences, however, the decisions made reflect their idiosyncrasies. It is important to note that often powerful individuals in times of decision-making do not search for consensus. Hence, this study sought to analyse Mugabe’s idiosyncrasies towards land reform. Mugabe was an open-minded leader, capable of making courageous decisions even if it meant going against other African leaders’ mindsets in the region.
As previously mentioned, after noticing that the willing seller and willing buyer were moving at a slow pace, the decision to take land from the white minority indicated a radical movement. When he was referring to the radical land invasion of commercial farmers in 2000, Mugabe stated that; 
“You are now our enemies because you really have behaved as enemies of Zimbabwe. We are full of anger. Our entire community is angry and that is why we now have the war veterans seizing land.”  
In that respect, Mugabe did not seek consensus on this decision. This was not the case for Mugabe regarding land issues. Chan and Patel, (2007) acknowledge the centralization of Zimbabwe’s foreign policy on Mugabe who made decisions based on his beliefs, personality, views, ideas and his experience as an African nationalist and a co-leader of the liberation struggle. Hence he was the chief maker and articulator of Zimbabwe’s foreign policy. Ciot (2014) state that an important factor in understanding idiosyncrasy, and foreign policy is the personal traits of a leader. They argue that the actions of states are simply a reflection of the predilections, activities and initiatives of the holder of the top political office. According to Ciot (2014), Hermann’s theory states that decision-makers bring their characteristics into the decision-making environment which influence decisions and actions taken by the institutions they represent. Leaders influence their governments towards aggressive or conciliatory relations with nations and President Mugabe is an empirical example.
The Land Reform Policy in Zimbabwe was made based on a rational decision model and sought to address inequitable land distribution, insecurity of land tenure and land ownership (Ministry of Lands and Agriculture, 2023). Azadi and Vanhaute (2019) state that most land reforms are of great importance to promote socio-economic development. In the Zimbabwean context, Mugabe has made decisions based on his personality and style of leadership. This paper finds that the role of Mugabe in land policy and decision-making encompassed cognitive processes, historical background and personal characteristics. Ciot (2014) states that personality traits or the leaders’ set of beliefs, emotions, images, cognitive consistency, the use of analogies, and intelligence contribute to the influence of the decision-making process. In addition, Mendes, (2019) reinforces the importance of personality traits in decision making. In the case of Mugabe FTLRP, it remains to be analysed on the policy formulation process and decision-making on the program.  Nevertheless, this paper places Mugabe on the development and progress of the land issues. In this same vein, this paper identifies that there is not much literature on the analysis of the impact of idiosyncrasies on how Mugabe conducted land issues during his political life. Hence, this study undoubtedly contributes to the literature on idiosyncratic factors and Zimbabwe's land reform policies. 
Poliheuristic theory
Kinne (2005) states that poliheuristic theory asserts that leaders make decisions to protect their political survival. The author used the poliheuristic theory developed by Mitz to determine Mugabe's idiosyncrasies and land reform policy decisions during his leadership journey. Mintz (2004, p4) states that poliheuristic theory has been applied to many decisions in international relations related to crisis communication, negotiation and peacemaking. According to poliheuristic theory, decision-makers tend to process information in two stages, with the first stage focusing on heuristics and cognitive shortcuts, and the second stage being more analytical (Redd 2003). The poliheuristic decision-making process concerns an acceptable alternative rather than maximising alternatives (Mintz and Geva,1997). After the liberation war, at the Lancaster House Conference, Mugabe was open to negotiating with Britain on land issues and thus he agreed to settle for a willing buyer and willing seller decision. This paper aligns Lancaster House conference negotiations using poliheuristic theory which explains how idiosyncrasies and perceptions contribute to decision making. However, it was only after, he saw a slow pace of willing buyers and willing sellers and the black majority had financial constraints to purchase the land, he then made a land reform policy which other scholars see as a radical decision. On the other hand, the citizens also had been complaining about the unwillingness of white farmers to sell the land since the concept of willing buyers and willing sellers was a completely voluntary transaction between the buyer and the seller. Redd (2002) states that poliheuristic decision-makers value the importance of power and their survival in the political arena. 
Poliheuristic theory incorporates both rational and cognitive elements in coming up with a decision. Mintz (2004) states that policymakers are political actors whose self-interest in political survival is paramount. The crisis attracted international attention, however, Mugabe and his government remained on their binding decision claiming that land belonged to the black majority (Smith, 2015). Poliheuristic theory postulates that leaders avoid major political loss and that such a loss is non-compensatory for political decision-makers (Mintz et al, 1994). Mugabe could not afford to lose his political power at any cost despite critics of his land reform policy instead came up with the Look East Policy (LEP) and turned back on the West. Ojakorotu and Kamidza (2018) state that Zimbabwe's LEP which was established in 2003 was in response to the economic sanctions imposed by the Western countries. On another note, as the poliheuristic theory states the decision-making process also involves heuristic reasoning, there is a high probability of making errors and mistakes due to the leaders’ perceptions, ideologies and beliefs. Acknowledging this statement, this study does not seek to analyse the successes and failures of the radical land reform policy but to analyse the idiosyncrasies of Mugabe in his term in office and the decision-making style preferences. Hence, this study used poliheuristic theory to pinpoint Mugabe's idiosyncrasies during his political life and the land issue in Zimbabwe. 
Methodology 
This qualitative study made use of secondary data sources (Books, journals, Reports) as well as his statements and speeches to determine his idiosyncrasies during his reign as Zimbabwean President. This paper sought to analyse Mugabe's idiosyncrasies specifically towards the land issue. The study builds on evidence of the president's characteristics based on his cognitive consistency, content, process, verbal style, self-perception, accomplishment and cooperation. 
Discussion of findings 
Using historical events and conferences as a guide to trace Mugabe's idiosyncrasies, the research findings presented Mugabes overwhelming public speeches and statements.  Idiosyncratic factor analysis of Mugabe in decision-making towards Zimbabwe's land policy can be understood in a closer analysis of certain indicators in his statements and speeches.  


Cognitive consistency	
Land resources have always been important before and after Zimbabwe's independence. Mugabe had a proactive mindset and a self-confident style in approach to local and international matters on Zimbabwe's land resources. His education and intellectual capabilities made him analytical of foreign affairs (Chan and Patel, 2006) and confident in public speaking.
“We did not send away whites. We took away land by what the British and ourselves had agreed upon, Margaret Thatcher’s government. That commercial land reform programme, land shall be taken from the farmers and be given to the Zimbabweans.” (Smith, 2015).  
This statement was addressed particularly reinforcing that the land belongs to Zimbabwe as it has been possessed by Britain. Like his fellow African leaders, Mugabe was against colonization and supported the liberation of Zimbabweans. It was the land issue which tore the relations between Zimbabwe and the Western countries particularly Britain (Maphaka,2023). 
Cognitive content	
Mugabe and his government believed sanctions as an elaborate plot by Western nations to remove his government from power, hence the notion of regime change comes into play. Mugabe perceived the British as enemies due to the liberation struggle and that they sought to remove him from power.
In 2006, at the 61st United Nations (UN), Mugabe presented his awareness to countries imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe. Mugabe said that;  
“One explanation for our development predicament and the many failed initiatives is the wide gap between rhetoric and concrete action on the ground. We have on many occasions agreed on making available the means for implementing agreed goals. We have made targets for making those resources available. Yet, at the same time, we have witnessed some countries and groups taking concerted actions such as illegal economic sanctions to frustrate our development efforts.”
Again at the UN, in his statement in 2015, Mugabe stated that; 
“Because Zimbabwe has thus been preoccupied with the empowerment of its people economically, she has become a victim of the evil machinations of Western countries who continue to apply unilateral and illegal sanctions as a foreign policy tool to achieve short-term political objectives, particularly regime change.”  
Mugabe was committed to the liberation of Zimbabwe from white dominance and ownership of land. The former president noted at the UN that the country has been given sanctions as an obstacle to the socio-economic development of the country. 
Cognitive process	
When one considers how and to what extent Mugabe handled the land redistribution process, it may appear that the program went as planned. Yet he did indeed accept that the land distribution was not unevenly done in terms of land hectares. The president states, that; 
“I think the farms we gave to people are too large. They can't manage them.”  
It is sad to note that some of the land is underutilized or farm owners are now engaging in other activities such as unregulated mining activities in the farms meant for agricultural purposes, which threatens food security and other socio-economic challenges in the region and beyond.
Verbal style	
According to Ciot (2014), verbal style is one of the concepts in cognitive idiosyncrasy theory which is used to identify decision-making and leadership styles of individuals through the analysis of their spoken and written communications. Mugabe after establishing the Zimbabwe land reform, during the 2002 Earth Summit in South Africa expressed that; 
“We have not asked for any inch of Europe or any square inch of that territory so, Blair, keep your England and let me keep my Zimbabwe.”

“Accordingly, my Government has decided to do the only right and just thing by taking back land and giving it to its rightful Indigenous, black owners who lost it in the circumstances of colonial pillage.”
The research findings presented that Mugabe was known at regional and international levels because of his open-minded speeches. In this case, Mugabe understood that Zimbabwe's indigenous heritage and the country's development were reliant on land.  
Social perception (Self)	
Mugabe had high nationalism as evidenced by his patriotic desire for the country's independence and desire to remain in power and support the land policy. Chan and Patel (2006, p 176-177) allude to the notion of ‘the centralisation of Zimbabwe’s foreign policy’ and Mugabe’s role as ‘the chief maker and articulator of Zimbabwe’s foreign policy’. This can also be attributed to his experience as a nationalist and his ideology as a pan-Africanist. Being an intellectual he had a keen interest in policy-making and decision making. 
During the 69th Session Of the United Nations (UN), Mugabe presented that; 
“In Zimbabwe, my Government has gone a long way in laying the foundation for a sustained food production Programme. The majority through our  Land  Reform of the rural people have been empowered to contribute to the household and national food security. The possession and exploitation of land has also turned them into masters of their destiny, thus giving true meaning to our national independence and unquestioned sovereignty.”  
Mugabe's personality traits and ideas on how to position Zimbabwe's land issue post-independence within the international economic status had an impact on the country's socio-economic and political policies. 
Motivational (Self-accomplishment)	
According to Ciot (2014), the personal traits of a leader influence decision-making when that respective leader participates in decision-making. Mugabe did not seek consensus towards a decision on FTLRP. It can be seen that  Mugabe sought to address the land question as quickly as possible for the Black majority. During his speech in 1999 at the UN 30th Session, he expressed the colonial imbalances and mentioned the land redistribution, 
“….we have embarked on a land redistribution exercise at the end of which we  hope  to  have  a  more  equitable  distribution  of  land”  
At the core of developing the land reform program, Mugabe had beliefs and an understanding of colonization and ownership of land by white farmers.  
Cooperation	
Despite the implementation of the FTLRP and the radical invasion of land, Mugabe appeared to reflect his willingness to partnership and friendship. The president presented his desire for cooperation as he stated,
 “We are a peaceful and peace-loving nation, ready to engage in constructive dialogue for mutually beneficial relations.” 
Mugabe understood the conduct of international relations and the global arena. The UN promotes global partnership and Mugabe expressed the importance of beneficial relations as a strategic tool to express the vitality of an effective engagement. The findings further presented that ideologically he was an African nationalist, during the 1970s and 1980s, he was identified as a Marxist–Leninist and used the concepts to criticize white settler capitalism and as a socialist after the 1990s (Onslow and Plaut, 2018).  
Mugabe as it would seem in response shifted his diplomatic relations to the East where he was to strengthen ties with countries like China. A closer analysis of the 2003 Zimbabwe Look East Policy reflects that Mugabe sought to engage in partners that had benefit to the country's development. He believed that the British government did not abide by the principles of freedom and equality of the Zimbabweans. Mugabe established the policy after identifying a stalemate with Western relations (Chan and Patel, 2006). In this case, Mugabe and his government pursued relations with China on bilateral friendship over the Western allies. 
The President had considerable influence in the country, region and abroad. Hence, upon having analysed Mugabe's idiosyncrasies, this study argues that his traits have had a significant impact on conduct on Zimbabwe land issues in the region as well as on international platforms. 
Conclusion 
This paper made use of individual decision-making analysis and poliheuristic theory to determine President Mugabe’s idiosyncrasies in land reform decision-making. The research findings presented sufficient evidence of Mugabes' idiosyncrasies. This paper analyzed Mugabe's idiosyncrasy in land policy decision-making, from which the author concludes that Mugabe's land policy decisions reflected his liberation war background, personal ideologies, verbal style, cognitive consistency and personal ambitions. This study found that a leader's success and failure stories are also based on idiosyncrasies. Considering that Mugabe was an outspoken, strategist and pragmatic leader, future studies can analyse his demise from power in 2017 vis-vis analysis of his idiosyncrasies. In addition, in an analysis of his statements towards land issues, the major concern is whether there are differences to his successor President Mnangagwa. Hence, further research can also make a comparison of idiosyncrasies between President Mugabe and President Mnangagwa towards land issues.  










References
Azadi, H., and Vanhaute, E. (2019). Mutual effects of land distribution and economic development: evidence from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Land, 8(6), 96.
Butt, A. J., Latif, A., Raza, S. A., and Atta, A. (2022). Idiosyncrasy Of The American Presidents And Their Asia-Pacific Policy/Politics: A Comparative Study Of 21st Century Presidents. Journal Of The Research Society Of Pakistan, 59(1), 100.
Chan, S., and Patel, H. (2006). Zimbabwe’s foreign policy: A conversation. The Round Table, 95(384), 175–190.
Ciot, M. G. (2014). Negotiation and Foreign Policy Decision Making. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Jacobs, H. M. (Ed.). (1998). Who owns America?: Social conflict over property rights. Univ of Wisconsin Press.
Kinne, J, B. (2005). Decision Making in Autocratic Regimes: A Poliheuristic Perspective. International Studies Perspectives. pp. 114-128. Oxford University Press Vol. 6, No. 1. 
Marewo, M. K. (2024). Informal land leasing and social relations: Insights from Zimbabwe’s small-scale farms. GeoJournal, 89(2), 48.
Mendes, F. F., Mendes, E., and Salleh, N. (2019). The relationship between personality and decision-making: A Systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 111, 50-71.
Mintz, A. and Geva, N. (1997) ‘The poliheuristic theory of foreign policy decision making’.In: Mintz, A. and Geva, N. (eds.)  Decision Making on War and Peace. Pp, 81-101.
Mlambo, A. S. (2005). ‘Land grab ’ or ‘taking back stolen land’: The fast-track land reform process in Zimbabwe in historical perspective. History Compass, 3(1).
Moyo, S. (1995). The land question in Zimbabwe. Harare: Sapes Trust.
Moyo, S. (2014). A failed land reform strategy in Zimbabwe: The willing buyer willing seller. Public Policy and Administration Review, 2(1), 67-74.
Ndimande J and Moyo, K.G. (2017). “ Emancipatory International Relations and Zimbabwe’s Foreign Policy Under Robert Mugabe 1980: A Reassessment. ,” Afro-Asian Journal of Social Sciences 9, no. 3 (2018): 1–22.
Ndimande, J., and Moyo, K. G. (2018). Zimbabwe is open for business: Zimbabwe’s foreign policy trajectory under Emmerson Mnangagwa. Afro-Asian Journal of Social Sciences, 9(2), 1-25.
Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J. (2015). Introduction: Mugabeism and entanglements of history, politics, and power in the making of Zimbabwe. In Mugabeism? History, politics, and power in Zimbabwe (pp. 1-25). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US.
Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J., and Ruhanya, P. (2020). Introduction: transition in Zimbabwe: from Robert Gabriel Mugabe to Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa: a repetition without change. The history and political transition of Zimbabwe: From Mugabe to Mnangagwa, 1-22.
Ojakorotu, V., and Kamidza, R. (2018). Look East Policy:  The Case of Zimbabwe–China Political and Economic Relations Since 2000. India Quarterly, 74(1), 17-41.
Onslow, S. (2020). Race and Policy: Britain, Zimbabwe and the Lancaster House Land Deal. In The Decolonisation of Zimbabwe (pp. 124-147). Routledge.
Onslow, S., and Plaut, M. (2018). Robert Mugabe. Ohio University Press.
Preston, T. (2000). Chapter 7. The President’s Inner Circle: Personality and Leadership Style in Foreign Policy Decision-making. In Presidential Power: Forging the Presidency for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 105-156). Columbia University Press.
Rosenau, J. N. (1980). The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. New York: Nichols
Runganga, R., Njoroge, W., and Mishi, S. (2022). Restoration of land acquired for resettlement and the fast-track land reform programme in Zimbabwe. Sustainability, 14(15), 9178.
Smith, D. (2015). Robert Mugabe slates Tony Blair over Zimbabwe's land reform programme. The Guardian. Accessed on 16 September 2024. Available at; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/08/robert-mugabe-slates-tony-blair-over-zimbabwes-land-reform-programme 
Thompson, L., Neale, Sinauceur, M. (2004). “The evolution and Biases in Negotiation Research. An examination of cognition. Social perception, motivation and emotion. 
Townsend, J., and Copson, R. W. (2005, March). Zimbabwe: Current Issues. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
Zimudzi, T. B. (2002). Power syndrome: Robert Mugabe and the land reform and governance crisis in Zimbabwe. South African Historical Journal, 47(1), 213-228.