Posted on 07/19/2002 6:58:14 AM PDT by Clive
ZIMBABWE’S commercial farmers have a history of prevailing against the odds, be these drought, hail, pests or cyclones. But over the past two years they have been at the mercy of Zanu PF’s naked aggression in the drive to redistribute land.
Continued disturbances on commercial farms have sparked sharp differences between the Commercial Farmers Union (CFU) leadership and stakeholders on how to take on government in a bid to resolve the controversial land reform programme.
Two diametrically opposing positions of confrontation and dialogue have emerged as the CFU tries to bring sanity to the sector, which in the past contributed about 17% of Zimbabwe’s gross domestic product. But government has spurned the olive branch proffered and proceeded with its chaotic and often violent seizure of land with impunity.
The invasion of commercial farms that began in February 2000 has elicited mixed responses among the stakeholders who at the outset did not expect government to go to such extremes in the exercise.
After a year of violent disturbances which claimed several lives of both farmers and their workers, some commercial farmers felt that the land issue would not be resolved through confrontation with government. Numerous challenges against acquisition in the courts have not achieved the desired results. Even in instances where the courts ruled government supporters had to evacuate invaded farms, the rulings were not obeyed with the police claiming they could not act as this was a “political issue” or there was “insufficient manpower”. Government at the same time appointed new members to the judiciary, whom commentators said were more likely to rule in favour of the land programme with less regard for individual rights.
With confrontation having failed, the CFU convened a special congress in March 2001 where a group of commercial farmers resolved they would work more closely with government They resolved that commercial farmers should be recognised as loyal Zimbabweans, committed to playing a constructive role in the future of Zimbabwe. “Zimbabwe is our home — we have nowhere else to go,” the congress announced. “We must resolve our differences. We must find a Zimbabwean solution. Indeed, we believe we have found a Zimbabwean solution.”
The result was the formation of the Zimbabwe Joint Resettlement Initiative (ZJRI). The congress appointed a team to open dialogue with government and other stakeholders.
The farmers’ constructive attitude was well received and representatives of the private sector joined them to propose a resettlement programme in support of land reform. This proposal included the essential components for a successful resettlement programme — land, tillage, inputs, credit and technical support. In May 2001 the proposals were formally submitted to Vice-President Joseph Msika. Msika responded before the month was out, describing the proposals as a “step in the right direction in pursuit of dialogue”. The initiative was endorsed by Sadc and the Commonwealth as a progressive programme through which land redistribution could be resolved without conflict. However, violence continued on the farms. In July 2001, government and ZJRI held their first formal meeting to verify the submission of 531 farms, representing a total area of 967 452 hectares out of the pledged one million hectares of uncontested land.
Despite ZJRI chief sponsor John Bredenkamp and leading negotiator Nick Swanepoel convincing all farmers to withdraw court cases against government, the state responded by instituting compulsory acquisitions under Section 8, an order which gave farmers 90 days to vacate farms from the date of service of the order.
ZJRI had offered to assist newly-resettled farmers on lawfully- acquired farms with one hectare of tillage each for 20 000 settler families and to donate $60 million worth of inputs for crop and livestock inputs to kick-start the programme.
President Robert Mugabe on Heroes Day said ZJRI was an indication that part of the CFU members had had a change of heart and wanted to join government in the land reform programme. He said commercial farmers should continue to change their style of relating to government.
“Let us turn our swords into ploughshares to work together because we cannot avoid each other,” Mugabe said. “That is still our philosophy, but not at our peril, we do so provided there is reform, reform for injustice into justice, unfairness into fairness, division into unity. This is our gospel as it was in 1980.” Despite these words violence became widespread in Mhangura, Doma and on the outskirts of Chinhoyi. Farmers, their families and staff had to be evacuated. Equipment, inputs and cattle were looted and fixed fittings and fixtures from houses were trashed. At least one house was razed to the ground. In Hwedza, over 3 000 farm workers and their families were displaced after war veterans forced farm management to pay them off and truck them away.
Commonwealth Foreign Ministers met in Abuja in September 2001 at the invitation of Olusegun Obasanjo, President of Nigeria. Ministers from Canada, Jamaica, Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom as well as the Australian High Commissioner to London and the Commonwealth Secretary-General attended, giving birth to the Abuja Accord. Resolutions were passed regarding the land reform programme in Zimbabwe.
The Abuja Accord advocated single farm ownership, respect for the rule of law, restoration of law and order, an end to new invasions and the evacuation of illegal settlers on undesignated land. But given government’s track record of adhering to its own criteria, this became another lost cause.
Government proceeded to list single owned-farms, breaching both ZJRI and the Abuja Agreement.
Government went to court in September seeking an interim relief order against an interdict granted in favour of the CFU in December 2000 that government should restore the rule of law on farms and produce a land reform programme in keeping with provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
The interdict ordered government to produce proof that it had restored the rule of law on commercial farms and had a workable land reform programme by July 2001. The new Supreme Court bench ruled in favour of government, saying the police had restored order on the farms. But the aggression persisted. With ZJRI, Abuja and other forms of dialogue falling by the wayside over the past two years, farmers have been forced to revert to the legal route with the formation of Justice for Agriculture (JAG).
JAG, a new farmers’ representative body, has been formed to defend the rights of farmers in place of the CFU which is seen to be backtracking despite the fact that its members are winning cases against arbitrary land acquisition in the courts.
JAG is now calling for a return to the rule of law and believes that Zimbabweans should not accede to a disorganised and chaotic land reform programme.
“To remain naïve would be to betray the hopes and needs of over two million people who depend on agriculture for their lives,” JAG has said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.