Land Reform in Post-Independence Zimbabwe: a Case of Britain's Neo-Colonial Intrancigence?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
LAND REFORM IN POST-INDEPENDENCE ZIMBABWE: A CASE OF BRITAIN'S NEO-COLONIAL INTRANCIGENCE? Creed Mushimbo A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS December 2005 Committee: Douglas J. Forsyth, Advisor Neal Jesse © 2005 Creed Mushimbo All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Douglas J. Forsyth, Advisor The purpose of this thesis was to conduct an in-depth investigation, analysis, and interpretation of Britain’s land policy in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and its implications from 1890 to 2003. It assessed the extent to which the British government up-held its obligations to the 1979 Lancaster House Agreement on the question of land redistribution, and outlined the evolution of Britain’s policy over time; considering its aims, implementation, and outcomes. This study showed how the policies pursued by Britain impacted the land reform program in Zimbabwe. It argued that the policies pursued and advocated by Britain, i.e. economic liberalization, respect for “property rights” and the rule of law, did not promote, and neither did they result in a fair distribution of land. Economic liberalization prioritized the interests of the rich landed classes of the colonial era, as well as those of other emerging social and political elites. Thus, Britain’s land policy in post-independence Zimbabwe led to the development of a politically and economically unstable neo-colonial state. iv For Chiyevo with love. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to extend her heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Maureen Yorga for her insights, warm support, and encouragement, which enriched this project and lightened the heavier moments. She slavishly read numerous versions of the chapters, critiqued, and took personal interest in the subject. In the same breath, another vote of thanks goes out to Dr. Ellen Berry and Carolyn, who also read the manuscript. Without the discussions and insights offered by Dr. James Kamusikiri, a participant at the Lancaster House Conference of 1979, it would have been difficult to understand how the nationalists conducted the negotiations and why they made the decisions they did. Also, Dr. Elita Sakupwanya at the Embassy of Zimbabwe in Washington DC, devoted a substantial amount of her time in order to enlighten the author about the Zimbabwe government’s position, its challenges, and other issues that were pertinent to this study. Last but not least, the author would like to thank members of her Thesis Committee: Drs. Douglas Forsyth and Neal Jesse. Their numerous comments and advice were vital. They remained committed to the project, read everything expeditiously, and in many ways very accommodative. They are, however, completely absolved from the opinions, interpretations, and views put forward in this thesis. The author remains entirely accountable for these, and/ or mistakes that might be contained here-in. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER I. THE BRITISH EMPIRE: DEVELOPMENT OF SETTLER AGRICULTURE IN SOUTHERN RHODESIA (1890-1969).......................................................................... 9 CHAPTER II. THE ROAD TO LANCASTER: BRITISH POLICY TOWARDS IAN SMITH’S REBEL REGIME (1965-1979)........................................................................................ 41 CHAPTER III. CONCEPTUALIZING BRITISH NEO-LIBERAL PERSPECTIVES ON LAND REFORM: ADDRESSING THE COLONIAL LEGACY (1980-2003) ......................... 80 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 113 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 119 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this thesis is to conduct an in-depth investigation, analysis, and interpretation of Britain’s land policy in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and its implications from 1890 to 2003. Pivotal studies, for example, Robin Palmer’s classic: Land and Racial Domination in Rhodesia, 1977, provide a good understanding of the internal factors that culminated in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe’s land problem. Particularly, Palmer focuses on the legal, ideological, and practical excesses of Rhodesia’s white minority government which enabled it to expropriate the bulk of the arable land to the disadvantage of the African majority; and the political means by which this inequality was maintained. Nevertheless, this thesis is unique because of the time period it covers as well as its treatment of Zimbabwe’s land issue within the context of British colonial policy. It will assess the extent to which the British government up-held its obligations to the 1979 Lancaster House Agreement on the question of land redistribution, and outline the evolution of Britain’s policy over time; considering the aims, implementation, and outcomes. White commercial agriculture was the mainstay of Zimbabwe’s economy, a scenario that had large implications for the resulting land policies. The dual economy created during colonialism would prove to be difficult to dismantle in the post-independence era. This thesis will show how the policies pursued by Britain impacted the land reform program in Zimbabwe. It argues that the policies pursued and advocated by Britain, i.e. economic liberalization, did not promote, and neither did they result in a fair distribution of land. Economic liberalization prioritized the interests of the rich landed classes of the colonial era as well as those of other emerging social and political elites. These interests were protected by the liberal democratic principles: property rights and the rule of law, as established at Lancaster. 2 The first chapter will show how a dual economy: a thriving white sector based on agriculture and various industrial interests and a structurally underdeveloped African sector that served as an involuntary market and labor reserve for the former, was developed and organized. Settler interests were deeply entrenched in Southern Rhodesia, propped by discriminatory land legislation such as the Land Apportionment Act of 1930, the Land Husbandry Act of 1951, and the various Land Tenure Acts. These laws produced an inequitable pattern in land distribution, which would over-spill into the independence era. The second chapter deals with the complicated details that led to Zimbabwe’s independence. Of particular interest are the different parties and interests involved in the independence issue: the settlers, African nationalists representing the landless peasants, the international community, and Britain. The climax of the chapter is the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979, which brought independence to Zimbabwe and established a market-based land policy. It is argued that the Lancaster Agreement was a compromise between the different parties whose interests were represented in Rhodesia’s independence issue. While the African nationalists walked away with political power and legitimacy, the white settlers had some political and economic protections that were incompatible with the interests of the landless peasants and ex-combatants. At Lancaster, the future of the land issue in Zimbabwe remained uncertain given Britain’s financial position and ideological commitments. Also, comparisons are made between the land policies established and implemented in Kenya, Malawi, and Zambia and the one that emerged at Lancaster in 1979. This illuminates the shortfalls and possible strengths of the Zimbabwe land policy making it easier to judge. It is argued that Lancaster established peace in Zimbabwe, but did not lay a stable foundation for land reform. 3 The third and final chapter deals with Britain’s policy towards Zimbabwe’s land reform program after 1980. It is argued, first, that Britain’s policy cannot be understood in isolation from Britain’s larger sub-regional strategic, political, and economic interests in Southern Africa. Secondly, it is maintained that Britain’s domestic economic policies, specifically liberalization, influenced the nature of Britain’s participation in the land reform program and its interaction with other stakeholders in the land issue: the government of Zimbabwe (GoZ), commercial farmers, and the landless poor. Even though economic liberalization and its emphasis on fiscal responsibility and frugality brought economic success in Britain, it also meant that Britain would be tight-fisted towards the land reform program. The international community: the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and non-governmental organizations advocated economic liberalization in Zimbabwe, a policy that prioritized large scale commercial production and foreign investment, and marginalized the rural poor. A market-based land policy was unfeasible and it essentially preserved pre-independence land distribution patterns. As the factor between the British-advocated liberal economic ideologies and the cries of the landless, the GoZ was a critical stakeholder. The decisions that it made, based on its own priorities, greatly influenced the outcomes. It is those decisions and priorities that will be analyzed here in order to establish whether or not they engendered a sustainable solution to the land question. It is established that the GoZ lost faith in the peasantry and adopted an elitist policy similar to that in Kenya and Malawi. This policy had the same result as the one advocated by the British government, it marginalized