A historical overview of Zimbabwe from 1800 - 1990
In the late 1800s the British South African Company came to present day Zimbabwe to stake their claim of the African Continent. The event marked the beginning of a century of political rule by a European minority. It also marked the beginning of the struggle by the African people to reclaim their nation. Yet over one hundred years after the first colonist arrived, the African people have yet to regain all of that which was originally taken from them, their land.
In 1892, Cecil Rhodes and a force of 1000 armed whites entered into an area known as Matabeleland and took military control of the land by "right of conquest." The land was subsequently divided up for the settlers as payment for his service. Each was given 2400 ha and a share of the natives' cattle. The Africans were soon forced to resettle in remote and arid lands. By 1925 the trends and formations of laws which effective discriminated land tenure on the basis of race were in place. The African people owned a total of 47,000 ha of farmland, as compared to the 31,000,000 ha owned by the Europeans. In 1931, The Land Apportionment Act was passed, which further divided the land in direct connection to race. Out of 75 million remaining acres of land, 48 million were designated for European purchase, and only 7 million for African. The Land Apportionment was the first law which official divided land tenure by race, and if was certainly not the last.
In 1969, the government passed the Land Tenure Act in the face of an international movement towards majority rule. Repealing The Land Apportionment Act, the Land Tenure Act separated Rhodesia into three areas: White, African, and National. It granted a population of 5 million Africans right to settle on 18 million ha Another 18 million ha were given to the 230,000 whites living in Rhodesia at the time. The act also provided the government with virtual total control over the further distribution and resettlement of people within the lands. It also disbanded the Native Department, whose previous duty it was to look after the interest of the native population in the tribal trust lands.
The nations independence in 1980 gave political control of the country back to the African people. The Lancaster House Agreement, which was to remain effective for a 10 year period, created a temporary framework under which a new government could be formed. 20 years later the process is still underway. Yet political power means little to the people in the face the current economic conditions. Faced with a 70% inflation rate, 63% unemployment, and a dollar that buys what 9.1 cents did nine years ago, the people of Zimbabwe ultimately survive not my the power of their hard earned cash, or under the support and guidance of their government, but by the sustenance gained from their land.
Between 1890 and 1969, there has been a 116% increase in the amount of land allocated to the African population. While this figure seems significant, the reality is that in an independent Zimbabwe, as of 1995, a quarter of a million white farmers occupy 40% of the land, where as 4.5 million Africans occupy 42% of the land. Thus the problem of land redistribution is all but over.
Post independence brought on a period of land acquisition by the government on a "willing buyer/willing seller" basis. It granted the government first claim to any land for sale for purchase at current market rate for distribution for resettlement schemes, and other inferstructural improvement such as road building. In 1980, the government set a goal of relocating 18,000 households over a five year period. By March of 1982, this goal was ambitiously increased to 162,000 households over a three year period. While politically impressive, figures and goal mean nothing if they can not be achieved. The problem with the land acquisition schemes at the time was that for a nation to repurchase land from former settlers at market prices, in an economy in which the government can not even provide for its people is ludicrous. By 1989, five years after the indented deadline, the government had only resettled 52,000 households, only 32 percent of its intended goal. Accusations were also rising that the government had purchased a great deal of land which in turn had gone back into the hands of top government officials. With elections approaching the following year, it was clear that some action was needed.
In 1990, the Lancaster House Agreement expired, which opened up a whole new reign of power for the government. Firstly, the 20 seats in Parliament which had been reserved for whites only were now opened up to black members. Under this power, the government passed the Land Acquisition Act of 1992, which effectively gave the government free reign to take land away from the people, under special circumstances. The government in some cases did not have to pay for the value of the land, but only the improvements made on the land. The Act raises moral issues of whether land taken from the native people 100 years ago is still the land of the native people. But the Act does also not discriminate between land acquired by the government from black no r white farmers. I believe that there needs to be a general movement of the land back to the African people, but there is also the reality that a large portion of the economy is supported by white farmers. The country is in no position to father jeopardize its economic standing, if it has any left at all. Yet nearly 20 years after independence, the nation has only begun to give back the people that which was taken from them. Another reality which needs to be address, is the rampid polulation growth of the Zimbabwean people. I recently stayed with a man with two wives, and 13 children, whose nearest neigbor himself had 10 children. Land is a vital resource, but while is aquisition is slow to come by the government, the people can not be dependent for thier futures. I think that a great deal of education has to go not only into poulation controll, but into a dethinking of the way in which lands themselves a distributed amoung the people. It is logical for a single family to have as many children as possible if they are the sole propriters of their land. Children are far cheeper to obtain than cattle, as strange as this statement seems. They are hard and efficient workers. But that is not the idea of what I beleive it means to have children. What good is the creation of life that you can provide not future for. The government needs to educate the people on the ideas of cooperative farming so that there is not such a heavy dependency on family, and therfore such a economically unbearable population groth rate. Land Aquisition does nothing without self sustainability.