Revisiting the Story of Land Reforms in Zimbabwe

Understanding the Forces Behind Mugabe’s Controversial Reform Policy

May 11, 2009

Analyzing the basis of Mugabe's land reform policy is very inportant in shedding light on the driving forces behind these reforms. Key issues are revenge and socialism.

President Robert Mugabe inherited a country where a century of alien rule had created a skewed land distribution in favor of whites. The figures are confusing but the fact remains that the bulk of Zimbabwe’s agricultural land was owned by the minority white population. The high concentration of blacks in agriculturally disadvantaged areas led to land overuse and degradation. This was the starting point for President Mugabe in 1980.

The Basis of Mugabe’s Land Reforms

A thorough investigation into the rationale behind Mugabe’s reform policy is very important in analyzing the ceaseless contradictions in post-independent Zimbabwe. This involves a multidimensional analysis of such theses as the ethical and pragmatic considerations behind the reforms. Could these reforms constitute an instrument of revenge? Or is Mugabe trying to revive his dying glories as his detractors hold?

The pragmatic and ethical considerations were expressed in the first phase of the reforms from 1980-1990. At this stage, Mugabe’s reforms aimed at bridging the wide gap between wealthy white land owners and landless blacks. Mugabe worked according to the guidelines of theLancaster Constitution and received support from America and Britain.

However, these pragmatic and ethical considerations lost meaning when Mugabe embraced a “fast track” approach. At the latter stage of his reform program, it became clear that he was using his reforms as a weapon to reward his supporters and punish his detractors within Zimbabwe. Evidence of this was the fact that political tension in Zimbabwe ran along ethnic lines and power remained in the hands of the dominant Shona ethnic group which constitutes Mugabe’s power base.

These charges notwithstanding, it is a travesty of justice to deny Mugabe some credit especially in his handling of the land reform policy at the early phase. “After 1980,” says Mathew M. Kariuki, “the new government underlined its reconciliation theme by declaring that white farmers were not the enemy and were in fact a valuable asset to the new Zimbabwe.” This suggests Mugabe’s intention to incorporate all elements of society into his reform program.

Socialism or State Capitalism?

Despite Mugabe’s socialist rhetoric, he has been blamed for preaching socialism and practicing state capitalism which has been of little material benefit to Zimbabwe’s masses. His attack on the capitalist West and his arbitrary seizure of land and property have added value to these claims.

While these claims carry an element of truth, they loose weight when seen against the backdrop of a general upsurge of socialism in Africa after independence. As Alex Thompson observes, “it is not surprising that most states on the continent adopted a socialist outlook.” He points to specific cases of this growing socialism. “Senghor for example preached “negritude,” Kaunda “Humanism,” Nyerere “Ujama,” and Mobutu “Mobutuism.” Nkrumah also preached “Nkrumahism.” Mugabe was therefore no exception.

Mugabe’s Reforms, an instrument of revenge?

Mugabe’s hostility towards whites in Zimbabwe has been seen as a clear expression of revenge against former oppressors. “When the government decided to destroy commercial agriculture, it was politely an act of retribution,” says Bruce Gemmils. Mugabe has also been blamed for denying economic advantages to supporters of the opposition MDC – Movement for Democratic Change which was formed in 1999.

It is very true that Mugabe like his contemporaries throughout Africa has employed torture and police brutality against the opposition. The spate of massacres targeting white settlers has taken place under the watchful eyes of Mugabe’s security forces who in many cases actually condoned these acts.

For all the charges levied against him, Mugabe and his supporters have fought back very fiercely. But it might be difficult to escape the judgment of history, or to absolve himself of the responsibility of dragging a prosperous country into abject poverty after 30 years in power. When President Festus Mogae of Botswana observed the Zimbabwe was suffering a “drought of good governance,” it showed how much Mugabe’s support base has thinned out even in Africa.

Kariuki, Samuel M. Can negotiated land reforms deliver? A case of Kenya’s, South Africa’s and Zimbabwe's land reform policy debates, 2004.

The copyright of the article Revisiting the Story of Land Reforms in Zimbabwe in Modern African History is owned by Tongkeh Joseph Fowale. Permission to republish Revisiting the Story of Land Reforms in Zimbabwe in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.