Major Policy Dilemma Facing Zimbabwe: Land Policy - Case Study Example

Major Policy Dilemma Facing Zimbabwe: Land Policy Name Subject/Course Instructor Institution Date Abstract From Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980 to date, it was expected that a new land policy would ensure equality and equitability in terms of land distribution and allocation. Despite this, the new government was in dilemma, as it needed to delicately balance equity in land allocation and economic efficiency. The question has remained whether the Zimbabwean government should repossess pieces of land owned by white settlers and allocate them to the native African to encourage equity, peace, and political stability or to leave the white settlers to continue actively engaging in extensive farming and industrial activities to support the underdeveloped economy. This was dilemmatic as settler agriculture would support the country’s economy yet encourage political strife, yet mass occupation of the settler’s land would still have severe negative implications on the productivity of the country’s economy. Zimbabwe’s land reform policy was mainly in two phases: 1980-1996 and 1997-present. The first phase of reforms proved to be expensive for the government. Dilemma was further compounded by the idea that the government had to provide technical infrastructure like schools, hospitals and roads. In the second phase, a bout of land grab scandals dubbed the “Tenant Farmer Scheme” escalated leading to further inequitable land distribution. It also indicated that the government was partially committed to the land policy, as the ruling elite had become part of the problem by grabbing land. As a result, Zimbabwe has become an increasingly less economically productive country in the region. It also failed to attain political stability because of widespread poverty and joblessness. At the same time, focusing on the land policy issues at the expense of other social reforms, like health and education, have resulted in a situation where the country lacks sufficient hospitals, sanitation, security, schools and sanitation programmes. In conclusion, the land policies in Zimbabwe have partially promoted peace and attainment of general political stability, they has failed to tackle social reforms, like health and education, leading to situation where the country lacks sufficient hospitals, security, schools and sanitation programmes. Zimbabwe has also become an increasingly less economically productive country in the region. It also failed to attain political stability because of widespread poverty and joblessness. Therefore, there is still a need to address the varied dimensions of land reform. It is recommended that the government should enforce the rule of law, as well as promote trust among the public and other stakeholders to show that the government is committed to the Constitution and an independent judiciary. The government should also undertake land audit to rectify the chaotic ways in which land reforms were implemented. This will also help identify individuals who have grabbed pieces of land. The pieces of land that have been grabbed should be repossessed. The government should come up with a program that encourages dialogue and reconciliation among the people in Zimbabwe and the former white settlers, as this will inspire the goodwill of international donors and financial institutions, including IMF and World Bank. The government should also come up with an agricultural, health and education sector strategy that encourages the government, international institution, and multi-sectoral participation. The strategy should be targeted at encouraging agricultural productivity, improved education, health, and employment. Table of Contents Abstract 2 Table of Contents 4 1.0 Introduction 5 2.0 Land Policy Background 6 2.1 Origin of land policy dilemma 6 2.2 Land Policy issues to date 7 3.0 Phases of land policies since independence 9 3.1 Phase I (1980-1996) 9 3.2 Phase 2: 1997 to 2016 11 4.0 Broad assessment of the policies 12 5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations 13 6.0 References 14 1.0 Introduction Although a range of conceptions of public policy has surfaced in literature during the last two decades, the descriptions tend to identify the sources of public policies in government. Depending on the source, a public policy is legally binding and driven for public good. According to Zhou and Hardlife (2012), public policies refer to actions or inaction that a government takes while responding to a defined problem. On the other hand, policy problems denote the conditions that bring about dissatisfaction on a broad variety of individuals, as well as for which government remedy is sought. Such remarks allude to an organic connection between government institutions and public policies. Overall, public policies consist of fundamental instruments for executing elemental choices of political authorities (Zhou & Hardlife 2012). Public policies assist in the regulation of behaviour in the society, as well as assist in the extraction, allocation, and distribution of resources to divergent sectors in an economy. In a case study of Zimbabwe, the current regime led by President Robert Mugabe has failed to allocate and distribute land resources equitably to public and private interests, as the latter has tended to be favoured. Land reform policies in Zimbabwe have remained contagious almost three and a half decades since the country's independence in 1980. The government has been in dilemma (Masilela & Rankin 1998; Chigora et al. 2013; Scoones 2009). The question has remained whether the government should repossess pieces of land owned by white settlers and allocate them to native African to encourage equity, peace, and political stability or to leave the white settlers to continue actively engaging in extensive farming and industrial activities to support the underdeveloped economy. In a way, this was dilemmatic as settler agriculture would support the country’s economy yet encourage political strife, yet mass occupation of the settler pieces of land would still have severe negative implications on the productivity of the country’s economy. This paper will be used as a policy briefing paper by the Minister of the government and is addressed to Zimbabwe’s parliament. 2.0 Land Policy Background 2.1 Origin of land policy dilemma The British colonial land policies, such as the Large Scale Commercial Farms (LSCF), were specifically intended to serve the white settlers’ interest. This denied the Indigenous Africans access to land and market for agricultural purposes. Consequently, the colonial policies led to inequitable distribution of land and a potential policy issue for an independent Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe Institute n.d.). As a contagious issue in Zimbabwe since the colonial era, by 1910, the white colonial settlers had estimated 23.4% of the land, while 26% had been gazetted as Native Reserves, or Tribal Trust Lands (Herbst 1991). By 1930, some 50.8% land had been gazetted as "European," while 30% was assigned to the Indigenous Zimbabweans. During Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980, it was expected that a new agricultural policy would ensure equality and equitability in terms of land distribution and allocation (Herbst 1991). Despite this, the new government was in dilemma, as it needed to delicately balance equity in land allocation and economic efficiency. In essence, the colonial policies were sustained after independence, as there was insignificant departure from the preceding policies. After Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980, the new government had to redress the controversial land distribution question, of whether to distribute land to disposed Africans or allow the commercial farmers to continue their economic activities. As a result, this led to land reform policies that were intended to address racial injustices, including the Land Acquisition Amendment Act (2002) (Zimbabwe Institute n.d.). To date, however, the land policy reforms have only extended national poverty and poor land distribution. According to Masilela and Rankin (1998), the role of the government has in most cases been less impressive yet difficult, as it calls for a comprehensible description of policy goals and criterion that has to be adhered to. The government has emphasised on altering rural land ownership in the hope of improving access to land by all citizens yet has not been successful in delivering on the land issue. A common scenario is that whenever the land reform issue is raised, powerful political groups have often derailed public intentions while seeking private interests (Chitsike 2003). 2.2 Land Policy issues to date Land dominates Zimbabwe’s national asset portfolio. As a result, land is at the heart of the political activities in the country. Of greater relevance is the idea that the land question to date remains a physical expression of an extended history of colonial rule in Zimbabwe rather than reduced economic inequities (Herbst 1991). During the last decade or so, the government has made efforts to amend law, or in some cases overrule court decisions, while attempting to create uncertainty over the question of land ownership, as well as who should own the pieces of land. For instance, the Land Acquisition Amendment Act (2002) required that some 2,900 of the more than 4,500 white commercial farmers in the country be issued with an ultimatum of 45 days to cease from actively using the pieces of land they owned in addition to another 45 days to vacate the land, or face huge fines or incarceration. While land conflicts peaked in 2000, the conflicts in fact can be traced back to colonization of the country by the British in 1890. However, after Zimbabwe became independent in 1980, a new constitution called the Lancaster House Constitution protected white farmers’ land rights for up to 10 years. However, such policies have created more dilemmas to the government (Zhou & Hardlife 2012). Additionally, land occupation targeted pieces of land that the government had purchased and those where white settlers had either actively engaged in extensive farming or were undertaking industrial activities (Chitsike 2003). In a way, this was dilemmatic as agriculture supports the country’s economy, and mass occupation of these pieces of land would have severe negative implications on the productivity of the country’s economy (Dore 2016). During the early 1980s, the government’s dominant policies included formalization of land occupations by implementing a fast resettlement model. On the other hand, in areas where land occupation was perceived as threat to disruption of commercial agricultural activities, the government came in to forcefully evict the new occupiers (Zhou & Hardlife 2012). Still, it appears the government’s executive stance was selective. For instance, in the case of Commissioner of Police v Rensford and the Messenger of Court, Gweru, as white settler called Rensford was given a court order to evict individuals who had “illegally” occupied his property. The deputy messenger of Court then sought the assistance of the police for purposes of serving the warrant. However, the police refused to help in executing the order on account of instructions from the Minister of Lands, Resettlement and Rural Development that demand that they acquire a written authority by the minister before prosecuting“illegal” land occupiers. The Messenger of Court, and Rensford, applied to the High Court for an order for breach of duty by the Commissioner of Police, and a companion order that the police fulfil their duty. Such situations potentially contributed to anarchy (Zhou & Hardlife 2012). According to Zhou and Hardlife (2012), the government viewed the judgment to be a “judicial subversion” and ignored it. Afterwards, a new policy called the Emergence Powers (Resolution of Disputes over Occupation of Rural Land) Regulations was enacted in 1984. This new policy granted the government a privilege of buying pieces of land that were unlawfully occupied for at least 5 years, which it then gave to occupiers. Through the policy, Rensford’s land was compulsorily acquired. Politically, the policy objectives included enabling the government to achieve peace and stability. Socially, the policy objectives included addressing concerns of equity land distribution and long-term reduction of poverty among the rural population (Rukuni and Jensen 2003). Economically, the policy objectives included improving agricultural productivity among resettled occupiers. To date, however, the land policy reforms have only extended national poverty and poor land distribution (Chavunduka & Bromley 2006). 3.0 Phases of land policies since independence Zimbabwe’s Land Reform and Resettlement Programme (LRRP) policy was mainly in two phases: 1980-1996 and 1997-present. 3.1 Phase I (1980-1996) The first phase can be described as “state-cantered market-based land reform.” During this phase, the government purchased land from willing sellers based on the Lancaster House Agreement. Land was afterwards redistributed to the landless people. Land identification and control was influenced by the private sector, while the government was fundamentally the buyer (Chavunduka & Bromley 2006). For these reasons, Zimbabwean government was not able to redistribute land. As an alternative, reform was restricted to systematically planned settlement of African occupiers in land that the state acquired. However, this policy was only successful from 1981-1983, as land supply diminished. This led to the enacting of the Land Acquisition Act in 1986 to provide the state with an alternative of purchasing farms that came into the market and compulsory acquisition of land that appeared to have been underutilized. The policy was ineffective as some 70% of the land the government had acquired were marginal and desert land. Moving landless people to these areas was a problem. Additionally, the actual contribution of multilateral agencies was limited. For these reasons, the government’s plan vigorous to achieve maximal land redistribution flopped, and instead accelerated imbalances (Zimbabwe Institute n.d.). In 1989, section 16 of the Lancaster House Constitution was amended to allow the government to compulsorily acquire land. The Land Acquisition Act that was enacted in 1992 also gave the government the right to compulsorily acquire land. However, limited resources to implement policy reforms agencies contributed to constitutional constraints. In the mid1980s, the government appeared to prioritise the immediate socio-economic needs like health and education rather than land policies. Indeed, the severe drought that happened in 1982-84 led to severe famine (Chavunduka & Bromley 2006). This indicated to the government that land policy reforms had been misplaced. However, pressures from other political parties and individuals within these parties with private interests in land ownership pressure the government to centre on land policies. From a different perspective, post-acquisition support that was to be provided to resettled farmers proved to be expensive for the government, even as land prices escalated. Dilemma was further compounded by the idea that the government had to provide technical infrastructure like schools, hospitals and roads (Zimbabwe Institute n.d.). An additional dilemma materialised in 1994 following a land grab scandal dubbed the “Tenant Farmer Scheme.” This also indicated that the government was partially and not honestly committed to the land policy, as the ruling elite had become part of the problem by grabbing land. 3.2 Phase 2: 1997 to 2016 The second phase of the land policies emerged at a period when Zimbabwe was experiencing significance negative economic development. Additionally, the emergence of new political parties like Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) challenged President Robert Mugabe’s ZANU PF regime. The MDC forced the government to reconsider reviving the resettlement programme. Therefore, National Land Acquisition Committee and Provincial Land Acquisition Committee were launched in 1996 to identify pieces of land for resettling landless people. An amendment of the Land Acquisition Act happened in the same year to enable the government to allocate large tracts of land for resettling and accelerating land identification for acquisition. However, the implementation of these policies was slowed by financial challenges during the initial phase of the land reform process (Zimbabwe Institute n.d.). This was part of the reasons for the formation of Constitutional Commission in 1999 to collect public opinion on the draft constitution, which was subsequently rejected. In 2000, landless people and war veterans invaded commercial farms to protest the results of the referendum. This marked the start of complex land crisis in the country. It was alleged that the commercial farmers had sponsored a “no vote” during the referendum. In response to the violence, the constitution was amended in April 2000 by the parliament to give government the right to acquire commercial farms having to pay for the soil, except for farm improvement (Scoones 2009). The new policy was called “Fast Track Land Resettlement Programme.” As of April 2001, the government had acquired 8.3 million hectares of land. At any rate, it could be argued that the policies during the second phase appeared to be aimed at furnishing the interests of the political parties rather than the public. It also indicated that government had legitimised breaking of the rule of law for private interests of certain individuals in the ruling class (Zimbabwe Institute n.d.). 4.0 Broad assessment of the policies Zimbabwe’s land reform policies since the 1980s to date have generated significant negative outcomes, including making Zimbabwe a less productive country in terms of agriculture. What this implies is that the policies have been misplaced. The country faced the dilemma of sustaining economic growth by allowing the white commercial farmers to continue owning the pieces of land to provide jobs and raw materials for industries or achieve peace and political stability by evicting the farmers and distributing their land to the landless people (Herbst 1991. As a result, Zimbabwe has become an increasingly less economically productive country in the region. It is also failing to attain political stability because of widespread poverty and joblessness. Another reason is that the ruling class has allocated land for private use and grabbed much of the land, yet failed to promote commercial farming. A majority of the people in Zimbabwe, therefore, practice subsistence and peasant farming (Chavunduka & Bromley 2006). At the same time, focusing on the land policy issues at the expense of other social reforms, like health and education, have resulted in a situation where the country lacks sufficient hospitals, security, schools and sanitation programmes. The land reform policies, particularly the second phase policies, led to significant losses of revenue, extensive unemployment in agriculture and industries, imbalanced balance of payments, in addition to loss of goodwill from the World Bank and IMF. 5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations As established, the land policies in Zimbabwe have partially promoted peace and attainment of general political stability, yet failed to tackle social reforms like health and education, leading to situation where the country lacks sufficient hospitals, security, schools and sanitation programmes. Zimbabwe has also become less economically productive country. It also failed to attain political stability because of widespread poverty and joblessness Therefore, there is still a need to address the varied dimensions of land reform. It is recommended that the government should enforce the rule of law, as well as promote trust among the public and other stakeholders to show that the government is committed to the Constitution and an independent judiciary. The government should also undertake land audit to rectify the chaotic ways in which land reforms were implemented in 1999. An example includes the “Fast-track Reforms. This will also help identify individuals who have grabbed pieces of land. The pieces of land that have been grabbed should be repossessed. The government should come up with a program that encourages dialogue and reconciliation among the people in Zimbabwe and the former white settlers, as this will inspire the goodwill of international donors and financial institutions, including IMF and World Bank. The government should also come up with an agricultural, health and education sector strategy that encourages the government, international institution, and multi-sectoral participation. The strategy should be targeted at encouraging agricultural productivity, improved education, health, and employment. 6.0 References Chavunduka, C & Bromley, D 2006, Beyond the Crisis in Zimbabwe: Sorting Out the Land Question, viewed 19 Sept 2016, Chigora, P, Chibanda, T & Sillah, R 2013, "Anti-Neoliberalism in the Era of Globalisation: A Theoretical Analysis of the State Response to the Origins of Poverty in Zimbabwe in the 21st Century," IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science, vol 11 no 2, pp.56-62 Chitsike, F 2003, "A Critical Analysis of the Land Reform Programme in Zimbabwe," 2nd FIG Regional Conference Marrakech, Morocco, December 2-5, 2003 Dore, D 2016, A Framework for Discussion Paper, viewed 19 Sept 2016, Herbst, J 1991, "The dilemmas of land policy in Zimbabwe," Africa Insight, vol 21, no 4, pp.269-272 Masilela, C & Rankin, D 1998, "Land reform in Zimbabwe: Zanu-PF's Red Herring," East Afri Geog. Review, vol 20 no 1, pp.11-29 Rukuni, M & Jensen, A 2003, “Land, Growth and Governance: Tenure Reform and Visions of Progress in Zimbabwe,” in Amanda Hammer, Brian Raftopoulos and Stig Jensen (eds) Zimbabwe’s Unfinished Business: Rethinking Land, State and Nation in the Context of Crisis, Harare, Weaver Press, pp. 243-262. Scoones, I 2009, "Land tenure dilemmas: next steps for Zimbabwe," Livelihoods after Land Reform Programme, Harare Zhou, G & Hardlife, Z 2012, "Public Policy Making in Zimbabwe: A Three Decade Perspective," International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol 2 no 8, pp.212-222 Zimbabwe Institute n.d., Zimbabwe Land Policy Study, viewed 19 Sept 2016, Read More