Controversy rages over land nationalisation (Zimbabwe)

[struggle4progress]

<snip>
The Minister of Special Affairs in charge of Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement, John Nkomo last week announced that the State would move to nationalise land and replace title deeds with 99-year leases while those in wildlife and conservancies would get 25-year leases.
<snip>

“It would be unconstitutional to nationalise land because the constitution does not provide for that; the State can only acquire land,” (Lovemore Madhuku) said. It is feared that some high ranking government officials who acquired multiple farms for themselves in direct contravention of the one man-one farm principle could take advantage of the nationalisation programme to keep the farms that President Mugabe has said they should surrender, because it would then be difficult to determine the status of specific properties.
<snip>

The Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers’ Union (ZCFU) president Davison Mugabe said there was need to ensure that the farmers’ plans were not compromised by the question of tenure. “To start with, take a look at the 99-year lease and what it would mean to a farmer. As a farmer, one has a number of issues and programmes he is aiming to achieve at a set time. What is important to everyone in the farming sector is security of tenure. That is one of the issues we seek to settle first,” he told the Sunday Mirror.
<snip>

Mangaliso Kubheka of the South African-based Landless People’s Movement, said the process of nationalisation ran contrary to the ideals of land reform that entailed empowering ordinary people.
<snip>

http://www.africaonline.co.zw/mirror/stage/archive/040613/national6283.html

[AP]

1. Land is the primary source of wealth in this nation. Whoever controls it

controls the nation.

A few European corporations have controlled the land until now.

I think this prevents the problem of those big corps turning around and buying the land back from the people who are impoverished by the ramifications of the historical inequitable distribution of land.

99 years is about the amount of time it will take to make sure that Zimbabwe has a ZIMBABWEAN middel class which which can compete with European corporations.

I think this program is genius.

I think they have some smart development economists advising the Zimbabwean government.

[WVhill]

2. "I think this program is genius." ?????

"A few European corporations have controlled the land until now." Got a source for that statement? From what I've read Zimbabwe has gone from a nation able to raise it's own food to one in which the majority of citizens are facing food shortages.

The farms were owned and successfully operated by families providing food for the nation and employment for many, until the owners were forced out or fled taking their equipment and leaving fields unplanted. Much of the land is now out of production. Odd that Mugabe's buddies ended up with big tracts of land. Keep in mind the farms aren't the size that lent themselves to sustenance farming. They're large tracts which require significant capital investment in equipment and the employment of many to operate.

Mugabe's stunt has devastated the country.

[struggle4progress]

3. Read the article.

There are different views of how to proceed.

Not everybody there supports letting Mugabe's pals keep the farms.

[AP]

4. Before Mugabe European agro-business maintained dominance through force.

Their number one crow was tobacco sold to Europeans. Since the people who were making money off it were Europeans, there wasn't much food or money in it for Zimbabweans.

[AP]

6. When Zimbabwe had a Model Economy (pre-'91 World Bank "reforms")

     There was a time when the management of the economy in Zimbabwe was highly regarded in Western circles. Throughout its first decade of independence, Zimbabwe's economy grew at an average of 4 percent per year, and substantial gains were made in education and health. Zimbabwe was handling its finances well, and between 1985 and 1989 had cut its debt-service ratio in half. (6) However, the demise of socialism in Europe resulted in an inhospitable environment for nations charting an independent course, and Zimbabwe felt compelled by Western demands to liberalize its economy. In January 1991, Zimbabwe adopted its Economic Structural Adjustment Program (ESAP), designed primarily by the World Bank. The program called for the usual prescription of actions advocated by Western financial institutions, including privatization, deregulation, a reduction of government expenditures on social needs, and deficit cutting. User fees were instituted for health and education, and food subsidies were eliminated. Measures protecting local industry from foreign competition were also withdrawn.

     The impact was immediate. While pleasing for Western investors, the result was a disaster for the people of Zimbabwe. According to one study, the poorest households in Harare saw their income drop over 12 percent in the year from 1991 to 1992 alone, while real wages in the country plunged by a third over the life of the program. Falling income levels forced people to spend a greater percentage of their income on food, and second-hand clothes were imported to compensate for the inability of most of Zimbabwe's citizens to purchase new clothing. A 1994 survey in Harare found that 90 percent of those interviewed felt that ESAP had adversely affected their lives. The rise in food prices was seen as a major problem by 64 percent of respondents, while many indicated that they were forced to reduce their food intake. ESAP resulted in mass layoffs and crippled the job market so that many were unable to find any employment at all. In the communal areas, the rise in fertilizer prices meant that subsistence farmers were no longer able to fertilize their land, resulting in lower yields. ESAP also mandated the elimination of price controls, allowing those shop owners in communal area who were free of competition to mark prices up dramatically. In 1995, the IMF cut funding to the program when it felt that Zimbabwe wasn't cutting its budget and laying off civil service employees fast enough. Furthermore, the IMF complained, the pace of privatization wasn't rapid enough. But implementation of ESAP was quite fast enough for the people of Zimbabwe. By 1995, over one third of Zimbabwe's citizens could not afford a basic food basket, shelter and clothing. From 1991 to 1995, Zimbabwe experienced a sharp deindustrialization, as manufacturing output fell 40 percent. (7) According to an economic writer from the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), "There is a general consensus among the people of Zimbabwe that ESAP has driven many families into poverty. The program only benefited a privileged minority at the expense of the underprivileged majority." (8) As intended by Western financial institutions, one could argue.

...

http://www.swans.com/library/art8/elich004.html

[Bo]

5. Peru and Ecuador

...are still trying to recover from the stupidity that was land re-distribution,the great REFORMA AGRARIA of the 70s. It sent the farming methods back to the age of the Incas,not even the Incas, they were brilliant in there farming,back to the stone age more like it. Another African nation down the sh** hole.

[AP]

7. Peru's problem is that they have copper. The US wants that wealth, so they

make sure Peru has a government that doesn't work for the people.

Their problem is NOT land reform.

Joe Stiglitz has that land reform is the only way to break the cyle of poverty in developing countries.