John RapleyZIMBABWE, ONCE a bright African star, is a mess. The economy is sinking, inflation and unemployment are skyrocketing, the rule of law is threatened, and land occupations are spreading violence through the countryside.
What does this have to do with the country's vexed land question? Everything and nothing. That would be one way of putting it. Certainly Zimbabwe's present-day woes cannot be separated from its land question. At the root of this was the immoral and, it is probably reasonable to say, illegal land occupation by British colonialists in the late 19th century.
The contemporary legacy of this is a highly unequal pattern of land distribution. Less than a 100th of the population occupy a third of the country's land, this being its best farmland. And remaining as Zimbabwe is a largely agricultural country, the land question there retains more salience than, say, in neighbouring South Africa. There, most blacks are city-dwellers and are more interested in jobs, housing and health care than they are in farming.
Independence, in 1980, was hard-won for Zimbabwe's black population. Their principal leader, Robert Mugabe, succeeded in placing land redistribution on the agenda. However, he had to concede a 'willing seller, willing buyer' clause in the Constitution. The problem was that over the following decade, Zimbabwe's small, privileged white population showed only limited interest in selling its land. Complicating matters was that Britain and the USA, which had pledged to cover the costs of redistribution, were not as forthcoming with money as had been hoped. By 1990, when the 10-year willing buyer-willing seller clause elapsed, President Mugabe succeeded in altering the law to permit forcible land acquisition. Still, compensation was to be paid, and only idle or surplus land was to be taken.
Land redistribution proceeded in a relatively orderly manner, but too slowly. By the late 1990s, the landless population was growing restive and impatient for decisive change. Despite the obstinacy of Zimbabwe's white population, and despite his laudable achievements as Zimbabwe's first President, Mr. Mugabe was not above reproach. His government mismanaged its finances and was not averse to corruption. Consequently, by late in the decade the economy was headed for crisis.
The population in Zimbabwe's towns turned against him, its anger coalescing behind the nascent Movement for Democratic Change.
Having lost the cities, Mr. Mugabe had to fall back on his rural support base to retain power. Faced with the growing anger of the peasantry, which was ready to take farms by force, he rushed to the head of this groundswell.
He manipulated it effectively to remain in power, narrowly winning last year's Parliamentary election. But time would show this to have been a case of the tail wagging the dog.
The anger to which Mr. Mugabe is giving vent is real. But he also seems to be using the land issue to hold onto power and obscure the failings of his government. The opposition is being harassed and Zimbabwe's intervention in the Congo war is depleting the nation's treasury. But it continues because it appears to be enriching the generals, who are gaining access to Congo's lucrative minerals. Meanwhile, the economy deteriorates further. With Zimbabwe being so dependent on its agricultural exports, the land occupations are leading to a temporary drop in output. In time, this should correct itself. But for now, it is provoking a fiscal crisis.
Meanwhile, Mr. Mugabe is struggling to retain control over the land occupation campaign, which is being led by war veterans. They, in turn, have their own political agenda.
They are threatening to drive the country into a state of lawlessness. Mr. Mugabe must accept his share of the blame for this situation. But then so too must the British government, which presided over the occupation of what would become Zimbabwe over a century ago. Of late, it has been willing to lecture and take the moral high ground. But its behaviour leaves a lot to be desired.
To really resolve the land question, Zimbabwe needs huge investments in infrastructure and social services, on top of any compensation costs. Black Zimbabweans did not create this problem, nor should they pay for it. Until the international community, led by Britain, accepts its full share of responsibility in this matter, Zimbabwe's woes will only worsen.
John Rapley is a Senior Lecturer in the Dept of Government, UWI, Mona.
