| Ivhu Kuvanhu ● Umhlabathi Ebantwini ● Land to the People |
 |  |  |  |  |  |
Unfortunately, the vital role that property rights played in underpinning the Zimbabwe economy was invisible to most people.
What was immediately apparent to any observer was the enormous and tangible contrast between the vast and lush
commercial farms and the small and dusty communal ones.
What was immediately apparent to any observer was the enormous and tangible contrast between the vast and lush
commercial farms and the small and dusty communal ones.
If the agricultural sector is to attract the most resourceful and competent farmers to feed the nation and earn foreign exchange,
then the rewards from farming (the opportunity cost) must be commensurate with other sectors. This assumes that the more
competent and able farmers should not be restricted in the size of their operations.
For these reasons, and because the fast track programme has already created many small farms, administratively determined farm
sizes should not be imposed on the agricultural sector.
In the early 1990s, government agreed that 20 per cent of all resettlement land would be reserved for war veterans, with the rest
going to landless peasants. But allocation and prioritisation disputes over land resettlement have led to complaints that war
veterans, who had already received financial compensation, were also receiving preferential treatment in land allocation at their
expense.
The government increased war veterans monthly pensions, together with the threat that if an opposition government comes to
power; the war veterans could lose this largesse. The peasants, meanwhile, have been promised white land in exchange for their
vote in the June 2000 elections; and warned that a new government would ignore their needs.
The British government insists that it is not opposed to land redistribution per se, provided that this is done in a transparent
manner with the intention of alleviating rural poverty. It has, however, accused the Zimbabwean government of failing to
satisfactorily explain the modalities of land redistribution/designation, as well as failing to establish the necessary infrastructures to
make it a sustainable and achievable goal (The Independent, November 8, 1997). They have thus been reluctant to finance land
reform plans. The Zimbabwean government has retaliated by claiming that the real agenda of the British is to protect the
neo-colonialist agenda of expatriate agro-business (The Herald, September 14, 1997).
then the rewards from farming (the opportunity cost) must be commensurate with other sectors. This assumes that the more
competent and able farmers should not be restricted in the size of their operations.
For these reasons, and because the fast track programme has already created many small farms, administratively determined farm
sizes should not be imposed on the agricultural sector.
In the early 1990s, government agreed that 20 per cent of all resettlement land would be reserved for war veterans, with the rest
going to landless peasants. But allocation and prioritisation disputes over land resettlement have led to complaints that war
veterans, who had already received financial compensation, were also receiving preferential treatment in land allocation at their
expense.
The government increased war veterans monthly pensions, together with the threat that if an opposition government comes to
power; the war veterans could lose this largesse. The peasants, meanwhile, have been promised white land in exchange for their
vote in the June 2000 elections; and warned that a new government would ignore their needs.
The British government insists that it is not opposed to land redistribution per se, provided that this is done in a transparent
manner with the intention of alleviating rural poverty. It has, however, accused the Zimbabwean government of failing to
satisfactorily explain the modalities of land redistribution/designation, as well as failing to establish the necessary infrastructures to
make it a sustainable and achievable goal (The Independent, November 8, 1997). They have thus been reluctant to finance land
reform plans. The Zimbabwean government has retaliated by claiming that the real agenda of the British is to protect the
neo-colonialist agenda of expatriate agro-business (The Herald, September 14, 1997).
| An Independent Agrarian Reform Watchdog |
| Equitable Redistribution of Land to all Zimbabweans |
 | |  | |  |
| © 2008 OneManOneFarm.org - the agrarian reform advocacy watchdog 1515 North Town East Boulevard, Suite 138-119,Mesquite TX 75150 | Email:info@onemanonefarm.org |