| The best Zimbabwe news site on the world wide web |  |
| NEWS |
| FORUMS |
| NEWS ANALYSIS |
| READERS' FORUM |
From new farmers to squatters
By Phillan
Zamchiya
ROBERT Mugabe’s
daring threats on fresh farm seizures during the Heroes’ Day commemoration
only serve to confirm the quagmire we find ourselves in following the
erosion of property rights from our laws.
Our celebrated heroes did not wage the war so that Mugabe can willy nilly possess and repossess land like the possessed. There are various reasons as to why there has been no significant production on our farms which needs to be addressed but we can not also just ignore the rights issues.
Mugabe is reliving the legacy of the white colonial settler by promoting nonexistent distribution of property rights to blacks. The liberation fighters waged the struggle so that the final means of conquest for the daughters and sons of Zimbabwe be law and not war.
For a farmer to be able to do her best on land she needs to be guaranteed that if she plants maize, she will own the produce. Now such threatening statements of evictions from the head of state will exacerbate the uncertainty of farmers on whether they have a right to reap the harvest if they invest in the crops. Farmers need rights so that they can feel secure and are able to contribute freely without fears from the powers that be. Failure to address this will mean that we remain “food beggars” to borrow Uncle Bob’s words.
If Gideon Gono with Mugabe’s (un)holy blessings had the audacity to command the unruly Border Gezi youths to seize indiscriminately the poor people’s hard earned cash ,what guarantee is there that Joseph Made will not be sanctioned to unscrupulously seize the poor farmer’s grain? The farmers are living in constant fear including those closely connected to the so called presidium because of the nature of its unpredictability buttressed in the lack of any recourse to shield and sword laws.
The Heroes’ Day threats do nothing to mitigate the situation. Given the people’s fresh memories of the sponsored violent invasions and harvest seizures it is a foregone conclusion that the Government only has to sharpen its food begging skills. There is a danger that the nation will retrogress towards the ages of shifting cultivation.
Even the satanic Operation Murambatsvina could have been averted if the Government had the people at heart by merely formalising the occupants’ rights. Formalisation of informality is being made the whole of Africa. In Tanzania, since July 2004, squatter rights for 5000 plots of unplanned settlements have been formalised and there are even plans to cover the remaining 400,000 parts in Dar-es-slaam. The occupants are now entitled to compensation if evicted by the state. Thus the people are secure and willing to invest their energies towards nation building.
Whereas there is no international legal right to land, for the poor majority it is a fundamental livelihood asset. For the land to be of asset there need to be land rights defined in a pro-poor paradigm. There is need to base entitlements in rights rather than discretionary policy. Land rights should be enforceable.
Farmers’ rights should provide tenure security and this will make a benefit stream to be established as a right and hence difficult to have it re-captured. Strengthening and providing tenure security will secure rights to land, encourage investment and aim at breaking down the traditional patronage ownership. It is not enough for benefits to flow only from policy interpretation. If they are not firmly anchored in rights, the benefits can be re-routed away and hence farmers are not secure enough to commit to intensive production and investment.
Tenure rights should also be enshrined as they give tenants the right to occupy land and security which enables them to develop the land. Farm workers who have the experience and necessary acquired skills in farming can be retained in this way. This is the case with the Labour Tenants Act in South Africa which has sought for land to be transferred to the tenant outright. This is significant as it reinforces labour tenancy as a strong, secure and unique land right and thus enable protection of farm workers as well as utilizing their abilities for national development and black self empowerment.
The regime must also know that real farmers cannot be fooled by the so called leases being issued by the state. The current leases are not even worth the papers that they are written on and are a source of more confusion and controversy rather than security. The 99-year leasehold can not in any way create secure property rights out of an insecure environment. Granting and protecting rights involves major political, social, economic and legal reform. The so called leaseholds under the current political gangsterism have only exacerbated corruption by Zanu PF fat cats who are using their political influence to seize the deeds, in some cases confiscating the existing customary property rights of poor communities and violating bilateral agreements.
To safeguard the future, our kith and kin in the rural areas need protection from this madness which in no time will reach out to them the moment they dump the gravy train. Despite the fact that customary land tenure is recognized there is need to strengthen protection of their rights. In Madagascar, a new national land policy provides for the creation of land certificates provided by the commune. Nevertheless efforts to strengthen customary rights must pay close attention to other risks such as the management of land being in hands of traditional leaders who could abuse the system as is already happening in Zimbabwe and there should be room to adapt to situational changes. Even when land rights are allocated communally to protect indigenous rights there is need to have institutions that protect legal recognition and enforcement of community rights.
The ultimate ideal will be for property rights to provide solutions as capital assets. Land rights will give the additional protection that beneficiaries need and this type of approach may protect them from the Government because customary tenure may not be enough to protect beneficiaries from re-capture of their land especially as political dynamics intensify. A better approach to land rights would be to assist existing systems, by promoting and providing legislative protection to existing rights and then systematically move to titling.
The Land rights component should emphasize on good governance and accountability. The law must empower marginalized groups to be able to resist inappropriate changes to land use from the powers that be. There is need to safeguard existing diverse rights and ensure that they are built into law. With only redistribution of land and without redistribution of land rights the few deserving beneficiaries who moved from being squatters to landowners are now evidently moving from being landowners to squatters on the land.
Zimbabwe should reflect on the existing property rights and democratically make decisions about the distributions. History has proved that it is precarious to national economies to dilly dally on the issue of rights. Addressing this issue in the context of others will contribute to long term focus on development; however it remains a tall order without addressing the broad twin towers of constitutionalism and legitimacy.
Zamchiya is
a former student leader and political activist. He writes from South
Africa
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS
ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
debate@newzimbabwe.com
All material copyright newzimbabwe.com
Material may be published or reproduced in any form with appropriate credit to this website