ZANU PF’s land policy shift announced Monday that the party 14 years after violently grabbing white owned farms, is now for the first time allowing whites to co-own land with blacks, brings humiliation to the whole nation and particularly on President Robert Mugabe himself as it is a direct admission by Mugabe of destroying the economy through the violent invasions, the MDC-T party has hinted.
Morgan Tsvangirai’s party in a statement bemourned the country’s economic situation 14 years after Robert Mugabe’s chaotic land reform began.
“The MDC views the Zanu PF decision to allow contract farming and joint farming ventures as a very insincere and ill-timed gesture particularly as it comes a little too late when the entire Zimbabwean population has suffered the consequences of the demise of the agricultural sector,” the party’s spokesperson Obert Gutu said.
He said people have been taken aback by ZANU PF. “More than 90% of Zimbabweans are wallowing in poverty as a direct consequence of the Zanu PF regime’s ill-conceived, chaotic and violently executed so-called land reform programme,” he said.
He continued, “the manufacturing and industrial sectors have fallen on hard times due to the failure by the Zanu PF regime to successfully execute a sustainable and holistic land redistribution exercise.
“Whilst the MDC has always called for the sustainable and equitable redistribution of land to all deserving Zimbabweans and as a measure of uplifting the living standards of the country’s citizens, the Zanu PF regime hijacked the programme and completely failed to effect a viable land reform exercise thus leading to the total collapse of the commercial agricultural sector.
“As a direct result of the Zanu PF regime’s ineptitude and gross incompetence, Zimbabwe has been reduced from being the breadbasket of Africa, to being a basket case.
“The MDC has always advocated for a land reform exercise that would guarantee the upliftment of the people of Zimbabwe’s living standards, regardless of race, colour or creed.
“The MDC maintains that the land reform exercise should ensure that there is sustainable food production and that people are empowered to develop and grow their farming skills in order to positively impact their communities.”
 
THE WHITE FARMERS OF ZIMBABWE   
(HARARE)Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the land (William Jennings Bryan, 9 July 1896).
How prophetic these words are proving to be for Zimbabwe. In making this statement, however, Bryan could never have dreamt of a government purposefully destroying its own farms. The ZANU PF Government campaign to obliterate commercial agriculture, under the guise of agrarian reform, but in reality in the interest of retaining power through illegal and violent means, has been largely effective. A major part of this campaign has been incessant propaganda, based on distortions and lies, designed to give it respectability. Further deceptions have sought to give the impression that the pretence of agrarian reform has been successful. The remarkable achievements of the commercial farmers and the crimes and injustices they have suffered must not be allowed to be similarly distorted or forgotten.
Commercial farming started in then Rhodesia in the 1890s on what was, for the most part, virgin land. The wheel had not previously been in use; there were no roads or railways; there was no electricity or telephone; there were no fences, boreholes, pumps, windmills, dams or irrigation schemes. The first farmers had to discover how to contend with diseases, pests and parasites of livestock and crops that were foreign to them. The climate, soils and vegetation were vastly different from those in the more developed world.
 
From this starting point agriculture developed faster than it had anywhere else in the world and the country became self-sufficient in most agricultural products. In many cases yields per hectare and quality equalled or bettered those in the developed world. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Year Book of 1975 ranked Rhodesia second in the world in terms of yields of maize, wheat, soyabeans and groundnuts, and third for cotton. Rhodesia’s Virginia tobacco was rated the best in the world in yield and quality, while maize entries in world championships were consistently placed in the first three places. A combined ranking for all these crops would have placed the country first in the world. The world’s largest single citrus producer was developed early in the country’s history. The highest quality breeding stock of numerous breeds of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and poultry were imported; at the same time the indigenous cattle were developed into highly productive and respected breeds. Zimbabwe beef was favourably regarded on the most discerning European markets. Wildlife was incorporated into farming systems to develop a highly successful eco-tourism industry and endangered species, such as the black rhino, found their most secure havens on farm conservancies.
Zimbabwe was the world’s second largest exporter of tobacco. This, together with exports of maize, soyabeans, cotton, sugar, coffee, tea, fruit, vegetables, flowers and beef, made agriculture the major source of foreign currency. Agriculture contributed more to the gross domestic product than any other industry. It was the largest employer of labour, providing employment for about a third of the total labour force. Zimbabwe earned the reputation of being the breadbasket of central Africa.
To-day foreign aid is considered indispensable for development in the developing world. In Zimbabwe, agriculture developed with no such aid. Commercial farmers also did not benefit from the free seed, fertilizer, tillage and other inputs currently being dispensed in an effort to induce production from the resettled farms.
The benefits accruing to the country from the commercial farming sector extended far beyond the value of agricultural products and employment. The farmers contributed to the leadership, fabric and welfare of society out of all proportion to their numbers. It was largely this fact that was to make them the prime target of a government desperately clinging to power. Each farm was, to a greater or lesser extent, an outpost of civilization. Many farms established schools for the children of their workers; every farm was a clinic, dispensary and ambulance service. Commercial farmers tended to be exemplary neighbours to the communal area peasant farmers, providing unpaid help in many ways. It was from the agricultural shows organized by farmers that the Central African Trade Fair grew.
All these contributions to the growth of the economy and the welfare of the country emanated from fewer than five thousand farmers, on less than half the land.
 
After the Rhodesian Government’s unilateral declaration of independence in 1965, the tenacity and initiative of the farmers in diversification significantly helped the country to survive the comprehensive sanctions that were imposed upon it. The few agricultural products that had hitherto been imported were quickly brought into production locally. And it was the farmers who bore the brunt of the terrorist attacks during the ensuing Rhodesian war. They were under continuous threat of armed attacks on their homes, ambushes, and land mines. Many farmers and their family members and workers were murdered. And yet agricultural production was unaffected. Independence in 1980 brought relief to most of the country but in Matabeleland attacks by “dissidents” resulted in even more farmers being murdered than had been the case during the war.
From the mid 1980s there followed little more than a decade of comparative normality. It is noteworthy that during the first two decades of the post independence period the government was encouraging the continuance of commercial agriculture. Nearly half of the farmers on the land in 2000 had purchased their farms during that period with the approval of the government, which had claimed first option rights on all land sales.
The worst nightmare for the farmers was to come from 2000 onwards. In 2000 an unrigged referendum was held on the Zimbabwe Government’s proposed alterations to the constitution. It came as an unbearable shock to Mugabe and his ruling ZANU (PF) party when the result showed that they did not have majority support. It was unthinkable that they should ever relinquish power. From this time on the Mugabe government made the retention of power at any cost its prime focus. The farmers, although making up only a minute fraction of the population, were seen as key supporters of the opposition who could influence their large labour force and other rural people, potentially the government’s main support base. The farmers were, therefore, first to be punished by vindictive and brutal attacks; then driven from their farms by government-sponsored agents so that they could no longer make a meaningful contribution to the opposition. At the same time, those incited by the government to invade the farms, and those to whom dispossessed land was given, could be expected to be loyal government party supporters. There had previously been ample opportunity for genuine, orderly land reform, with offers of international donor funding, but the land was to be used as a political tool. Now, 20 years after independence, this violent campaign was suddenly instituted to retain the ruling party’s grip on power. Disguising this under such evocative rhetoric as “agrarian reform”, “land redistribution to the landless” and “recovery of stolen land” has deceived and earned the support of many naïve observers; it has provided an excuse for other knowing, but equally malevolent leaders, to support these actions.
This “land reform” took the form of state-sponsored terrorism conducted by rabid bands of so-called war veterans or, as political analyst John Makumbe has put it, “ZANU (PF) hoodlums and hired hands”. The findings of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum Report were that this was a government-planned seizure of land, not spontaneous action by landless blacks, as claimed by the government. In this government-sponsored frenzy farmers and their workers were violently attacked and many were murdered; their property was wantonly destroyed or stolen, their farm animals and pets were cruelly maimed and killed, and wild life on the farms was decimated. Farmers and their families lived for extended periods in states of siege, surrounded by threatening armed thugs. Many farmers were illegally detained in prison. Ultimately, the unbearable pressure, or the direct threat to their lives, has forced more than 90% of the farmers off their farms.
 
It is difficult to fully comprehend the enormity of what has happened to these farmers. In addition to the abuse, violent attacks and cold-blooded murders, farmers in one sweep lost their homes, their land, their crops, their animals and their equipment; they have had their businesses, built up often over more than a generation, closed down, their livelihood terminated; all this with no compensation or insurance coverage. According to the Human Rights Forum Report, more than 10 000 farm workers are believed to have died after their expulsion from farms, as a consequence of loss of housing, nutrition and health care on the farms. Through all of this there was no one to whom the farmers could turn for help; there was not even public protest on their behalf. There was no recourse to law since the law was no longer applied. Court rulings were ignored. The police were usually fully aware of what was happening; often they supported or participated in the violence. There was even a case where a police roadblock knowingly allowed free passage to cars carrying armed assassins; both on their way to murder a farmer and on their return after the deed had been done.
Most of the farms now lie largely derelict and unproductive. Many are occupied, not by the peasants the campaign was proclaimed to provide for but by ZANU PF cronies, army, police and church leaders, favoured in order to win their political allegiance. Although the farms were taken over as fully functioning concerns, production immediately fell to such low levels that the country now faces widespread starvation and is dependent on food aid.
In a radio interview the Zimbabwe Minister of Lands and Resettlement was asked why Zimbabwe, formerly referred to as the breadbasket of central Africa, was now suffering perpetual, severe food shortages? Drought has been the usual excuse offered for this, even in seasons of adequate rainfall. On this occasion the excuse given was that it took time for new farmers to get into production. This was in spite of the fact that they took over established farms, often with standing crops. Ironically, within days of this interview it was reported that, as a result of dispossessed Zimbabwe farmers settling in Zambia, within one season that country already had an exportable surplus of maize.
What has happened to the economy of Zimbabwe, mainly as a result of the elimination of most of its commercial farmers, is now fully evident. There are a number of lessons in this saga for South Africa. Will they be heeded? (ZimEye, Zimbabwe)