Zimbabwe's Land Reform: A Quarter Century of Division and a Tentative Path Forward

Twenty-five years after Zimbabwe's controversial land reform programme, which saw the seizure of land from white farmers, the country remains deeply divided. While a small number of farmers have accepted a government compensation offer, the majority are holding out for a better deal, highlighting the enduring complexities and sensitivities surrounding land ownership in the nation.

A Contentious Compensation Deal

The land reform programme, initiated in 2000 under the leadership of the late President Robert Mugabe, aimed to redress historical imbalances in land ownership stemming from the colonial era. However, the often-violent and chaotic implementation led to a collapse in agricultural output, economic sanctions, and international isolation. Now, President Emmerson Mnangagwa's government is attempting to mend fences with the international community and address the grievances of displaced farmers.

The offered compensation, totaling $3.5 billion, is intended for infrastructure and improvements made to the land, not the land itself, which the government maintains was illegally seized from indigenous populations. However, the initial payout to 378 farms amounted to a mere $3.1 million in cash, with the remaining compensation promised in US dollar-denominated treasury bonds maturing in 10 years. This has been met with skepticism by many.

Arthur Baisley, a 71-year-old farmer who accepted the deal, told the BBC, "I believe this is the only opportunity. We can't wait 10 years for another deal." He acknowledged the imperfections of the offer but expressed a desire to move forward, planning to sell the bonds to cover medical expenses.

Holding Out for a Better Deal

Deon Theron, representing over 1,000 farmers, has rejected the offer, citing concerns about the long-term value and security of the treasury bonds. "There is no guarantee that the bonds will be honoured in 10 years' time," he stated. Theron's faction is advocating for a full cash settlement and has called on the UK government to assist in negotiations, given its historical role.

"The British can't go and sit in the pavilion and watch what's happening because they are part of it. They are linked with our history. They can't walk away from it," Theron argued, referencing the UK's initial commitment to supporting land reform financially, which faltered in the late 1990s.

Historical Context and the UK's Role

The land issue is deeply rooted in Zimbabwe's colonial past, where white settlers disproportionately controlled the most fertile land. At independence in 1980, the Lancaster House Agreement included provisions for land redistribution, with the UK pledging financial support. However, the scale and pace of reform remained slow, leading to frustration among war veterans who had fought for liberation.

Dr. Phillan Zamchiya, a Zimbabwean political analyst and researcher at the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) at the University of the Western Cape, argues that the UK's involvement is crucial for achieving a just and sustainable resolution. "The UK has a moral and historical obligation to contribute to a comprehensive land reform programme that addresses both historical injustices and promotes agricultural productivity," he told the BBC. "This requires a nuanced approach that goes beyond simply compensating former landowners."

Divisions Among War Veterans and New Farmers

The compensation deal has also sparked controversy among war veterans, who feel it prioritizes white farmers at a time of widespread economic hardship. Godfrey Gurira, a leader of a faction suing the government, questioned the allocation of such a substantial amount of money, stating, "It's such a colossal amount... for a nation of our size. People are suffering, they can hardly make ends meet, the hospitals have nothing, then we have the luxury to pay $3.5bn. In our opinion it's an unnecessary act of appeasement."

Furthermore, a new land policy requiring new farmers to pay for land in order to obtain title deeds has created further divisions. Critics argue that this effectively forces black farmers to buy back land that was rightfully theirs. While the government argues that the funds will contribute to the compensation deal, many see it as a betrayal of the land reform's original intent.

Signs of Recovery and Future Prospects

Despite the challenges, Zimbabwe's agricultural sector is showing signs of recovery. Some new farmers, like Solomon Ganye and his sons, have thrived, leveraging Chinese investment in the tobacco sector and adopting modern farming techniques. His son, Aaron Ganye, proudly stated, "We've taken farming to another level because now we're living a good life through farming. We're doing more than what the white guys were doing in terms of quality of tobacco and the leaf is good."

This year, tobacco production reached record levels, demonstrating the potential for agricultural growth. Moreover, the UK government's recent decision to remove Zimbabwean officials from its sanctions list signals a thaw in relations and opens the door for greater international engagement.

However, Professor Sam Moyo, a leading scholar on land reform in Africa, cautions against overly optimistic assessments. "While there are positive developments, it's crucial to address the underlying structural inequalities and ensure that land reform benefits the majority of Zimbabweans, not just a select few," he emphasized. "This requires a comprehensive and inclusive approach that prioritizes equitable access to land, resources, and support services for all farmers."

Conclusion

Zimbabwe's land reform programme remains a complex and deeply divisive issue. While the current compensation deal represents a step towards reconciliation, significant challenges remain in achieving a just and sustainable resolution. Compromise, transparency, and international support are essential for Zimbabwe to fully overcome the legacy of land reform and unlock its agricultural potential.