Land Reform and Diminishing Spaces for Women
In Zimbabwe: A Gender Analysis of the SocioEconomic and Political Consequences of the Fast
Track Land Reform Programme
Name:
Bhatasara Sandra
ID-number:
i601667
Masters:
M.Sc. Public Policy and Human
Development
Year group:
2009-2010 (M.Sc.)
Supervisor:
Dr. Wiebe Nauta
Word count: 24.708
Contents
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... i
Acronyms......................................................................................................................................... ii
Abstract .........................................................................................................................................iiiii
Introduction: Land and diminishing spaces for women................................................................. 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
Problem statement and justification ....................................................................................... 4
Research questions................................................................................................................... 7
Methodological and theoretical considerations...................................................................... 7
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 9
Chapter One: Historical discourses on land with a focus on women........................................... 11
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 111
History of land and land reform in Zimbabwe ................................................................... 111
Historical discourses on land, land reform and women........................................................ 16
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 23
Chapter Two: The Fast Track Land Reform Programme and spaces for women...................... 25
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 25
The Politics of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme .................................................... 25
Women on the margins.......................................................................................................... 32
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 38
Chapter Three: The heart of poverty is a woman ........................................................................ 39
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 39
The impacts of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme on the poverty of women.......... 40
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 49
I
Chapter Four: Diminishing spaces for women ............................................................................. 50
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 50
Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................................. 50
Recommendations.................................................................................................................. 52
Appendix 1
Methodological framework..................................................................................... 54
Appendix 2
Table 1. Analysis of access to land (Farm workers)............................................... 57
Appendix 3
Table 2. Land ownership (All Provinces) ............................................................... 58
Appendix 4
Table 3. Land ownership by gender ....................................................................... 59
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................. 60
II
Acknowledgements
This thesis is not entirely my work alone and I would like to extend my gratitude to a number
of people. Firstly, I would like to thank my dedicated supervisor and mentor, Dr Wiebe
Nauta. His guidance and positive criticisms enabled me to produce this thesis. I have learnt a
lot from him and I will always appreciate and be thankful for all the times he has showed me
the right path. I am indebted to him.
I would like to thank my fellow classmates, Il, Tesfaye, Patricia and Bastian for
their support. They made my moments at the Graduate school and working on this thesis a lot
easier. I will not forget Trust Saidi for encouraging me to persevere. I will always be grateful
to my family, even though they were far away, they gave me strength to go on and, my
brother Tonderai has always checked on me and stood by me. To Ruth, Nigel, Obrien and
Derek, thanks so much for the words of encouragement.
I extend many thanks to my friend, Rungano, from Women and Land in
Zimbabwe for providing me with invaluable information that helped me to do the critical
gender analysis. I also want thank my friend Tafadzwa, for helping me to find important
literature. I extend many thanks to Wei for helping me with the technicalities. Lastly, I would
like to say thank you for believing in me Albert.
i
Acronyms
AIDS
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
CA
Capability Approach
CDA
Critical Discourse Analysis
CEDAW
Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women
FTLRP
Fast Track Land Reform Programme
GNU
Government of National Unity
HIV
Human Immuno-deficiency Virus
HRBD
Human Rights Based Approach to Development
IPFP
Inception Phase Framework Plan
LAA
Land Acquisition Act
LRRP2
Land Reform and Resettlement Phase 2
MDC
Movement for Democratic Change
WWLG
Women and Land Lobby Group
WLZ
Women and Land in Zimbabwe
WLSA
Women and Law in Southern Africa
ZCDT
Zimbabwe Community Development Trust
ZANU-PF Zimbabwe African National Unity-Patriotic Front
ii
Abstract
This thesis is a gender analysis of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) in
Zimbabwe focusing on the socio-economic and political consequences for women. The thesis
acknowledges the critical importance of land reform in Zimbabwe as a country that inherited
colonially structured and unequal land ownership patterns. However, there are limits to
state-led, masculinized and politicized land reform when women, as gendered subjects in
government policies and as a social category are not seriously considered in theory and
practice of land reform programmes. The research uses the Critical Discourse Analysis
approach to investigate the objectives, driving forces and the politics of the FTLRP, to
establish to what extent the FTLRP created spaces for women to participate in policy and
practice, to analyze the impacts of the FTLRP on the poverty of women and to suggest policy
recommendations not only for post land reform reconstitution but agrarian development in
Zimbabwe. The complexity of the FTLRP, in terms of its aims, power dynamics, the way it
was implemented, the implications on various sectors of the economy and groups of people
and, ultimately the socio-economic and political consequences for women, cannot be
captured within a single framework thus, for analytical purposes; the research draws from
the Human Rights Based approach to Development, scholars who use structural materialist
feminism and Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach. Whereas land reform was necessary in
the context of highly unequal land ownership patterns and poverty, this thesis shows that the
FTLRP diminished opportunities or spaces for women to be empowered and shrunk the
democratic spaces for genuine participation of women in the development process by denying
them rights to land, widening gender inequalities and ultimately failing to alleviate the
poverty of women. The post fast track land reform policies in Zimbabwe should be renegotiated and reformulated to seriously take into account women’s multiple issues
regarding access to, ownership and control of land.
iii
Introduction: Land and diminishing spaces for women
Introduction
“If women want property, they should not get married”(President Mugabe, 1994, cited in
Cheater and Gaidzanwa, 1996: 200).
“Because I would have my head cut off by men if I give women land, men would turn against
the government”(Vice President Msika, cited by the Women and Land Lobby Group
(2001:9).
“Since the family is traditionally made up of two partners, the government cannot say which
partner should come to apply for land. Such specifics must be left to the families to decide”
Dr Made, Former Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement, cited by Women
and Land Lobby Group, 2001, in Goebel, 2005: 154-172).
The discourses of women and land remain at the centerpiece of women’s movements and
gender activists’frameworks of gender equality, poverty alleviation and women’s
empowerment. Whereas women’s access to, ownership and control of land do not guarantee
them improved socio-economic and political positions, these are fundamentally important
explanatory factors. In this regard, this thesis analyzes the socio-economic and political
consequences of the Fast Track Land Reform Progamme (FTLRP) for women in Zimbabwe.
The above quotes summarize the attitudes of government leaders towards addressing
women’s land questions over the years in Zimbabwe. In fact, there is evidence that women
face multiple issues regarding access to, ownership and control of land. The above quotes
create the impression that, government leaders seem to be unwilling to seriously incorporate
women’s land questions thus; spaces (opportunities) for women to articulate their land
concerns as well as spaces (land) continue to diminish. The efforts and policies towards land
have been continuously highly masculinized and women’s land concerns are largely
sidelined. Considering that the government has embarked on a number of land reform
policies since independence, which culminated in the FTLRP in 2000, it is therefore
important to analyze the FTLRP from a gender perspective.
The prevailing situation in Zimbabwe is a matter of concern in analyzing the
socio-economic and political consequences of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme for
women. The country is currently undergoing economic, political and social crises. The
1
country’s agricultural sector is in crisis, social sectors such as health and education have
collapsed and the majority of the population is struggling to put food on the table. The
Women and Land in Zimbabwe (2007: 3), noted that at least 75% of the population is living
below the poverty datum line of which women are the majority. The number of rural poor
and the percentage of rural poor living below the poverty datum line have increased by 5, 6 %
and to 52, 9 % respectively between 1995 and 2006 (Rural Poverty Portal, 2009).
The situation is partly an outcome of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme
(FTLRP) which began in 2000 and was officially declared over in 2003. In my view, the
FTLRP represents a break from the past land reform policies in Zimbabwe. Its nature and
impacts still evoke a lot of debates years after it has been declared officially over. The
FTLRP remains a principal factor in understanding the economic collapse, political
instability, social differentiation and marginalization in the country. Richardson in his
analysis of the Zimbabwean situation, in relation to the land reform, concluded that the “fast
land reform was the primary driver of Zimbabwe’s sudden collapse”(Richardson, 2005:
542). Although Richardson’s view is debatable because there are other factors, such as
politics, the FTLRP certainly played a significant role in shaping the current economic,
political and social situations in the country. According to Alexander (2009: 194), “Grinding
impoverishment and staggering inequalities are the order of the day in Zimbabwe not the
promised nationalist democratic revolution”.
Furthermore, the country is attempting to forge a Government of National
Unity (GNU) between the main political parties, though the success of the Global Political
Agreement is yet to be seen1. The Government of National Unity may see the country
undertaking some economic and social reconstruction and development. However, this is not
an easy undertaking. Among other problems such as poor agricultural production, one of the
major problems that policy makers have to grapple with are the socio-economic and political
consequences of the FTLRP on different categories of people, particularly women.
There is no doubt that agriculture remains at the core of national development
in Zimbabwe yet gender equality in terms of access, ownership and control of land remains
problematic. This thesis acknowledges the important roles women play in agriculture, food
1
The Global Political Agreement is the agreement signed between the conflicting ZANU-PF and MDC parties
in September 2008 which has culminated in the Government of National Unity in March 2009.
2
security, labor reproduction and national development. However, as the thesis will discuss in
detail below, women are underrepresented in land reform policy and practice and, academic
literature. In my view, the gender dimensions of land reform are fundamentally imperative in
articulating issues of food security, poverty, human and women’s rights, economic growth,
sustainable development and democratic deficiencies in Zimbabwe.
Problem statement and justification
The problem that has informed this thesis is the lack of a solid gender analysis of the Fast
Track Land Reform Programme (FTRLP) particularly focusing on the socio-economic and
political consequences of the programme for women. A number of discourses have been
developed in academic literature to capture the different facets of the FTLRP. From the
available scholarly literature, the FTLRP is represented as an issue of politics, class struggles,
conflict and racial demographics (Moyo and Skalness 1990, Moyo 1999, Moyo and Matondi
2003, Rutherford and Amonor-Wilks 2000, Moyo and Yeros 2003, Moyo, Bernstein, 2003,
Sithole et al 2004, Chaumba, Wolmer and Scoones 2005). Scholars who have studied the
impacts of and emerging socioeconomic differentiation from the FTLRP have paid more
attention to other factors than gender. In my view, women have been represented narrowly
depending on the aim of the research. The way women have been theoretically involved in
the FTLRP policy frameworks as well as practically in implementation remains largely
questionable and a matter of concern.
According to the Women and Land in Zimbabwe (WLZ, 2007: 3), women
constitute 52% of the population and 86% of those residing in rural areas, are dependent on
land for their livelihoods and they provide 70% of all agricultural labor. One would expect
that women were considered an integral part of the FTLRP in line with their important roles
in agricultural production and labor reproduction. However, the gendered outcomes of the
FTLRP, especially the consequences on different categories of women still remain
problematic in theory and policy practice. Kesby, 1999: 38) noted that:
“Unfortunately, debates on land reform are constructed around issues of race and
economic efficiency, leaving those related to gender as a set of largely unanalyzed set
of assumptions”.
3
In my view, it seems there are some gender blind discourses which assume that land reform is
gender neutral. In this regard, this research makes a gender analysis, using the Critical
Discourse Analysis approach in order to come up with a clear understanding of the socioeconomic and political consequences of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme for women
in Zimbabwe. The thesis takes a gender perspective focusing on women for a number of
reasons. There is substantial empirical evidence that show that women in Africa, as a social
identity or category, have been historically marginalized and excluded in terms of access,
ownership and control of resources particularly land. Peters and Peters (1998:183-209 ),
noted that women in Sub- Saharan Africa produce between 60 and 80 percent of agricultural
foodstuffs and cash crops yet they lack legal access to land and support services for
production and distribution. According to the late president Nyerere, “Women in Africa toil
all their lives on land they do not own, to produce what they do not control and at the end of
the marriage through death or divorce, may be sent away empty handed”(Cited in Mgugu,
2008: 9).
Women in Zimbabwe are no exceptions. According to the Women and Land
in Zimbabwe (2007: 3), culturally a woman in Zimbabwe, like in many other African
countries with patriarchal systems of lineage, can only access land through a male relatives.
Since independence in 1980, up to the late 1990s, Zimbabwe was the largest exporter of
maize in Southern Africa and this maize was produced by approximately 86% of the
population which lives in rural areas. Women constitute the majority of the labor in
agricultural production in rural Zimbabwe (WLZ, 2007: 3). Mgugu (2008: 3), noted that 70%
of the agricultural exports came from women in small-scale farming. However, the paradox is
that despite their crucial roles in national production and reproduction, women constitute the
majority of the poor in Zimbabwe. Mgugu and Chimonyo, in Masiiwa, (2004: 154) noted that
“Women in Zimbabwe are the poorest of the poor and also have the least access to property
and, have very low levels of education amongst a host of other negative social impacts”. The
WLZ (2007: 4), noted that the highly inequitable land ownership pattern, which is a source of
poverty and inequality, is reflected by disproportionate land ownership patterns. Furthermore,
Mbaya (2002: 2) noted that 57 percent of Female Headed Households (FHH) in Zimbabwe
was poorer as compared to 40 percent of male headed households. The author further
highlighted that 72 percent of the FHH fell into combined poor and very poor categories. This
trend is worsening with the economic crisis prevailing in the country and is likely to continue
4
if no appropriate policies are undertaken. The thesis considers the social differences among
women such as race, ethnicity, age, marital status, political affiliation, economic status and
geographical locations. However, it is beyond the scope of this study to consider all the
different social identities of women in depth.
Moreover, the gendered dimension of the HIV and AIDS pandemics in
Zimbabwe is driven by gender inequalities which cause women to be more vulnerable to the
virus and the disease. According to Bhatasara (2008: 3), a combination of economic
disempowerment and socio- cultural arrangements continue to place women in Zimbabwe in
precarious positions as compared to their male counterparts with regards to HIV and AIDS.
Thus, the empowerment of women through access to land is certainly a fundamental factor in
addressing HIV and AIDS and poverty. In addition, the World Bank (2009), noted that
women’s empowerment is especially important for determining a country’s demographic
trends— trends that affect its economic success and environmental sustainability. In this
regard, it is worthwhile to do a gender analysis focusing on women.
This thesis aims to contribute to the literature on fast track land reform in
particular and land reform in general by taking a gender perspective and arguing that the
specific productivity, capability and power needs of women should form an integral part of
land reform policy discourses. The thesis adds to the understanding of some of the realities
women face in accelerated and state-led policies, especially when the state is facing
legitimacy crisis and oppositional politics. The thesis will also provoke future debates by
highlighting the contradictions and challenges from the FTLRP that have trivialized the
efforts by women groups and gender activists to promote gender equality. The thesis builds
on my knowledge of land issues, attained in undergraduate and post-graduate studies in rural
development and policy studies. Most importantly my personal experiences with displaced
farm workers provide insight in this study.
The limitation of this thesis is that it focuses on women only. Gender is not
only about women thus women are not the only social category that has been affected by the
Fast Track Land Reform Programme. The failure to consider other social groups such as men
and children makes this thesis limited in terms of informing post land reform policies. An
integrated gender analysis that focuses on all social categories of people would provide
5
adequate data on the socio-economic and political consequences of the FTLRP for all
Zimbabweans and make sense in post land reform development.
Research questions
In order to address the above problem, the research will answer the following question and
the sub questions below: What are the socio-economic and political consequences of the Fast
Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) for women in Zimbabwe?
Sub- questions
1. What was the nature FTLRP?
•
What were the objectives of the programme?
•
What were the driving forces?
•
What were the politics of the FTLRP?
2. How were women involved in shaping the FTLRP?
•
What policy platforms existed for women?
•
At what levels did women participate?
•
To what extent did women participate?
3. What were the impacts of the FTLRP on the poverty of women?
4. What policy recommendations can be given?
Methodological and theoretical considerations
This section discusses the merits of the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach as a
methodological framework and the Human Rights Based approach to Development (HRBD)
and, the Capability Approach (CA) as conceptual perspectives for analyzing the socioeconomic and political consequences of the FTLRP for women in Zimbabwe. This research is
based on literature review and relies heavily on scholarly journals, reports, policy documents/
statements, articles and books on land and land reform and the FTLRP.
6
A number of scholars acknowledge that the term discourse is slippery thus; it does not have a
unitary definition. The term discourse has been conceptualized in relation to power, ideology
and can be understood in relation to social structural problems such as race, gender and class.
Jorgensen and Phillips (2002: 6-11), define discourse as a “particular way of talking about
and understanding the world or aspect of the world”. Horkeimer in Fairclough (2009: 133),
noted that “To draw the consequences for political action from critical perspectives is the
aspiration of those who have serious intentions yet there is no prescription but it is the
necessity for insight into one’s own responsibility”. Taylor (2004: 1-20), regarded CDA “as
a framework for systematic analysis of multiple and competing policy discourses. Taylor also
noted that “CDA is a valuable tool or resource for policy research because it is critical and
committed to progressive social change”(Taylor 2004: 1-20). The CDA approach allows us
to understand policy problems mediated by ideology and power by looking at the FTLRP
through the analysis of secondary texts, books, journals, policy documents and political
statements and actions. More detail on the CDA approach can be found in Appendix 1.
This thesis analyzes the diminishing spaces for women using the CA and
HRBD. The concept of space, which is used in the title of this thesis, is constructed from
various perspectives. Space can be physical space referring to land. Goebel (1999: 77) in her
analysis of resettlement schemes in Zimbabwe conceptualized land as gendered space. It is
gendered in the sense that its ownership and control is gendered. Goebel articulated how
women fitted in each space, meaning in different resettlement schemes (Goebel 1999: 78).
Space can also refer to opportunity or platform. The opportunity can be social, institutional,
economic or political. These social, institutional, economic and political opportunities can
take the form of laws, policies and financial mechanisms
The complexity of the FTLRP in terms of its aims, power dynamics, the way it
was implemented and ultimately the socio-economic and political consequences on various
groups of people, particularly women, cannot be analyzed within a single framework. The
thesis employs Sen’s Capability Approach (CA), the Human Rights Based approach to
Development (HRBD) and borrows from scholars who use structural materialist feminism.
Sen (1992: 40) defined Capability as a person’s or group’s freedom to achieve valuable
functinonings. Sen placed emphasis on freedom of agency and what individuals or groups are
able to do and achieve. According to Robeyns (2002: 8):
7
“Capability Approach is a framework for evaluating and assessing social arrangements,
standard of living, inequality, poverty, justice and quality of wellbeing. According to the
Capability Approach, the ends of well-being, justice and development should be
conceptualized in terms of people’s capabilities to function; the capability approach evaluates
policies according to their impact on people’s capabilities. It asks whether people are being
healthy and whether the means or resources necessary for this capability are present...”.
Some scholars argue that Sen does not give a substantial criterion of capabilities because he
wants to avoid paternalism and elitism. Sen (1992: 42-46), noted that the selection of
capabilities on which to focus on is a value judgment thus, he has refrained from giving
priority to any set of capabilities. In that regard, one can contextualize capabilities. Clark
(2005:1339-1368), notes that Sen claims that ‘being able to live long ,escape avoidable
morbidity, be able to read, write and communicate and take part in literary and scientific
pursuits and so forth are all examples of valuable capabilities”. Sen’s approach asks whether
people have the capability to have things such as access to doctors, clean water, basic
knowledge on health issues and protection from infections and diseases. It questions whether
people are well-nourished, and whether the conditions for each capability, such as having
sufficient food supplies and food entitlements, are being met. In addition, it asks whether
people have access to real political participation, to community activities and to high-quality
educational systems that support them to cope with struggles in daily life. This thesis
acknowledges the definitional problems in defining poverty and its multidimensional nature,
thus a working definition used in this thesis is borrowed from Amartya Sen. Sen (2000: 1-48)
defines poverty as capability failure or capability deprivation. This thesis adopts this
definition to analyze how the FTLRP affected the poverty of women.
In addition, land reform can also be conceptualized as a human rights issue.
Wisborg (2002: 1-28) noted that land reform ethically, politically and strategically interface
with human rights. Zimbabwe is a signatory to both the international and the African Charter
on human and women’s rights. The context of policy making, legal framework,
implementation and the outcomes of the FTLRP are essentially closely linked to the human
rights of all citizens of Zimbabwe. Hellum and Derman (2004: 1785-1805) noted that the
FTLRP was a highly centralized and discretion-based political process not rights or human
rights based. Ikhahl et al (2005: 1-48), noted that “The Fast Track Land Reform Programme
was legitimized ex post facto through constitutional changes”. The state largely adopted a
8
state-centric rights approach2. Thus the thesis uses the Human Rights Based approach to
Development (HRBD). The UNDP, (2001:2), has noted that “A human rights-based approach
provides both a vision of what development should strive to achieve (to secure the freedom,
well-being and dignity of all people everywhere), and a set of tools and essential references
(human rights standards and principles)”. Furthermore, Sen (2005: 1), noted that human
rights and capabilities go well with each other, so long as we do not try to subsume either
concept entirely within the territory of the other.
In my view, the constrains on women’s participation during the Fast Track
Land Reform Programme can be viewed as structural in nature reflecting state power
dynamics and the ability of the state to use both modern and traditional power structures to
implement the FTLRP. By using structuralist materialist feminism, one is able one to take a
deconstructionist approach towards state- led policies or what Pearson and Jackson (1998)
termed state developmentalism. The deconstructive tendencies allow one to analyze the
complexities and contradictions within the FTLRP. Borrowing from Jackson (1995: 11-27),
one can only be able to understand the position of women as a product of socio-economic and
political structures. Structuralist materialist feminism looks at dominant structural regimes,
ideologies and material forces that distribute economic resources and power unequally
between men and women. Hennessy and Ingraham (1997: 276-278) noted that materialist
feminism looks “at the distribution of wealth in the context of historically prevailing national
and state interests...”. Thus, structuralist materialist feminism can enable one to problematize
the position of women in state dynamics of material accumulation and political power
consolidation within the FTLRP.
Overview
From the above discussion, it can be noted that the FTLRP remains an important factor in
understanding the prevailing situation in Zimbabwe. The lack of a solid gender analysis of
the FTLRP with regards to the position of women is problematic as shown above. Thus, the
thesis is organized in the following manner: The first chapter analyzes the historical
discourses on land and land reform with a focus on women. This is organized in two sections.
The first section gives the general historical analysis of land and land reform in Zimbabwe. It
focuses on the colonial land polices and land reform policies by the post colonial government
2
By amending laws, reforming the judiciary system and constitutional amendments the government decided
what could be law or rights from its own reference.
9
and their weaknesses. The second section analyzes the discourses on land and land reform
from a gender perspective highlighting how women’s access to, ownership and control of
land have evolved from the pre-colonial to the post-colonial period. The second chapter
investigates the FTLRP, its aims, driving forces and politics in the first section. The second
section establishes the extent to which the FTLRP created spaces for women to participate.
The participation of women is defined in terms of how women were involved in the FTLRP
at policy and implementation level. In the third chapter, the thesis analyzes the socioeconomic and political consequences of the FTLRP for women by focusing specifically on
the impacts of the programme on the poverty of women. Poverty is defined using Amartya
Sen’s Capability Approach. In the final chapter, the paper suggests some policy
recommendations not only for post-land reform reconstitution but agrarian development.
10
Chapter One: Historical Discourses on land with a focus on women
Introduction
The land questions in Zimbabwe are not ahistorical. The struggles for land are embedded in a
colonial past and the post-colonial government’s land policies during the first two decades of
independence. The ambition of the post-colonial government to address the land concerns has
been paralleled by discourses of gender equality and women’s empowerment. Where women
are located in the land reform policies remains controversial in the broader discourse of land
and land reform in Zimbabwe. This chapter analyzes the historical discourses on land and
land reform and how women’s access to, ownership and control of land have evolved since
the pre-colonial period to the post-independence era. This forms the basis of chapter two and
it will be interesting to see later points of departure or continuity in analyzing the Fast Track
Land Reform Programme (FTRLP).
History of land and land reform in Zimbabwe
The land questions are fundamental in understanding a wide range of issues in Zimbabwe. A
plethora of meanings are attached to land ranging from land as a contested national resource,
a means for identity creation, a boundary between political parties and a source of livelihood.
The issue of land evokes emotions, can cause political unrest and may lead to violent
uprisings. In my view, there are multiple and contentious discourses and debates on land
reform in Zimbabwe. Moyo and Matondi (2003: 73-95), frame the land issue in terms of
conflict and struggles as well as complex and competing social and political tendencies.
These complexities and struggles have their roots in British colonialism.
Robin Palmer (1977) focused on colonial discourses and argues that “the land
issue in Zimbabwe is rooted in settler land alienation, eviction and racial discrimination”(In
Alexander, 2009: 2). Thus, colonial land laws such the Land Apportionment Act of 19303,
The Land Husbandry Act of 19514 and the land Tenure Act of 19695, gave some legal
backing to colonial land expropriation. The settler regime marginalized the black peasantry to
overcrowded low fertile areas and created a system of proletarianization that forced black
3
The Land Apportionment Act (LAA) of 1930 formalized separation by law of land between blacks and
whites
4
The Native Land Husbandry Act of 1951 enforced private ownership of land, destocking and conservation
practices
5
The Land Tenure Act of 1969 replaced the LAA and divided land equally between minority whites and
majority blacks
11
men into exploitative wage labor. In my view, there is no doubt that the land questions were
the impetus for mass resistance, nationalist uprisings and the war of liberation. According to
Degorges and Reilly (2007: 571-586), at independence in 1980, white farmers controlled
40% of the country’s total land area, including 67% of the country’s high potential land,
while 700,000 smallholder households were crowded into marginal and degraded Tribal Trust
Lands most of which lay in semi-arid parts of the country or in areas with poor soil. It was
against this background that the new post colonial government sought to address the
historical imbalances and inequalities in land ownership through land redistribution.
The land redistribution in the first two decades after independence can be
framed in different ways. Kinsey (2004: 1669), noted that the proponents of land
redistribution immediately after independence aimed at addressing unequal land distribution,
rectify land scarcity in communal areas and provide economic opportunities for the economy.
In normative terms, land redistribution in the early 1980s aimed at addressing historical
inequalities which had led to most of the productive land to accumulate in the hands of the
white minority. In political discourse, the government advocated nationalist and socialist
discourses of a new society founded on unity and egalitarianism. According to Alexander
(2009: 186), Moyo (1995) demonstrated the rationality of land redistribution in terms of
economic efficiency while also stressing political and moral claims. Moyo and Skalness
(1990: 201-242) noted that land redistribution was also framed in terms of ecology whereby
the government wanted to decongest the former reserves created by the white settlers and
modernize production. Goebel (1999: 75), agrees with the ecological dimension of Moyo and
Skalness (1990: 201-242) but called it the “paradigm of sustainable development”. Land
redistribution and resettlement was also to increase productivity and Bernstein (2003: 203226), noted that this was based on the paradigm of agricultural economics.
This thesis notes that government policy shifted during the two decades. The
land reform immediately after independence focused on “effectively landless families/people,
returning refugees6, unemployed and poor families”(Government of Zimbabwe, 1986, in
Masiiwa: 2004: 2). In 1985, the government shifted its policies to include communal area reorganization, infrastructural development and emphasis on productivity by experienced
communal farmers and those with Master Farmer certificates. Moyo (1999: 5-28) noted that
6
Returning refugees were Zimbabweans who had fled to Zambia, Mozambique and other neighbouring
countries during the war
12
during the period of neoliberalism the government shifted from landlessness, equity and
poverty to notions of capacity to farm and productivity. In my view, this was serious
departure from nationalist land redistribution promised to people at independence and it had
painful consequences for the landless and poor. Moyo and Yeros (2005) have stressed the
high costs of the neo-liberal policy for communal area farmers and workers in terms of
production and incomes. The government also adopted the indigenization discourse and black
empowerment discourses this same period when land reform became more market oriented.
The government enacted the Land Acquisition Act in 1992 7 which allowed the
government to compulsorily acquire land with fair compensation to white farmers. There was
also a policy shift from the neoliberal approach towards a statist/nationalist approach which
saw the government compulsorily acquiring land from white farmers towards the late 1990s.
Moyo (1999: 5 -28) noted that the government managed to acquire 1 471 farms in 1997 and
settled 70 000 households on 3, 5 million hectares of land.
A number of arguments and conclusions can be drawn from the land
redistribution in the first two decades of independence. Kinsey (2004: 1689) concluded that
early resettlement schemes by the government had important failures in terms of poverty
alleviation and productivity and there was no net gain in terms of relieving pressure in
communal areas. However, Kinsey (2004: 1689) acknowledged that there were significant
successes and calls the resettlement Phase-1 period “Zimbabwe’s Golden Age”. In my view,
this representation by Kinsey is rather exaggerated considering that from a target of 162 000
families, the government managed to resettle only 60 000 families between 1980 –1985 and
resettled only 10 000 families between 1985 and 1990 (Masiiwa, 2004: 3). Deininger,
Hoogeveen and Kinsey (2004: 1697-1709), concluded that economic returns of land
resettlements in the 1980s yielded positive economic returns though they were modest.
However, economic returns varied with regions. Gasper (1990) presents two opposing
arguments by expressing disappointment in terms of the low number of people resettled given
that the government had the chance. At the same time, Gasper argues that it was a rational
choice because the government faced a number of constraints. Kinsey (2004) presented the
same argument that the government faced constraints mainly from the Lancaster House
7
The land Acquisition Act was meant to speed land redistribution by revising the willing buyer/willing seller
clause, limiting size of farms, introducing land tax and empowering the government to compulsorily acquire
land (Government of Zimbabwe, 1999)
13
Constitution8, lack of finance and opposition. However, Masilela and Rankin (1998: 11-29)
dispute that there were any form of constraints on the ZANU PF government.
On the contrary, Herbst (In Moyo and Skalness, 1990: 201-242), viewed the
government failure to resettle a substantial number of people as a result of bureaucratic
incapacity not constitutional constraints whilst Cliffe (1988: 4-25) argues that it was because
of the power of commercial farmers which Kinsey (2004), called “oppositional forces”.
Degorges and Reilly (2007: 571-586), agree with some scholars that the early land
redistribution did not benefit the rural poor and Goebel (1999) noted that the government did
not fulfill its professed goal of resettling the rural poor. Moyo (1995: 5-28), noted that
government corruption was another obstacle to land redistribution. Izumi (1999: 9-18),
presented a different argument by saying that land reform in the 1980s was a compromise
between white farmers and black elites. Arguably, there are indications that questions of
poverty, social justice, resettling the landless and equality were somehow political rhetoric as
government policy became predominantly centered around capacity, efficiency and
productivity, a criteria suited to black elites and white commercial farmers.
The government showed inconsistencies and contradictions in its policies
towards land. Whereas there are plausible reasons why the government did not meet its
targets such as exorbitant prices of land and the Lancaster House Constitution there is no
good reason why the government could not look for other means to redistribute land instead
of relying on willing buyer/willing seller that was constrained by the Lancaster House
Constitution during the first decade of independence. One can argue that the government was
not wholly committed to land reform during the first decade of independence. In my view,
there was no threat to its hegemony thus the government was complacent. The government
managed to counter the opposition political movement in 1989 by placing the land issue back
on its main agenda, yet in terms of resettling people, nothing much changed. It is also
interesting to note that even after the expiry of the Lancaster House Constitution and the
government had enacted the Land Acquisition Act in 1992 the government did no redistribute
land on a larger scale.
Masiiwa (2004: 3-4) is of the view that about 400 farms were acquired
between 1993 and 1994, but the bulk of these farms went to senior party officials. The
8
The Lancaster House Constitution was made from the Lancaster House Agreement signed in 1979 to lay out
the procedures for independence for Zimbabwe and the land issue was framed in terms of willing
buyer/willing seller that was to operate from 1980 to 1990.
14
government managed to resettle only 70 000 families at the end of 1997 and this was almost
the same number of households as those resettled between 1980 and 1990. Thus, in my view
the argument that the government faced constitutional constraints is problematic. The
apologetic discourses that continue to be perpetuated by some scholars that the government
did not redistribute land because of the Lancaster House constitutional constraints are
questionable
Whereas the indigenization and black empowerment discourses are
commendable considering the historical racial inequalities, the government did not do much
but created a black landed elite. One would assume that if it was black empowerment it
meant all blacks regardless of class, ethnicity and political connections. Moyo (1995: 5-28),
documented the political scandals in 1994, which exposed the clandestine land allocations by
top government officials. Thus, contrary to views that there were external pressures, the
government derailed land reform. Masiiwa (2004: 3-4), noted that the Controller and AuditorGeneral’s Report (1993) indicated that some chefs in the government and in the ruling class
allocated themselves land ahead of the landless peasants under the indigenization rhetoric.
As, in the colonial times, land continued to be an instrument of class formation veiled in the
rhetoric of land redistribution.
One can also argue that the government’s land redistribution did not succeed
in alleviating poverty and landlessness because of wrong targeting and exclusion. The
government quickly switched to selecting beneficiaries based on capacity in its 1985 revision
of land policies thus sidelining the ideas of landlessness. Most landless people did not benefit
because of the modernist discourses of efficiency and productivity that were adopted by the
government. The Master Farmer discourse inherited from the colonial regime continued to be
justified by sustainability principles. As espoused by Moyo (1995: 5-28), this approach led to
widening rural differentiation and deep inequalities in land redistribution as most of the rural
poor could not qualify.
In my view, the argument that the government did not embark on serious land
reform because of lack of capacity or finance does not hold so much water. There is evidence
that there were donors who were supporting land reform such as the Overseas Development
Assistance and the World Bank. The same applies to the argument by Kinsey (2004: 16691696) and Cliffe (1988: 4-25) that the government was restricted by the power of
oppositional forces or commercial farmers. The power of commercial farmers has been
15
overstated in an attempt to justify the failure of government to give land to the landless and
poor. There are signs of complacency and lack of commitment on the government part.
Masiiwa (2004: 4-5), noted that other factors such as policy exclusion, inappropriate land
tenure led to failure of the land reform. It should be noted that the government had funds to
go to war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in 1997 but failed to redistribute land.
Therefore, land reform during the first two decades of independence reflects
predominantly a combination of politics of state formation, class interests, ecological
concerns, and production and efficiency issues. It can be noted that the discourses of
inequality, justice, poverty and landlessness of the rural peasants were marginalized in the
political discourses of land redistribution. Whilst one can acknowledge that some people who
were resettled benefited in terms of increase in incomes and poverty alleviation, land reform
during the first two decades of independence was largely unsuccessful. It is important to note
that there are categories of people in the above analysis who have received so much attention
in literature such as those termed the landless poor, peasants, the elites and master farmers.
There are other important categories that are not systematically considered such as women
and this forms the basis for this thesis.
The above discussion on land and land reform in Zimbabwe lacks a gender
analysis. In my view, the historical positions of women in terms of access to, ownership and
control of land deserve an independent analysis so as to avoid submerging the gender
discourses under the general discourses on land and land reform in Zimbabwe. The following
section thus, gives detailed historical gender perspectives on land, land reform and women in
Zimbabwe.
Historical discourses on land, land reform and women
The gendered discourses on access, ownership and control of land in pre-colonial, colonial
and post-colonial societies in Zimbabwe are still controversial. Analytical distinctions among
access to land, ownership and control should also be made. Access to land, which is common
in Zimbabwe, can be direct whereby women use land in their own right or indirectly though
husbands or kin members. Women may have access to land that they do not own. Moreso,
women may own land but they may not control the produce from the land. Women can also
control agricultural production decisions on land they do not own. Goebel (1999:77), noted
that African women peasant farmers are in a contradictory position of autonomy by way of de
facto headship of household and dependency and vulnerability by an ideology that maintain
16
supremacy of male authority over land in the absence of men. This refers mostly to rural
areas where men who are in urban areas still control land that their wives work on in rural
areas.
According to Mgugu (2003,) cited by Mpahlo, (2005: 1), since time
immemorial women in Zimbabwe have lacked access and control of land. However, Jacobs
(1995:241-262), is of the view that we cannot draw conclusive arguments because the
literature is scarce and based on racist accounts of colonial administrators and missionaries.
In my view, access and control are different thus Mgugu’s view is questionable. However,
there is evidence that shows that in pre- colonial societies, predominantly the Shona and
Ndebele, kinship and patrilineage formed the basis for economic organization. Male members
of the patrilineage had the power and authority to distribute land to other male members who
were heads of households (Peters and Peters, 1998:186).
Whilst tradition and custom in the Shona society recognized the roles of
women in agricultural production, women had no direct access to land. As noted by some
scholars, land belonged to men and women’s access to land was mediated through men
(Gaidzanwa 1981, 1988, Goebel 1999, Jacobs 1992, Mpahlo 2003). Peters and Peters (1998:
187) acknowledged that married women got small pieces of land to grow female crops,
unmarried daughters got land from their kinsmen and older women could even own cattle.
Jacobs (1995: 241-262) also noted that women were treated differently in Shona societies
showing some rights and autonomy depending on age, number of children and marital status.
On the contrary, Ndebele women were more dependent because of the economic organization
based on livestock and militarism. One would agree with Schmidt (1988) that we should
contextualize the situation of women in different societies as studies have focused more on
dominant patriarchal societies and sidelined the matriarchal ones such as the Tonga.
On the contrary, some scholars present an egalitarian discourse of precolonial Zimbabwean society by arguing that pre-colonial societies were not based on
inequality and women held important positions of power in other areas such as religion.
Whilst this may be the case, it is rather overromanticiziting the pre-colonial societal
structures. In my view, if pre-colonial societies were not already discriminatory towards
women, it would have been very difficult to impose a totally new system during British
colonialism. The dominant pre-colonial societies were based on patrilineage and patriarchal
structures that fostered male domination and women’s economic marginalization. Within the
17
structures of economic organization, land formed the basis for power and authority and the
fact that women did not have direct access meant they were not able to make important
decisions in the household or community thus becoming subordinate.
In my view, settler colonialism led to land expropriation and alienation of the
peasantry and aggravated the situation of women in accessing land. The colonial regime
combined foreign ideologies, sexist discourses and local customary traditions and, ultimately
widened structural economic inequalities between men and women. The customary practices
were misinterpreted and became the basis for women’s exclusion from access to land.
Customary practices were incorporated into colonial laws of segregation and this produced a
strong hierarchical and authoritarian leadership under indirect rule. According to Vodrovitch
1997, (In Mgugu (2008: 5-6), “The fusion of Victorian ideologies, Roman and Dutch laws
produced a very strong ideology of male supremacy”.
There is substantial evidence that the colonial land administration laws
affected women more negatively than men. Mpahlo (2003) noted that the Land Tenure Act of
1969 further marginalized women as it gave widows and divorcees only very small portions
of family land and they could not transfer the land. Gaidzanwa (1981:1-10) noted that women
lacked access to means of production and distribution as land became scarce. Other authors
echo the same arguments that married women who used to get small pieces of land to grow
female crops could not do so because of land constraints (Peters and Peters 1998: 189, Jacobs
1992:5-34). Women could only have very limited usufruct rights to land of their husbands or
fathers. This increased their dependency and subordination. The development of capitalist
agriculture led to the comodification of land. The Native Husbandry Act of 1951 led to
individual tenure and farming rights for men thus, those rights for women that were
guaranteed under the lineage system were lost. It is clear that with further shortage of land
and fragmentation of landholdings by the Tribal Trust Lands Act of 19659, women lost their
usufruct rights as the Tribal Trust Lands became “degraded homelands”because of
population pressure.
There are also some contradictions created by the colonial regime through
proletarianization of the peasants. As a result of taxes, most rural men were forced into the
migrant wage labor and women automatically became heads of households. Women were
now in “control”of agricultural production but as Gaidzanwa (1988:3-6) puts it, women
9
The Tribal Trust Land Act changed the names of native reserves and created trustees for land
18
labored on their husbands’land. Men continued to control the distribution and consumption
of the produce. Because women’s mobility was curtailed by the Vagrancy Act 10, women
could not access markets. Gaidzanwa (1988) and Barnes (1992) used the discourse of
mobility to articulate the way the colonial regime used different means to control black
women .The colonial government also introduced the Master Framer training which recruited
only male farmers who were now in a position to access modern technology and information
on farming. It is clear to see that women were further marginalized. Thus, the colonial
regime took advantage of the structures of customary laws and traditions that already existed
and introduced their own racist and patriarchal discourses to further widen the gender
disparities and economic inequalities between men and women. This worked in its favor as it
pacified the African men as women became more subordinate. Thus, women continued to
face economic disempowerment with regards to access and ownership of land.
In my view, gender was not an important issue in land resettlement from 1980
to the late 1990s. The government embarked on land redistribution porgrammes without any
concerns for the position of women. Despite the government professing to create an
independent state were women and men could work equally and the legal reforms, evidence
shows that it was only political rhetoric. Land distribution and resettlement lacked a specified
gender focus. Mbaya (2001: 1-22), notes that there is a weak link between gender and land in
Zimbabwe’s resettlement. The administrative arrangements regarding women where framed
from the perspective that woman should either be married or widowed to get land, thus
sideling unmarried and divorced women. The Land Reform and Resettlement Phase 111
initiated just after independence did not make any reference to gender as shown by the
following policy objectives:
“...To alleviate population pressure in the communal areas; to extend and improve the base
for productive agriculture in the peasant farming sector; to improve the level of living of the
largest and poorest sector of the population; to provide, at the lower end of the scale,
opportunities for people who have no land and who are without employment and may
therefore be classed as destitute; to bring abandoned or under-utilized land unto full
production as one facet of implementing and equitable programme of land redistribution; to
expand or improve the infrastructure of economic production and to achieve national stability
10
Vagrancy Act of 1960 was meant to segregate blacks from cities and white areas, women were not allowed to
travel without male company into urban areas, Nhongo-Simbanegavi, 2000
11
The land redistribution immediately after independence was termed Land Reform and Resettlement Phase 1
19
and progress in a country that has only recently emerged from the turmoil of war”
(Government of Zimbabwe, 1986).
The government adopted an equality discourse when it created the Ministry of Community
Development and Women’s Affairs and enacted the Legal Age of Majority Act in 1981,
repealed the Customary Law and Primary Courts Act, the Matrimonial Clauses Act of 1985
and the Labor Relations Act of 1985 in an attempt to create equality between men and
women within and outside the family system. The Legal Age of Majority Act supposedly
gave women equal legal status at eighteen years contrary to being treated as minors during
the colonial period. The Customary Law and Primary Courts Act repealed the judicial powers
of chiefs given by the colonial regime under indirect rule. The Labor Relations Act erased
sex-based discrimination at work. The Matrimonial Causes Act was meant to protect
women’s rights to property and part 7 (a) and (b) refer to “division of property and state that
upon dissolution of marriage each partner is entitled to any property that forms part of
marriage”(Parliament of Zimbabwe, 2006). However, evidence show that the Matrimonial
Causes Act is ambiguous on equality and it is inherently interpreted in favor of men. In
addition, the ministry for women was only cosmetic as the patronization of women continued
through adhoc vagrancy laws in 198312. Peters and Peters (1998: 193) argue that under law
women were equal to men but state institutions such as Deeds Registry Office still treated
married women as minors in land registration. Whilst the state enacted laws to promote
equality, it can be criticized for condoning the discriminatory customary practices and
treating women as subordinates in the land permit system.
It can be noted that Zimbabwean women can be married under civil marriage
and customary marriage. The Customary Marriage Act does not always protect women’s
rights to property because of the application of Customary Law. Under Customary Law,
women do not have traditional rights to individual pieces of land but only secondary rights
mediated through brothers, husbands or fathers. Izumi (1999), noted that the government
forgot that most of the rural women have unregistered customary marriages thus suffer
unsecure access to land upon divorce. In the absence of registered marriages the customary
law is usually applied. The Constitution’s Customary Law Chapter 10 of Act 6 states that:
12
In 1983, the government ordered the police to arrest women in Harare who were prosecuted for loitering
under some unclear vagrancy laws. What showed that it was only any attempt to control women’s mobility was
the fact the men who were caught with these women were not prosecuted
20
“...In any case where customary law is applicable and the parties are connected with
different systems of customary law, the court shall apply the customary law by which the
parties have agreed that their obligations should be regulated or, in the absence of such
agreement, the customary law with which the case and the parties have the closest connection
and if that is not ascertainable, the court shall apply any system of customary law which the
court considers it would be just and fair to apply in the determination of the case...”(Ministry
of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, (2005: 19).
Whereas the application of customary law varies with social realities, for example when
widows inherit land, it is still embedded in the constitution and the existence of dual laws
13
puts women in difficult situations. The existence of dual laws has been criticized by several
scholars and women’s groups for placing women in precarious positions (Women and Law in
Southern Africa (WLSA) 1997, Zimbabwe Women’s Resource Centre and Network
(ZWRCN) 1994, Women and Land Lobby Group (WLLG) 2001, Gaidzanwa 1995).
Mamdani (2005: 1-18) criticized the post colonial governments for uncritically adopting and
reproducing colonially constructed customary laws as authentic tradition. The constitution of
Zimbabwe continues to give privileges to customary law over gender equality. The
constitution of Zimbabwe theoretically protects discrimination from access to and ownership
of land as inheritance in the Matrimonial Causes Act but Section 23(b) of the constitution
states that “...the application of African customary law in any case involving Africans or an
African and one or more persons who are not Africans where such persons have consented to
the application of African customary law in that case (Ministry of Justice, Legal and
Parliamentary Affairs, 2005).
According to Jacobs (1992, 2001) in her studies of land resettlement of the
1980s, men benefited more primarily because land policies were gender blind. Jacobs (2001:
2) noted that land reform has been disappointing especially for married women. Kawewe
(2005: 471-485), offers the same conclusion by arguing that land resettlement had
commercial orientation which exploited women’s labor. Jacobs (2000) echoes the same
argument by saying that women became dependent with agricultural commercialization in
13
Dual laws in the sense that there are modern laws that are suppose to treat men and women equally yet there
are also rational customary practices that override modern laws.
21
resettlements. Goebel (1999: 75), argued that women’s perspectives were marginalized in
Zimbabwe’s land resettlement.
In addition, in 1990, when the government began its Economic Structural
Adjustment Progamme, it also shifted its land reform policies from previous objectives to
competence and capacity. It is interesting to note that still there was no focus on gender and
women were highly marginalized as shown by the following policy statements:
“To decongest overpopulated and/or overstocked wards and villages for the generality of
landless people: to address the needs of successful peasant farmers who had limited means
and resources but wanted to venture into small-scale commercial agriculture and to address
the needs of indigenous citizens who had means and resources to enter into large scale
commercial agriculture...”(Government of Zimbabwe 2001, in Masiiwa, 2004: 5).
The inequalities and discrimination women face in access to, ownership and control f land are
embedded in the constitution of Zimbabwe. As stated above, it contains clauses that
permitted discrimination of women. The Constitution Section 23 (b) permitted the practice of
allocating land to men and not women. The Communal Lands Act of 1981 provided that land
should be given to families that customarily lived in the specific area and Section 8(2)
instructed the Rural Development Councils to follow allocation and land use practices based
on customary laws (Parliament of Zimbabwe, 2006). In that regard, women were excluded
because of the prevailing patrilocality culture in which women upon marriage move to their
husbands’homes. In addition, the situation of women was worsened by unclear tenure
arrangements and land rights. The Women and Land in Zimbabwe (WLZ, 2008: 4), noted
that only 23% of women in communal areas have secondary access to their own land parcels
allocated to them by their husbands. The Rukuni Commission of 199414 advised the
government to resolve land tenure issues. However, this led to private permits and land title
deeds that were registered in the names of the heads of households, men. Jacobs (2000),
showed that widows ended up suffering at the hands of relatives because they took land upon
the death of the husbands.
In my view, despite Zimbabwe signing the Convention on Elimination of all
forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in 1991 and the submission by the
Zimbabwe Women Resource Centre and Network (ZWRCN) to the Rukuni Land
Commission, women’s land concerns in 1994, the government continued to trivialize
14
The Rukuni Land Commission was commissioned in 1994 to make an inquiry into resettlement land use and
tenure systems
22
women’s land concerns. There has been insufficient commitment on the part of the
government to address gender inequalities in access to and ownership of land. The CEDAW
article 14 states that “state parties shall take appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination
against women in rural areas in order to ensure on a basis of equality between men and
women, equal treatment of women in agrarian and land reform as well as land resettlement
schemes”. The following is the response by the president of Zimbabwe to women’s groups
and activists on women’s land questions, “If women want property they should not get
married”(President Mugabe, 1994, cited in Cheater and Gaidzanwa 1996: 200).
The above response by the president to the concerns of rural women that land
permits should be jointly registered shows that the government’s commitment to gender
equality and equal access to land was only political rhetoric. Women could not access land in
their own right within the marriage institution in which men are considered the heads of
households and, are entitled to land. This is also contradictory from a government that had
signed CEDAW, making it clear that it was commitment only on paper. In their analysis,
Cheater and Gaidzanwa (1996:189-200) noted that because of the deployment of neotraditionalism, women continued to face shrinking boundaries, delimited identities and
activities. In my view, the government inherited and reinforced the colonial legacy of
denying women’s access to land by disbanding egalitarian and equality principles.
Gaidzanwa (1995:1-12), noted that women constituted only 15 % of settlers by the early
1990s. This figure is ridiculously low considering that women are demographically the
majority and constitute the majority of producers in agriculture as well. Izumi (1999:9-18),
found out that 1997 data on land registration shows that 75% of men were registered on land
deeds, 20 % were joint ownership, 5 % were owned by women and 4% black women. This
shows the gender bias in favor of men in the land redistribution schemes. However, Goebel
(1999), Izumi ( 1999) and Jacobs ( 1992, 2001) acknowledge that some women benefited
depending on age, class and marital status in terms of incomes, independence to make
production decisions and improved access to technology.
Conclusion
In conclusion, one can say that government land reform policies in the first two decades of
independence were largely gender insensitive. One can see that the dominant themes were a
combination of politics of state formation, class interests, ecological concerns, and production
and efficiency issues, not gender. In my view, the government sidelined gender as an
23
important category in land redistribution and it shows the dishonest of the government to
formalize women’s rights by laws at the same time demobilizing women’s rights by courting
customary practices. The government, being male dominated and protecting its own interest,
subsumed gender issues beneath the discourses of a conservative nationalism, nation
building, “sustainability”, productivity and efficiency. The black empowerment and
indigenization discourses benefited male black elites and a few elite women with political
connections whilst the majority of rural women who labored in poverty did not benefit.
The land issue is still complex and presents dilemmas for women that policy makers should
address.
From the above analysis, it is clear that at the beginning of the 21st century,
women in Zimbabwe faced dual laws, a constitution that is discriminatory, a government
committed to gender issues only on paper, limited access to land, unsecure rights to land,
unclear land tenure and patriarchal customary practices. Given this background, this thesis
analyzes the socio-economic and political consequences of the FTLRP for women. It will be
interesting to see points of continuity and departure in government policies during the FTLRP
towards women. In the next chapter, the thesis analyzes the politics of the FTLRP and to
extent the programme created spaces for women to participate. The thesis will later analyze
how the policy and implementation deficiencies shaped the impacts of the FTLRP on the
poverty of women.
24
Chapter Two: The Fast Track Land Reform Programme and spaces for women
Introduction
The questions of land and land reform have always been political in Zimbabwe since the
colonial conquest of the country to the land redistribution in the first two decades of
independence. The government’s reasons to embark on the Fast Track Land Reform
Programme (FTLRP) are far from obvious. In my view, there are underlying factors and
driving forces that shaped the ultimate nature the FTRLP took. There are fundamental
differences between policy on paper and in practice as the following section will analyze. In
addition, one cannot assume that the FTLRP included all groups of people in the same
manner. Thus, in this chapter, the thesis deconstructs the whole programme to establish what
spaces were created for some vulnerable groups such as women in policy and practice.
The Politics of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme
The politics of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTRLP) can be defined as the way
decisions to implement the FTLRP in the manner it was done and at that particular time
where made. The Fast Track Land Reform Programme, a government initiated land
acquisition and redistribution programme began by land occupations in the late 1990s that
were later legitimized into an official programme in 2000. The land occupations were
legitimized by the Rural Lands Occupiers Act15 of 2001 and the act prevented white farmers
from seeking eviction orders. The FTLRP remains controversial in the political discourse of
land reform in Zimbabwe. The objectives and driving forces of the FTLRP are questionable
thus; the politics of the FTLRP should be articulated. The government amended the
constitution in 2000 and 2001 despite the rejection of the Referendum16 in 2000. This gave
the government power to forcefully acquire land for resettlement. The initial clauses of the
Land Acquisition Act17 of 1992 to compensate farmers for farm improvements were later
forgone in the amendments to the Act in 2000 and 2001 and, ultimatums given to white
farmers. Masiiwa (2004), is of the view that the FTLRP started without any legal backing.
15
Rural Land Occupiers Act was enacted in2001, Section 3(i) prevented the settlers from any legal proceedings
In 2000, the government initiated a Referendum to change the Constitution and the majority of voters
rejected the Referendum by voting “No”
17
Land Acquisition Act enacted in 1992 to speed up land redistribution. It was amended in 2000 and 2001 to
empower the president and other authorities to acquire land compulsorily in certain circumstances.
16
25
However, in terms of laws as interpreted by the government there were legal backings such as
the Rural Lands Occupiers Act of 2001 and the judicial reforms that followed.
There seem to be no clarity on what exactly the government meant by the “fast
track”. From the available literature the fast track was defined as “an accelerated phase were
activities which can be done quickly shall be done in an accelerated manner”(Government of
Zimbabwe 2001, in Gonese et al, 2005: 18). In policy documents the FTLRP entailed:
“... An accelerated implementation of existing Government approaches on compulsory
acquisition rather than focusing on land offered under the willing seller- willing buyer
principle. Furthermore, this approach focuses on the identification of the targeted land for
acquisition and resettlement of the land hungry in order to decongest the Communal Areas”
(Government of Zimbabwe 2001, in Gonese et al, 2005: 17)
The immediate objectives of the FTLRP were the following:
“The immediate identification for compulsory acquisition of not less than 5 million hectares
for Phase II of the Resettlement Programme, for the benefit of the landless peasant
households, the planning, demarcation and settler emplacement on all acquired farms and
provision of limited basic infrastructure (such as boreholes, dip tanks and scheme roads) and
farmer support services (such as tillage and crop packs)”(Government of Zimbabwe 2001, in
Gonese et al, 2005: 18)
The FTLRP was supposed to be guided by the Land Reform and Resettlement Phase 2
(LRRP2)18 framework launched in 1997. In 1997, when the government launched the
LRRP2, the government aimed to:
“... To resettle about 150 000 families. This included resettling youths graduating from
Agricultural colleges and others with demonstrable experience in agriculture, in a gender
sensitive manner, to reduce the extent and intensity of poverty among rural families and farm
workers by providing them with sufficient land for agricultural use, to increase the
contribution of agriculture to the Gross Domestic Product by increasing the number of
commercialized small-scale farmers using formerly underutilized land, to promote the
18
The Land Reform and Resettlement Phase 2 was launched in 1997 with the aim of distributing large parts of
the commercial farming land in 5 years, Mbaya 2005: 4
26
environmentally sustainable utilization of land and to improve conditions for sustainable
peace and social stability by removing imbalances in land ownership.”(Government of
Zimbabwe, 1997, in Mbaya, 2005: 4).
The above framework was supposed to inform implementation of the land reform. Given the
unequal land ownership in the country and persistent rural and urban poverty, it seems the
policy objectives on paper were noble and logical if carried out within the Inception Phase
Framework Plan (IPFP)19.The IFFP was designed in 1998 to guide implementation of the
LRRP2. According to Mbaya (2005: 5), it incorporated issues such as:
“Gender sensitivity, stakeholder participation, concepts of good governance, targeting
women as a special group, training women to cater for special needs, provided for affirmative
action in certain structures, had a whole paragraph on gender and mainstreamed gender
throughout”.
However, the decision to fast track, the nature it took, the accelerated pace and the outcomes
reflect different discourses and one would question the actual driving forces behind the
programme. In my view, the FTLRP was not driven by its objectives in policy frameworks.
There is evidence of departure from initial land reform objectives agreed within the LRRP2
and IPFP. Weather it was warranted or not, the government disregarded its policy objectives
according to the LRRP2 and initiated the FTLRP.
Mbaya (2005: 5) is of the view that there was an implementation programme,
yet the FTLRP was largely implemented through the widespread invasion of commercial
farms by armed groups of “landless”people. This argument by Mbaya also makes one
question whether the participants and beneficiaries in the FTLRP, were really land less and
poor people. On the other hand, Moyo and Yeros (2005), have taken an apologetic stance
towards the land occupations by arguing that the land occupations were progressive. Moyo
and Yeros have also allied with the government and dismissed the violent nature of the
FTLRP. In this regard, one would argue that the violent and repressive nature of the
government during the FTLRP was explicit in its naming the FTLRP “the third
19
The Inception Phase Framework Plan was endorsed by donors in 1998 at the donor conference held by the
government to secure funding for land reform
27
Chimurenga”20. Mbaya (2005: 5) is of the view that the FTLRP was taken over and driven
by political interests even though the government knew the dangers of accelerated land
redistribution.
The politics of the FTLRP reflect a different course from official policy
objectives. There are two main dynamics which can be extrapolated from the FTLRP
discourse. These are power and exclusion. Goebel (2005: 146) is of the view that the FTLRP
reflects race, class, capitalism and post-coloniality. In my view, the FTLRP was marked by
class politics and conflict involving the peasants, war veterans, the ruling elite and
commercial farmers who had different claims to and interests in land. However, the
government ended up alienating other claims to land and including others based on loyalty
and authenticity as defined by the ZANU PF party. Some scholars such Raftopoulos (2002)
have regarded the FTLRP as showing tendencies of primitive accumulation from above a by
state elites. The post land reform land audit of 2003 by Utete Commission showed that there
was multiple land ownership. Most of those with multiple farms were government officials.
Thus, political accountability and transparency were lost during the implementation of the
FTLRP as land accumulated in the hands of those with political power.
One would argue that, the government used the rhetoric of redistribution to
legitimize the embourgeoisement of the government elites through land. In addition, in the
face of growing political clout of opposition politics21, land reform became a means to assert
legitimacy over citizens, especially the rural constituencies. Degorges and Reilly (2007: 571)
present that land became radicalized by President Robert Mugabe and his political party
ZANU-PF as a means to stay in power. According to Kariuki (2004: 19), “the FTRLP was an
opportunity for a populist party to manipulate a historical grievance to gain political capital,
desperately required to consolidate its diminishing political power base”. Even if the
government may have had benevolent intentions in initiating land reform, the fact that it
deviated from the original policy objectives stated in the LRRP2 and IPFP makes one argue
that it was not only consolidation of political power, but there are also dynamics of state
20
21
Chimurenga means war
The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) was gaining popular support.
28
capitalism and the predatory tendencies of a government to prey on its citizens for political
support.
The FTLRP also reflects the politics of exclusion. The government adopted a
racial discourse that excluded whites from benefiting from the land reform programme. The
discursive strategies of anti- imperialism and anti- colonialism were strategically used in the
FTLRP against the whites. The government identified certain categories of people as
deserving land and alienated some especially the whites and farm workers. Hellum and
Derman (2004: 1785-1805), articulating the discourse of exclusion, give the citizenship
dimension that was adopted by the government by amending the Citizenship Act in 2000.
The Constitution section 16(A) (1c) states that “the people of Zimbabwe must be enabled to
reassert their rights and regain ownership of their land...”(Ministry of Justice, Legal and
Parliamentary Affairs, 2005). However, it remains questionable who are actually referred to
in the constitution as the people of Zimbabwe. The amendment to the Citizenship Act in 2000
excluded many Zimbabweans of foreign origin and those associated to them by marriage
because “...The Minister (Home Affairs), by order may deprive a person of all or any of his
rights or citizenship...”(Citizenship Act of 2000, Section 9 (a), Ministry of Justice, Legal and
Parliamentary Affairs, 2005). Scholars such as Raftopoulos (2002) have noted that the
FTLRP was a centerpiece of the ruling ZANU PF party in the creation of belonging,
exclusion and history. The discourse of citizenship was deployed in a political process of land
redistribution as a strategy of identifying beneficiaries and adversaries. Magaramombe (2001,
2003) also presented the case of farm workers who were alienated from the FTLRP.
Magaramombe is of the view that farm workers were regarded as aliens thus had no rights in
Zimbabwe, including rights to land.
Presenting the same issues on farm workers are Sachikonye (2002, 2003),
Rutherford (2008), Moyo, Rutherford and Amonor-Wilks (2000) and Waeterloos and
Rutherford (2004). Sachikonye (2002, 2003), acknowledged that structural and political bias
were used to exclude farm workers. According to Rutherford (2008: 73-99), the cultural
politics of identity and recognition were used by the government and the conditional
belonging given to farm workers. Farm workers were excluded because they were associated
with the imperial commercial farmers by the so called “patriotic agrarianists”in the ZANU
29
PF government. One can argue that the politics of the FTLRP show how the government used
different discourses to alienate certain groups of people. Moyo, Rutherford and AmonorWilks (2000), allude to the view that a nationalist approach was used by the government to
isolate farm workers entitlements and rights to land. In my view, the nationalist rhetoric was
also strategically adopted during the FTLRP to win alliances from the increasingly
discontented population.
Waeterloos and Rutherford (2004: 549), noted that “Farm workers are being
excluded from agrarian reform, subject to much violence, and are being left to fend for
themselves”. Thus, the above confirm the argument that the discourse of exclusion
marginalized different categories of people. Contrary to the principles of the Human Rights
Based Approach to Development, the exclusion took racial, political and class dimensions by
focusing on white people, opposition supporters and farm workers respectively. Farm
workers and white farmers were not only excluded but also displaced. Table 1, in Appendix 2
shows the percentage of farm workers who were allocated land in three districts of
Zimbabwe.
The percentage of farm workers without land in all three districts can be
explained by the exclusive approach taken by the government that led to many farm workers
to be marginalized and displaced. The districts fall in Mashonaland West, which is a ZANU
PF stronghold thus; these farm workers were excluded on political grounds apart from class
exclusion. The politics of exclusion favored certain groups of people such as the war veterans
who were promised 20% of acquired land and ultimately got more than 20%. The politics of
exclusion can also be defined in terms of the size of land allocated to farm workers. The
Zimbabwe Community Development Trust (ZCDT, 2003: 21) reported that only 10.1% of
farm workers in the districts above got more than ten acres of land. The other dimension of
exclusion in the FTLRP was the alienation of opposition parties and their supporters. The
beneficiary selection was not according to policy objectives as beneficiaries were asked for
“kadhi remusangano22”, so as to be registered for land allocation. Thus political affiliation
was a strategy for exclusion as well.
22
Kadhi remusangano meaning the ZANU PF party membership card
30
The FTLRP implementation dynamics reflect state narratives that confirm that it was about
power politics. Sithole et al (2004: 3) present that “narratives have been described in the
literature as a way of developing meaning and organizing experiences...narratives are
powerful, they validate action, mobilize action, and define alternatives”. The FTLRP shows a
post-colonial government evoking historical narratives of colonialism to justify an
accelerated land reform. The FTLRP also shows how history, particularly of the liberation
war was deployed to justify a land policy instead of being objective driven. The dominant
actors in the FTLRP particularly the war veterans were used to legitimize the narratives of the
nationalist war of liberation. The power tactics have been described by one villager in the
following manner:
“Why are they ‘fast-tracking now? What has happened? Do they want to give each other
some more land before they retire? It is for the election. They think we don’t know. We have
seen this before and after the election they forget about us and we will be back to square one.
I think they may then come and bulldoze people from the farms. I have seen it happen. Then
they will start with yes sir, yes sir again and drink tea in the big houses (referring to the big
houses on the commercial farms) while we suffer”Sithole et al (2004: 5).
Similar to these views is Bernstein’s assertion. According to Bernstein (2003: 203-226),
“redistributive land reform was sanctioned by a regime that is corrupt, oppressive and power
hungry”. Thus, the government used narratives or ideological appeals to garner political
support in the face of oppositional politics, particularly the rejection of the Referendum in
2000. The government also used the politics of patronage, co-optation and coercion
especially in Mashonaland provinces. In the politics of patronage and coercion, the was also
the appeal to tradition authorities to “straighten”the youth who were accused of being
wayward and easily deceived to forget their history by the opposition party, Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC).
The power discourse can also be supported by the strategies used to implement
the FTLRP. The legal changes23 and condoning violence show the betrayal by a regime that
was power hungry. These also show how far a government can go to re-assert its waning
legitimacy and power. Masiiwa (2004), Hellum and Derman (2004) and Ikhahl et al (2005)
23
Legal changes such as the judiciary by sacking judges who ruled in favour of white commercial farmers and
the constitutional amendments
31
articulate the legality of the FTLRP. Hellum and Derman, noted that the FTLRP reflects lack
of rule of law and the recentralization of power and resources in the hands of the government.
According to Ikdahl et al (2005: 1-148), the FTLRP was legitimized ex- post facto through
constitutional changes. The government created legal complications by constitutional changes
that legitimized the violent evictions without compensation to white farmers and displaced
farm workers. By undermining a legitimate judiciary system, the government promoted
lawlessness.
The above analysis shows the policy objectives, driving forces and politics of
the FTLRP. The idea to redistribute land was a noble idea had it been carried out according to
the LRRP2 and IPFP. The FTLRP was a serious departure from a planned land redistribution
programme. Politics predominantly drove the programme to its chaotic conclusions. The
government assumed a state-centric approach, an authoritarian position, the discourse of
exclusion, patronage, co-optation and coercion. It is against this background that this thesis
analyzes to what extent the FTLRP created spaces for women to participate in the following
section and later how the FTLRP affected the poverty of women. In my view, there is need to
problematize the position of women in state dynamics of material accumulation and politics
such as the Fast Track Land Reform Programme. Thus, in the following section, the thesis
analyzes the platforms that existed for the participation of women and to what extent women
participated in the FTLRP.
Women on the margins
From the above analysis, it is clear that the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP)
was characterized by power and exclusion. The FTLRP was used to draw political
boundaries, to identify imagined or real “enemies”and to isolate some groups of people in
Zimbabwe. The thesis argues that the FTLRP was exclusive not only in terms of race, class
and political affiliation but gender. The consideration of women at policy level and their
participation in land allocation and, as beneficiaries in the FTLRP was undermined. In policy
discourse, the FTLRP was largely silent on gender considerations of women. The dynamics
of implementation show no systematic platforms created for the participation of women as
owners of land. The Women and Land Lobby Group lobbied the government in 1998 to
include women’s needs and interests in the design and implementation of land reform.
32
However, as noted by Goebel (2005b: 3) “… Women’s perspectives have been marginalized
by the state and its advisors on land reform”.
The majority of poor rural women who work on the land were not consulted
about how the programme was going to be implemented. Sachikonye (2003: 1-7), noted that
the demands for 20% of land appropriated by the government by women were ignored.
Women were represented on the margins and the participation of elite women/officials and
ZANU PF women supporters cannot be generalized as participation of all women. According
to Mgugu (2008: 1-32) there were only administrative arrangements such as giving widows,
divorcees and single women land not laws or policies to govern women’s participation.
Hellum and Derman (2004: 1785-1805) argued that there was no systematic form of
representation and institutional frameworks for women. Mbaya (2005: 1-22), is of the view
that women were theoretically accepted but marginalized on implementation. The civil
societies, including those that represented women were excluded as agents of Western
imperialism. The policy objectives of the FTLRP do not give reference to gender showing the
departure from the LRRP2 and the IPFP. The immediate objectives of the FTLRP are as
follows and there is no mention of any systematic consideration of women.
“The immediate identification for compulsory acquisition of not less than 5 million hectares
for Phase II of the Resettlement Programme, for the benefit of the landless peasant
households, the planning, demarcation and settler emplacement on all acquired farms and
provision of limited basic infrastructure (such as boreholes, dip tanks and scheme roads) and
farmer support services (such as tillage and crop packs)”(Government of Zimbabwe 2001,
in Gonese et al, 2005: 18)
In my view, gender concerns of the LRRP2 and the IPFP “evaporated”amidst the land
occupations that were officiated into the Fast Track Land Reform Programme. In a similar
vein, Jacobs (2001: 887-898), noted that gender was omitted or mentioned in passing. As
mentioned above, the FTLRP objectives do not give reference to gender. Mgugu and
Chidamonyo (2004: 149-168), are of the view that the FTLRP fall short of mainstreaming
gender by non mention of equity and justice as instruments to bring social justice between
men and women. According to Mbaya, (2005: 1-22):
“The reason for the exclusion of women in beneficiary selection was that the FTLRP
implementation document was not designed according to the Inception Phase Policy
33
framework which made explicit reference to gender sensitivity, stakeholder participation,
targeting women as special groups and training women to cater for special needs”.
In my view, political expediency by the ruling party may not have been compatible with
gender needs. Mgugu (2008: 1-32), argued that the FTLRP excluded all alien men and all
women. However, one cannot agree with Mgugu on the argument that all women were
excluded. It is rather that the implementation of the FTLRP shows very poor levels of gender
consideration and poor accountability to ensure women were fully included. The FTLRP was
a masculinized process dominated by war veterans, ZANU PF cadres and youths, the military
and police and, government officials. Some women extension officers, war veterans, army
and police participated in land allocation thus automatically benefited.
Scholars such as Moyo (2003: 1-35) acknowledged that the FTLRP was a
male dominated affair, with unfair land allocations and, unclear rules and regulations.
According to Waeterloos and Rutherford (2004: 537-553), women are demographically
important but they were politically marginalized in the FTLRP. One can also employ the
discourse of co-optation as women were mobilized not as beneficiaries of land but to give
support to the ZANU PF party. Women were made to participate when it was necessary.
Goebel (2005: 154-172) is of the view that women marginally participated as beneficiaries
and largely participated as bonded labor and to provide elections votes. One can employ the
discourse of victimology as women became victims of a politically motivated land reform
programme. Ranchod-Nilson (2008: 642-652), noted that women participated as victims of
violence and abuse. Women farm workers became victims as women and by association,
being married to men farm workers who were regarded as aliens and accused of collaborating
with white imperialist farmers
According to structural materialist feminist scholars, such as Jackson (1995:
11-27), “… One can only be able to understand the positions of women as products of socioeconomic and political structures”. Women faced structural barriers to participate as
beneficiaries in the land reform programme. Women’s participation was constrained by the
deployment of traditional authority structures. It was necessary to invoke traditional authority
even though it excluded women for ZANU PF’s material accumulation and re-asserting
hegemony in the face of oppositional politics. Kawewe (2005: 471-485), noted that an
34
authoritarian state and the Traditional Leaders Act in 2000 24 were severe setbacks to
women’s participation. The Traditional Leaders Act gave chiefs’judicial power and authority
to allocate land according to customary practices. Chaumba, Scoones and Wolmer (2005:
585-606) present the “four axis of authority”that emerged during the FTLRP which are the
war veterans, new land committees, traditional leaders and local elites in most areas of the
country. These were male dominated authority structures that curtailed the participation of
women by perpetuating patriarchal notions that favored allocation of land to men. Mpahlo
(2003: 10) noted that in Mashonaland Central Province, chief Rushinga made it clear that no
woman would be allocated land in his area.
The other means the government used to curtail the participation of women
was the deployment of culture. Feminist scholars such as Hennessey and Ingraham (1995),
noted that dominant structural regimes, ideologies and material forces distribute economic
resources and power unequally between men and women. In my view, there is real or
imagined social conflict that the state seems to associate with engendering land. This is
because this was also the trend in the resettlement schemes of the 1980s and 1990s. There is a
contradiction between modern institutions of gender equality the government has created and
the traditional patriarchal order. It is evident in the FTLRP that the government chose
traditional cultural order because it was necessary to court the support of men. Mamdani
(2005: 1-18), is of view that, post-colonial states identify colonially constructed customary
laws as authentic tradition. These customary laws are used as basis for entitlement or
exclusion and it works against women. The following is a response by one of the country’s
leaders saying why he would not give women land when asked if he would allocate land to
women, “Because I would have my head cut off by men, if I give women land, men would
turn against the government”(Vice President Msika, Women and Land Lobby Group (2001:
9).
The response by Msika shows the government’s insensitivity to women’s land
concerns. Women’s land concerns seem not to be compatible with political survival of the
24
The Traditional Leaders Act enacted in 2000 also placed resettled communities under the authority of chiefs.
It is interesting to note that at independence the new government amended the Customary Law and Primary
Courts Act to repeal the judicial powers of chiefs given by the colonial regime under indirect rule and land
allocation was authorised to modern structures of government such as the Rural District Councils
35
ZANU PF government and the nationalist rhetoric on land reform becomes gendered. One
would agree with Ranchod-Nilson (2008: 642-652), that there was gender backlash25 by the
state as it demobilized women’s needs in the process of political mobilization of men. The
government tries to promote women’s equality and when it suits it, it works against the same
discourses of equality. One can also see the perpetuation by the post-colonial state of colonial
practices of excluding women in land issues by using customary practices. The modern
institutions of gender equality such as the Ministry of Gender, Women’s Affairs and
Community Empowerment, the Legal Age of Majority Act, The Matrimonial Causes Act and
a multiplicity of international conventions on women’s rights such as CEDAW, Zimbabwe is
a signatory to, were sidelined in favor of customary practices. Thus, women’s participation
was limited.
From a Human Rights Based approach to Development (HRBD), the full
participation of women was curtailed. There is evidence that shows that the implementation
procedures do not have any clue of the human rights dimension as indispensable in national
development. According to the UNDP, (2001: 7) the HRBD is;
“An essential principle of the international human rights framework is that every person and
all people are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy civil, economic, social,
cultural and political development in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can
be fully realized. This means that participation is not simply something desirable from the
point of view of ownership and sustainability, but rather a right with profound consequences
for the design and implementation of development activities”.
The UNDP (2001: 7), also elaborated that the HRBD:
“is also concerned with access to decision-making, and the exercise of power, The principles
of participation and inclusion mean that all people are entitled to participate in society to the
maximum of their potential. This in turn will necessitate provision of a supportive
environment to enable people to develop and express their full potential and creativity”.
The government defied these principles in policy and practice. There was no reference to any
human rights in the policy document and the chaos and violence that characterized
25
Gender backlash when a government creates institutions to promote gender equality on one hand condone the
same institutions when it suits it , Ranchod-Nilson, 2008
36
implementation and, the male and state centric approaches were inimical to the full
participation of women. Additionally, white women suffered double jeopardy, by being white
and being women because the government adopted both male-centric and racial discourses.
The institutional and administrative frameworks of beneficiary selection and
land allocation during the FTLRP also made participation of women difficult. As noted
earlier on, there were only administrative arrangements that stated that women should be
given land and these were forgone during the implementation process. Application for land
was through local government power structures which included chiefs and village headmen.
These structures were manipulated by the government to select people who supported ZANU
PF and mostly men since they are supposedly the head of households. Ranchod –Nilsson
(2009: 642-652), noted that the exercise of power by the government became infused with
gender meaning. Scholars such as Moyo (2003: 1-35) have noted that women were
marginalized, as individuals, in land allocations because of the predominant criteria that
assumed women would seek land within the family context. Thus, most married women and
those belonging to the opposition parties could not all forward their applications.
Additionally, the reality that there are substantial numbers of female headed households
which are poor as well was not fully comprehended. However, there is evidence that some
women independently made applications and were considered in land allocation.
Conclusion
In my view, it can be concluded that whereas land redistribution was necessary, the FTLRP
was largely politicized. From the policy frameworks, one can conclude that the idea of
distributing land was noble but lack of systematic implementation procedures because of
politics makes the whole programme questionable. The government used land to draw
political boundaries and to isolate its “enemies”. It is also clear that there were no specific
platforms for the inclusion of women in the FTLRP. There are few traces of gender
considerations in the LRRP2 and the IPFP policy documents which the FTRLP should have
been based on and in any case these so called gender policy considerations were lost during
the implementation phase. The participation of women was largely limited because of the
political nature of the process and lack of commitment on the part of the government to
mainstream gender in the FTLRP. It may not be that populist discourses of land reform are
37
not in tandem with gender discourses, but it was a deliberate choice by a government seeking
power. This power could be consolidated by courting the support of men through land
allocation thereby pushing women to the periphery. The discourses and narratives of land and
land reform were masculinized during the FTLRP thus, the spaces for women’s participation
shrunk or diminished. The approach taken by the government was such that political
affiliation, race, marital status and class acted as both challenges and opportunities for
different women to participate. State-centric discourses and visions on land reform were
gendered by promoting masculine privileges in access to and ownership of land, thus spaces
for women diminished. Essentially, there were little spaces created for women to participate.
One cannot expect that such a high profile and politicized land reform did not
affect women. At least that is the assumption this thesis is questioning because there is lack
of a solid gender analysis of the FTLRP. The FTLRP must have had some socio-economic
and political consequences for women. Some women participated in the FTLRP, some did
not. There is more for women in land reform than just being given a piece of land. Using
Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach and the HRBD, the following chapter analyzes the
impacts of the FTLRP on the poverty of women.
38
Chapter Three: The heart of poverty is a woman
Introduction
The Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) has come and “gone”. The economy and
agriculture collapsed, people were displaced, food became scarce and the environment is a
tragedy. Amidst all these, one should analyze the socio-economic and political consequences
of the FTLRP on the poverty of “gendered subjects26”of state developmentalism. As shown
in chapter two, the FTLRP was political and exclusive. The policy framework of the FTLRP
was devoid of systematic gender considerations and ultimately women’s participation was
limited. The politics of the FTLRP and the limited spaces created for women to participate in
the implementation process determined the extent to which the FTLRP alleviated the poverty
of women. If the FTLRP followed the Land Reform and Resettlement Phase 2 (LRRP2)
framework, it could:
“...Resettle about 150 000 families. This included resettling youths graduating from
Agricultural colleges and others with demonstrable experience in agriculture, in a gender
sensitive manner, to reduce the extent and intensity of poverty among rural families and farm
workers by providing them with sufficient land for agricultural use...”(Government of
Zimbabwe, 1997, in Mbaya 2005: 4).
As discussed in the previous chapter, the Inception Phase Framework Plan (IPFP) gave
reference to poverty alleviation, targeting women as a special group and gender
mainstreaming. It is unfortunate that the immediate policy objectives made when the
government decided to fast track did not give reference to gender or targeting women.
Feminist scholars such Jackson and Pearson (1998), allude to the view that that one should
not assume a direct correlation or causality between land reform and liberation of women.
Land reform does not automatically guarantee women will be better off. According to Jacobs
(2003: 203-228), land reform does not necessarily lead to democratic outcomes for women or
rural classes. Jacobs (2003: 203-228), further noted that land reform can reproduce or
reinforce existing discriminatory practices and institutions. However, there is need to
appreciate the role that land reform can play in developing women’s capabilities and
26
Gendered subjects refer to women in state policies , Redcliffe, 2005
39
generating sustainable livelihoods for women. This thesis thus analyzes the impacts of the
FTLRP on the poverty of women. In analyzing the impacts of the FTLRP on women’s
poverty, the research employs the Capability Approach and Amartya Sen’s definition of
poverty, the Human Rights Based approach to Development (HRBD) and structural
materialist feminism. According to Sen (1992: 40), Capability is a person’s or group’s
freedom to achieve valuable functinonings. Sen places emphasis on freedom of agency and
what a person is able to do and achieve. This thesis acknowledges the definitional problems
in defining poverty and its multidimensional nature, thus a working definition used in this
thesis is borrowed from Amartya Sen. Sen (2000: 1-48), defines poverty as capability failure
or capability deprivation. This definition captures both material and non-material aspects of
poverty.
The impacts of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme on the poverty of women
It is important to highlight that women are not a homogenous group. Although there are some
similarities, there are differences in the way the FTLRP affected the poverty of different
categories of women. In my view, it is important to start by a critical analysis of women farm
workers since they suffered first, in relative terms, when land invasions and occupations
began. Women farm workers suffered evictions and displacement. They were deprived of the
capability to have secure jobs, incomes, food and homes for their children. Cernea cited by
Hantarck (2005: 173-192) noted that displacement leads to impoverishment risks such as
homelessness, unemployment, landlessness, marginalization, food insecurity, loss of
property, erosion of health status and social disarticulation. This is evident in the FTLRP.
From the works of Sachikonye, Magaramombe and Rutherford mentioned in the previous
chapter, it has been shown that farm workers were treated as aliens and deprived of
citizenship. Thus, from the Capabilities discourse, women farm workers were deprived of
capabilities to pursue secure socio-economic and political livelihoods by limited participation
in land reform through evictions and displacement.
In my view, women farm workers suffered more than their male counterparts.
According to Mgugu (2008: 1-32), the Utete (2003) report highlighted that women farm
workers would have been the losers since they dominated the part time labor force in farms.
The Utete report did not give a clear account of what actually happened to women farm
40
workers. In addition, women also suffered different forms of violence. The chaotic nature of
the FTRLP has left physical and emotional scars on some women across the country. Goebel
(2005: 154-172) noted that the gendered nature of violence during the FTLRP has not been
addressed. According to Clark (2005:1339-1368):
“..The capability approach covers all dimensions of human well-being. Development and
justice are regarded in a comprehensive and integrated manner, and much attention is paid to
the links among material, mental and social well-being, or to the political, socio-economic
and cultural dimensions of life”.
There were no frameworks or spaces for women victims of violence during the FTRLP to
seek justice and recourse. In my view, the importance of mental capabilities of women should
be taken seriously as this has impacts on alleviating different dimensions of women’s
poverty. The former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annani said in 1999 that
“Violence against women is perhaps the most shameful human rights violation... As long as it
continues, we cannot claim to be making real progress towards equality, development and
peace”(WLZ, 2007: 1). In this case, it can also be noted that there is relationship between
capabilities and human rights as spelt by Sen and the HRBD. The human rights violations
through evictions, displacement and violence against women negatively affect their capability
to develop sustainable socio-economic and political lives. Therefore, in light of the above, the
FTLRP actually amplified the poverty of women farm workers and women who suffered
violence.
It is important to critically analyze the patterns of land ownership that emerged
from the FTLRP in order to see the impacts of the programme on the poverty of women.
Goebel (2005: 154-172) noted that women have not received a fair share in the FTLRP and
less than 20% of the 300 000 settlers are women. Table 2 (Refer to appendix 3), from Utete
(2003) cited in Mgugu (2008: 1-32), shows the patterns of land ownership in all provinces.
Overall, men own more land than women in all provinces in the A1 and A2 models 27s. Men
own 82% of the land as compared to 18 % of women in A1 model. Men also own 88% of
land in A2 model whilst women own only 12%. It is also shown in table 3, in the areas
27
The government designed models that targeted different beneficiaries, however, this became a basis of
exclusion
41
studied by Mpahlo (2003: 9), which are Masvingo, Midlands, Mashonaland East,
Mashonaland Central and Matabeleland South, that 95% of men own land in A2 model as
compared to 4.88 % of women. Similarly, in A1 model, 85% of men own land whilst only 14.
8% of women own land. The land for A2 model was allocated to financially endowed,
experienced and qualified farmers who should practice commercial farming. The disparity
can be explained largely by the failure to target women as a special group in the FTLRP
policy and implementation phase. Moreso, many men than women have attended Master
Farmer Training thus many poor and uneducated rural women could not qualify for the
model. Goebel (2005: 154-172), is of the view that women as an identity of capable modern
producers have been considered ineligible for modern development in the FTLRP. Therefore,
these are clear cases of capability deprivation as women were allocated much less land in all
models and capability failure as they cannot produce beyond mere subsistence.
In addition, the huge disparity in A1 model is based on the approach by the
government to base it on the Family Farm or Household Model28. There are certain
assumptions on what constitutes a family according to tradition. Customary practices assume
that men are heads of families and should be given land and, also that land should be
registered in the names of men. The following is a response by one government minister on
land allocation:
“Since the family is traditionally made up of two partners, the government cannot say which
partner should come forward to apply for land. Such specifics must be left to the families to
decide”Dr Made, Former Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement, cited by
Women and Land Lobby Group, (2001: 9).
This response by the minister shows the grim extent to which women were not specifically
targeted for land allocation. Considering the cultural constraints women face within marriage
and family institutions, spaces for women to control land are limited. This has precarious
consequences for women’s poverty. In my view, this is a case of capability deprivation by the
failure of the FTLRP to secure women ownership of land. Ultimately, this leads to capability
failure by denying women the ability to secure their socio-economic and political livelihoods.
28
Family farm or household model means the land is given to the family or household not individuals within
these institutions.
42
Another dimension that can be seen is the perpetuation of dependence of women on men. The
positions of women continue to be compromised and their subordination has been further
amplified. Women may still become landless at the three points of vulnerability in their livesmarriage, divorce and widowhood because they do not have land of their own.
Moreover, the Household Model has also dangerous implications. Scholars
such as Agarwal (1994), noted that there is an assumption that a household is a single joint
unit, people have common interest and the head of the household is altruistic. The FTLRP
subsumed women’s interests under the unitary household without any reference to women’s
capability to control production and consumption decisions. For example, female farm
workers were considered as part of male headed households (Sachikonye, 2003: 227-240).
The fact that there is a multiplicity of Female Headed Households was not seriously
considered. Sachikonye (2003: 227-240), noted that 19 % of farm worker households are
headed by women but only 16 % of female farm workers got land. Structural materialist
feminist scholars argue that this over romanticization of the domestic domain in land reform
weakens women’s bargaining power. Scholars such as Frenier (1983), are of the view that
ownership and control of land by women contributes significantly to women’s economic
wellbeing and bargaining power in the household. The Capability Approach gives reference
to a person’s freedom to pursue personal capabilities thus reference should be given to the
capability to achieve things that intrinsically matter for women’s survival such as happiness,
positive peace of mind, social security and independence. This adversely influences women’s
political capabilities to participate in and mobilize communities for development.
There are also differences in land ownership among women. In table 3
(appendix 4), one can also see that on average, the lowest percentage of women who got land
in A1 and A2 models is low in Midlands province. As shown in the table, married women
comprise 20% of those who own land in their own capacity. Mpahlo (2003: 9), in her study,
noted that among married women, it is mostly ex-combatants and those married to foreign
husbands who own land in their own capacity. Among the single women who own land, in
the study by Mpahlo, 71% of them are widowed, 25% are divorcees and the rest were never
married. Women war veterans comprise 20% only of the war veterans who own land. Mpahlo
(2003: 10), noted that of 25 569 war veterans families resettled only 2 221 were female
43
headed households. These disparities among women also affect how different women can
command economic and social resources in order to be capable to sustain their lives. Studies
have shown that female heads of households are more vulnerable to poverty incidences than
married women who may depend for economic resources on husbands. Mbaya (2005: 1-22),
is of the view that in the view of feminization of poverty, land reform has been limited in the
extent to which it has attempted to alleviate poverty. Sachikonye (2003: 227-240), also noted
that one of the principal outcomes of the FTRLP is poverty exacerbation.
In my view, the FTLRP had negative impacts on women’s poverty because of
unclear land tenure systems and unclear land rights. According to Li Ping (2003), women can
secure their livelihoods when their land rights are legally recognizable, socially recognizable
and enforceable by authorities. The FTLRP failed to acknowledge women’s rights to
particular capabilities such as land rights. The FTLRP was an umbrella approach that failed
to consider the specific contexts which make women more vulnerable. It was implemented in
the context of a constitution that discriminates against women as noted in chapter one. This
has further limited women’s choices and power positions. One can see here the link between
capabilities and human rights as postulated by Sen (2005: 1-48). The HRBD says that
development should seek to secure freedoms, well-being and dignity of people. The HRBD is
also based on the idea that real success in tackling poverty and vulnerability requires giving
the poor and vulnerable a stake, a voice and real protection in the societies where they live. In
the case of this thesis, the women can be given stakes, voices and protection by land rights
that are legally recognizable, socially recognizable and enforceable by authorities. The
UNDP (2001: 2), noted that:
“A human rights-based approach is not only about expanding people’s choices and
capabilities but above all about the empowerment of people to decide what this process of
expansion should look like. The value of a human rights-based framework lies particularly in
the transformative potential of human rights to alleviate injustice, inequality and poverty”.
However, because no reference was made to human rights, the FTLRP, just like the previous
land reform policies, deprived women of the capability to claim legitimate rights to land. The
government has known over the years the problems created for women by lack of rights to
land yet it remains indifferent or pays only lip service by administrative arrangements that are
44
easily overlooked. Women may own land but without any legal right to claim ownership,
they remain vulnerable. Most rural women in Zimbabwe do not have the capability to claim
rights to land under the customary marriages and, to make matters worse most of the
marriages are unregistered. They cannot claim rights to land in the event of death of spouses
or divorce.
Additionally, it can be noted that up to this day there is still ambiguity in land
tenure arrangements in Zimbabwe. The government has responded to calls to resolve the
tenure issues by issuing leases. The so called 99 year leases29 have been issued out so far to a
few farmers and they remain not well defined. The 99 year leases also do not allow
inheritance of land, thus widows cannot inherit their late husbands’land. In light of this, one
can argue that the FTLRP failed to address women’s poverty in terms of their capabilities to
claim rights to land.
It is interesting to note that the government amended the constitution in 2000
and 2001 and got power to acquire more land. However, it did not to take note of Sections 23
(3) i and b discussed in chapter one. These sections do not protect women’s land rights within
marriage and in the event of divorce and, they legitimize customary law. This shows how the
FTRLP was a short term “event”that did not consider how gender differentiated land
ownership affects women’s survival, capabilities and gender power relations beyond the
marriage boundaries. There are no laws to distinguish women’s land rights within the family
or household. Inheritance laws in Zimbabwe are “legally”recognizable but not socially
enforced so women may lose land to their spouses’kin members. Scholars such as Frenier
(1983), noted that when women have secure land rights they can have the capability to
produce more and have control over production. Moreover, secure land rights will
incentivize women to invest in land and ensure sustainable growing conditions and
ultimately, ensure steady supply of food and other basic needs. The capability to pursue long
term sustainable livelihoods hangs in balance for most women in the new resettlements in
Zimbabwe thus, their poverty has been entrenched.
29
The government decided that beneficiaries under the FTLRP be given leases for 99 years and the government
owns all the land.
45
In my view, the FTLRP failed to fully consider women’s land ownership within the broad
framework of agrarian reform. Women have been deprived of the capability to develop
sustainable livelihoods and earn incomes by the inability to utilize land. Jacobs, (2002: 175186) noted that women may have access to land but face gender based constraints to utilize it.
Mpahlo (2003: 10), is of the view that one of the main problems affecting women’s
productivity in resettlement areas is lack of basic infrastructure such as clean water, transport
systems and health services. Goebel (2005: 154-172), noted that lack of infrastructure is
burdening women. The LRRP2 and the IPFP discussed in chapter two gave reference to
infrastructural development but this was lost since the FTLRP was implemented in a different
way. Studies show that more than 60% of female farmers in resettlements have less than
average farming implements. Mpahlo (2003: 10), noted that close to 54% of women in A1
model has no draught power in the provinces she studied as compared to 31% of men. The
failure of the FTLRP to consider the wider framework of land use is thus negatively affecting
women’s capability to engage in productive agriculture. Alexander (2009: 194) is of the view
that, the process of acquiring inputs from the government such as seeds and fertilizer has
been militarized and politicized. In A1 model, women who were given land continue to
cultivate small pieces of land because of limited inputs thus; they are incapable to expand
production beyond subsistence. According to the WLZ, (2008: 8), because of household
demands, women may sell the little produce they are getting in order to get income and this
eventually has implications for food security. There is capability failure as women are not
able to sustain consumption till the nest agricultural season.
Moreover, the 99 years leases and offer letters given to beneficiaries of the
FTLRP cannot be used as collateral for borrowing loans from banks to improve production.
In reality, the government owns all the acquired land. Commercial banks are refusing to offer
loans to farmers because they 99 year lease are not transferable to third parties. Although men
are also affected, women have been more adversely affected because they lack alternative
sources of income (Women and Land in Zimbabwe, 2007). Women in the new resettlements
dot not have other means to access credit.
According to Mbaya (2005: 1-22), the FTLRP Inception Phase Framework
made reference to training women to cater for special needs. However, not much has been
46
done. Mgugu (2008: 1-32), noted that the provision of technical expertise and extension
services in the new resettlements is biased against women. According to Mgugu, the Farmer
Development Trust trained 10 000 farmers in tobacco farming and an insignificant 5% were
female heads of household. Although one cannot assume direct causal relationship, women
may have the capability to expand production or engage in other income generating activities
if they have adequate technical and production support. On another note, the Product Market
Programme (PMP) introduced by the government in 2004 is also depriving women in new
resettlements of the capability to earn higher incomes from agriculture. The PMP is a form of
price control of agricultural produce and targeted mainly at maize. Women are affected more
since they predominantly grow maize whilst men are benefiting from less controlled cash
crops such as tobacco and cotton.
Furthermore, Mpahlo (2005: 1-22) noted that the politics of resource
utilization and management in the new resettlements is taking a gender dimension. Women’s
capability to control production decisions and land use is being curtailed by lack of adequate
and appropriate representation in the new decision making structures that are guiding and
enforcing land use and natural resource management. As noted in chapter two, new
hierarchical authority structures have emerged and these have not departed from patriarchal
and customary tendencies. Studies have shown that only 8% of women in new resettlements
have positions in village and ward committees (Mpahlo, 2003: 10). In my view, there is clear
capability failure as women occupy minor roles in communities that do not help them to
make crucial decisions to secure their socio-economic and political positions. The FTLRP
failed to create spaces for women farmers and laborers to express their views and, assume
leadership in determining issues that affect their positions in communities, families or
households.
In addition, Robeyns (2005: 93-114) noted that:
“For some capabilities, the main input will be financial resources and economic production,
but for others it can be political practices and institutions, such as the effective guaranteeing
and protection of freedom of thought, political participation, social or cultural practices, social
structures, social institutions, public goods, social norms and traditions”.
47
Thus capabilities go beyond material aspects. Jacobs (2002: 175-186), noted that resettled
women lost material and economic niches, trading and markets and personal contacts. Goebel
(2005: 154- 172), noted that the FTLRP disrupted families and women in some new
resettlements lost social capital. This situation is being worsened by lack of basic services.
The FTLRP did not consider the wider framework of production and survival of women in
new communities. There are arguments that violence and abuse of women may increase in
some new resettlements because there are no forms of social control that existed in former
communities.
In my view, there is also the dimension of the FTLRP which has been largely
ignored, which is the impact of the FTRLP on HIV and AIDS, bearing in mind the gendered
nature of the pandemic. According to Mbaya (2005 1-22), the way the FTLRP was conducted
ignored the reality of HIV and AIDS and especially the gendered nature of the pandemic.
There was no consideration of the gender, land, poverty and HIV and AIDS nexus. Firstly,
from the available evidence, there are arguments that the FTLRP may have contributed to an
increase in HIV infections by displacing people and disrupting families. There is also
evidence that HIV infections increase in mobile populations because of their conditions of
vulnerability, thus displacement of women could have exposed them to HIV infections.
Secondly, as discussed above, few women own land in the aftermath of the FTRLP. In my
view, this deprives women of the capability to make decisions about their sexual and
reproductive destiny in view of HIV and AIDS. Women are not in a position to negotiate safe
sex especially in marriages when they are dependent on men. Thirdly, the Food and
Agricultural Organization (2006) report has indicated that many HIV positive widows are
losing land in the resettlements after the death of their husbands. The FAO reported that these
women are accused of witchcraft and of killing their husbands by the husband’s relatives.
During the FTLRP, land permits were registered in the names of husbands and women land
rights have not been defined. Thus, these women do not have the capability to legally protect
themselves. The situation is worse for women married under customary marriage because it
does not always protect women’s rights to property.
On the other hand, Mpahlo (2003: 10), pointed out that some women who got
land feel that they have benefited especially female headed households. These households are
experiencing increases in incomes, food security and nutrition for children. An insignificant
48
3% in the study areas by Mpahlo had managed to acquire assets for production by the time of
the study. Some women have also expressed gratitude for giving them away from patriarchal
extended families and therefore are able to make independent decisions in production.
However, this should not be overstated because considering that women are the
demographically the majority and also provide 70% of labor in agricultural production, the
percentage owning land from the FTLRP is ridiculously very low.
Conclusion
By using the Capability Approach, the Human Rights Based approach to Development and
Critical Discourse Analysis approach, the above analysis has established that The FTLRP did
not pay sufficient attention to addressing poverty of women. It is apparent that the
programme was short sighted and driven by political expediency thus could not fully address
women’s concerns for land ownership and control. The socio-economic and political
positions of different categories of women discussed above continue to be vulnerable. In my
view, women have been deprived of spaces to articulate their socio- economic and political
interests and rights to pursue sustainable livelihoods. It does not make sense to give women
land and fail to provide infrastructure and inputs as well as fail to open up democratic spaces
for land utilization and, define land rights and tenure. This is a sad situation for women in
Zimbabwe and a setback for women’s movements and gender activists. However, there is
evidence that some women who got land are benefiting in several ways. In light of the above
analysis, the plight of women cannot remain unresolved. Policy makers need to sufficiently
take in account the socio-economic and political consequences of the FTLRP for women by
paying attention to the poverty of women. Thus, to conclude this gender analysis, the
following chapter discusses some relevant policy recommendations that maybe to be
considered.
49
Chapter Four: Diminishing Spaces for Women
Introduction
From the preceding chapters, this thesis has examined the socio-economic and political
consequences of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) for women by critically
investigating the politics of the FTLRP, establishing the extent to which the FTLRP created
spaces for women to participate and ultimately analyzing the impacts of the FTLRP on the
poverty of women. This chapter gives concluding remarks and policy recommendations for
the post land reform reconstitution and agrarian development Zimbabwe.
Concluding Remarks
The issues of land in Zimbabwe continue to shape the socio-economic and political
landscapes of the country. The colonial land segregation and land policies shaped the dual
economy characterized by highly unequal land ownership patterns that was inherited by the
post-colonial government at independence in 1980. The post- colonial government did not
redistribute land as it should have in the first two decades of independence for various
reasons. The land reform policies were paralleled by discourses of gender equality in the
newly independent state. The government created modern institutions and laws to promote
gender equality but it turned out to be only political rhetoric as the government gave
legitimacy to customary practices. At the beginning of the 21th century women in Zimbabwe,
faced limited access to land, limited land ownership, unsecure land rights and discrimination
from the constitution. This was against the background of a government that preached the
gospel of equality, “land to the people”and had signed international conventions on women’s
rights.
By employing the Critical Discourse Analysis approach, the Capability
Approach, Human Rights Based approach to Development and feminist discourses, the thesis
has made it clear that the government’s high profile FTLRP was largely driven by politics of
exclusion and power. The land issue was used to draw political boundaries and isolate
“enemies”of the government. In my view, historical narratives of colonialism and the
liberation war became strong justifications for the FTLRP yet it is clear that these were
strategies to regain power over the increasingly discontented citizenry. The thesis has
highlighted that white commercial farmers, farm workers and members of opposition parties
were main targets of violence and exclusion. The seemingly benevolent policy statements
50
that could have led to systematic land reform within the broader framework of integrated
agrarian reform became distorted by fast tracking. The thesis has also made it clear that
issues of poverty and giving land to those in need of land did not fully materialize.
By pursuing violent “nationalist”and political agendas though the FTLRP, the ruling
masculinities failed to systematically take into serious consideration women’s concerns in
land reform policy and implementation. It is apparent that the ZANU PF government adopted
exclusive, state and male centric approaches thus; women largely participated on the margins.
The FTRLP did not open democratic spaces for women to participate as beneficiaries in land
allocation and registration.
In my view, it is plausible to conclude that overall, the FTLRP diminished the
opportunities or spaces for women to be empowered and shrunk the democratic spaces for
genuine participation of women in development processes by denying them rights to land,
widening gender inequalities and ultimately exacerbating their poverty. The proponents and
implementers of the FTLRP were short sighted in giving women spaces, (referring to land),
without addressing factors that would improve the utilization of land by women. Most
women in Zimbabwe still have undefined and unsecure land rights hence their control on land
and produce is compromised. Apparently, the contentious 99 leases are flawed and cannot be
used as collateral. The situation of women has been worsened by lack of infrastructure,
technical services and agricultural inputs. In my view, the failure to address the poverty of
women has broader adverse consequences in terms of addressing HIV and AIDS, food
insecurity, democracy, sustainability and the general development of the country.
It is important to note that understanding the gaps in terms of gender in the
FTLRP is only one crucial step in any reconstitution of post land reform policies that may be
done in Zimbabwe. In my view, any land reform policy measures that might be taken in
Zimbabwe should be guided by a constitution that protects women’s rights to property and
the dual laws should be revised because it does not make sense to give women rights to land
that can be invalidated by customary laws. Maybe the other most crucial aspects in
formulating future land reform policies should be take into consideration human and
women’s rights based approaches in conceptualizing, implementing and evaluating land
reform policies and laws in an atmosphere of tolerance of opposing political views and
diversity in perspectives on land across different racial, class, ethnic and regional categories
of people in a democratic Zimbabwe.
51
Recommendations
There are quite a number of short comings in the design and implementation of the Fast
Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) and these shortcomings largely influenced the
limited extent to which women participated and how the poverty of women was marginally
addressed. In this regard, there is need for some policy measures to address these short
comings from a gender perspective. However, there are few reasons to be optimistic because
the current Government of National Unity (GNU) is fraught with problems. There are so
many reasons to be concerned with the successes of the GNU considering the loopholes in
the FTRLP, new forms of inequalities the programme created, persistent poverty, under
performance of the agricultural sector and a number of unresolved issues including land
tenure security and important to this study, gender gaps in access to and ownership of land.
These policies can be both incremental and radical. In broad sense, there is need to redirect
land reform towards a broader framework of agrarian reform in Zimbabwe. Within this
broader framework a number of issues should be taken into account in order to close or
reduce the gender gap in access to, ownership and control of land and, ultimately address
the poverty of women.
The FTRLP, just like previous land reform policies, was oblivious to the
socio-cultural contexts within which women’s access to, ownership and control of land are
mediated, interpreted and negotiated. It is important that land reform policies should
contextualize women’s lives in marriages and beyond family boundaries. According to
Goebel (2005a, 2005b), broader changes of social justice, gender equality and democracy are
required and the government should be committed to promoting women’s rights to land
versus tradition. Mpahlo (2003: 13), noted that that there should be provisions to include
women in land registers such that married women may be co-land holders. There should be
gender sensitive provisions to help women with financial and technical expertise to improve
productivity. The Women and Land in Zimbabwe (2008), a non-governmental organization
dealing with women and land issues, advocated for training of women for effective land use
and farm management thereby contributing to household and national food security.
The FTRLP should be reconstituted in a broader framework of agrarian
reform. This includes harmonizing policies which enhance land utilization by women
52
especially through provision of infrastructure and favorable market conditions. The agrarian
policies should relate to other laws that govern property ownership and inheritance. This
means that the current constitution’s section 23b should be revised so as not to discriminate
against women. In my view, it is also important to frame agrarian policies with reference to
human and women’s rights in general. A Human Rights Based approach to Development
provides a framework for developing policies that take into account rights of the citizens and
a gender dimension to human rights will address women’s concerns.
The other policy that should be redesigned as a matter of urgency relates to
tenure and permits systems. As discussed in the previous chapter, the 99 year lease is flawed
because it cannot be used as collateral for borrowing loans and land cannot be inherited.
Women have little off farm incomes thus, they cannot buy inputs without loans and widows
cannot inherit their husbands’land. Farmers may have incentives to invest in land if they
have tenure security and for women it is crucial as they face other socio-cultural constraints.
The government should be clear on tenure and open up spaces for women to finance
agricultural production and honor the CEDAW article 13 (b) and the Protocol on the African
Charter article 21 (1) to which Zimbabwe is a signatory. The CEDAW article states that
women have the right to access loans, mortgages and other forms of financial credits. The
African Charter states that women have the right to an equitable share of the husband’s
property. Thus defining women’s land rights and tenure issues should be a step towards
developing women’s capabilities to be productive farmers and ultimately alleviate their
poverty.
In terms of the political positions of women, the emerging formal and informal
land administration and resource governance structures in new resettlements should open up
democratic spaces for women’s participation in decision making. There must be platforms for
women to make decisions on crop/livestock production and marketing of their produce, not
the current state controls especially on maize which is predominantly grown by women. The
state should also create incentives for women to produce beyond subsistence. There is need to
continue sensitizing the society at large and men in particular to appreciate the important
productive and reproductive roles women play in national development.
53
Appendix 1: Methodological Framework
This thesis is based on literature review. It relies heavily on scholarly literature, reports,
articles and books on land and land reforms in Zimbabwe, particularly the FTLRP. The thesis
employs Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach. Scholars acknowledge that the term
discourse is slippery thus does not have a unitary definition. However a substantial number of
scholars agree that discourse is related to power, ideology and can be understood in relation
to social structural problems such as race, gender and class. Jorgensen and Phillips define
discourse as a “particular way of talking about and understanding the world or aspect of the
world”(Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002: 6-11). Jorgensen and Phillips (2002: 1-229) also say
that discourse can be a group of ideas or patterned way of thinking which can be identified in
text, verbal communication or social structures or a form of social action that plays a part in
producing and reproducing the social world.
On a different note, Wodak and Meyer define discourse as “policy, political
strategy, narratives, speech, text or structured forms of knowledge”(Woodak and Meyer
2009: 12). Jager (2009: 34) notes that “discourse is the flow of all societal knowledge stored
throughout all time which shapes action”. Wood and Kroger say that “discourse are possible
statements about a given area and organizes and, gives structure to the manner in which a
particular topic, object, action and process is talked about.”Wood and Kroger, 2000: 137).
The definition of discourse in relation to the FTLRP is inspired by Critical theory, Feminist
Materialism and Structural Marxists perspectives. Thus, discourse can refer to a political
programme or strategy. It also refers to way of representing the FTLRP in literature.
There is no explicit method to do discourse analysis thus; one can regard
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as an approach or scholarly orientation. Wood and
Kroger, (2000: 156), note that “Discourse Analysis is a way of thinking about discourse,
treating data, action or spoken language”. The CDA approach has been informed by scholars
such as Bourdieu, Habermas, Lucas, Althusser, Gramsci, Ardono and Foucault and their main
argument is that critical theory should be directed towards critiquing, changing and
improving the understanding of society. Van Dijk defines CDA as “analytical research which
54
primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance and inequality are enacted and
reproduced and it takes an explicit position to understand, expose and resist social inequality
(Van Dijk 1998:1). Luke viewed CDA as “a normative analysis of how discourse works in
ideological interests with political consequences (Luke 2002: 96). Wodak and Meyer(2009)
referred to the works of Habermas and illustrate that CDA explores how opaque relations
secure power, hegemony, inequality, power imbalances, and injustices and, hopes to spur
people to political correctness (policy options).
Taylor (2004: 1-20), regarded CDA “as a framework for systematic analysis of
multiple and competing policy discourses”. According to Stubbs (1997: 2), “CDA,
investigates and clarifies power and discrimination… ”Drawing from Locke (1997), CDA
looks at how discourse is shaped by relations of power and ideologies and investigates
critically social inequality, exclusion and marginalization as they are expressed, constituted
and legitimized by discourse. The thesis also borrow from Naples (2003: 106) who takes a
feminist approach to CDA and her argument relates to structural patterns of domination to
render visible those issues about women that are underrepresented. In this case it the gender
dimensions of the FTLRP. Thus, the thesis uses CDA to look at the effects of the FTLRP on
women’s socio-economic and political positions. The thesis also analyzes texts, policy
documents or statements and actions in order to answer the stated research questions.
The CDA approach is appropriate for analyzing the FTLRP for a number of
reasons. Taylor noted that “CDA is a valuable tool or resource for policy research because it
is critical and committed to progressive social change”(Taylor 2004:1-20). CDA is reflexive,
open to multiple readings and accepts the limits of objectivist impartiality (Flowerdew 1999:
1093). CDA is interpretive, descriptive and explanatory form of critical research that rejects
the dominance of value-free science and disinterested facts. The CDA approach enables one
to make comparisons with another policy context (Taylor 2004:1-20). Horkeimer in
Fairclough (2009: 133), noted that CDA allows “To draw the consequences for political
action from critical perspectives is the aspiration of those who have serious intentions yet
there is no prescription but it is the necessity for insight into one’s own responsibility”.
55
Thus, CDA gives one an ethical responsibility to critically analyze the FTLRP without any
apologies. Flowerdew 1999:1094), said that “CDA approach is dialogical and it is made
plausible by literature review and self-disclosure”. Drawing from Foucault, CDA supports the
victims of political discourses (women) in the FTLRP by suggesting policy options. The fact
that does not have a unitary framework of analysis enables the researcher to situate it in
specific political contexts thus it is valid in post- normal science. Ultimately, the CDA
approach allows us to understand policy problems of gender mediated by ideology and power
in the FTLRP by looking at secondary texts, policy documents and political statements and
actions on FTLRP.
The thesis, acknowledges that CDA approach has some limitations as well.
Firstly, discourse and CDA analysis can be defined from any perspective and scholars argue
that this leads to conceptual confusions and dangers of competing and uncontrolled
methodologies. Stubbs (1997) acknowledged that CDA is a disguised form of political
correctness. “CDA disrupts and interrupts social order”(Luke 2002: 96-110). However, the
criticism by Luke supports the status quo which maybe undemocratic and oppressive. Luke
also views CDA as a discourse itself that is powerful and can be dominating. Flowerdew
argues that “by giving researchers responsibility, there is danger of reification”(Flowerdew,
1999:1095). There is also no specific method of doing CDA thus replicability of methods of
analysis is questionable.
56
Appendix 2: Table1. Analysis of Access to land (Farm workers)
District
Access Yes
Access No
Total
Kadoma
82
278
360
percent
7.0%
23.7 %
30.7 %
Chegutu
244
264
508
percent
20.8%
22.5%
43,3 %
Kwekwe 65
236
301
percent
5.6 %
20. 2%
25.9 %
Total
391
778
1171
Total %
33.4 %
64.4 %
100%
Adapted from ZCDT, 2003
57
Appendix 3: Table 2. Land Ownership (All Provinces)
Province
Model
No of
%
males
A1
Model A2
%
No of
Females
No of
%
males
No of
%
Females
Midlands
14 800
82 3 198
18
338
95
17
5
Masvingo
19 026
84 3 644
16
709
92
64
8
Mash Central
12 986
88 1 770
12
1 469
87
215
13
Mash West
21 782
81 5 270
19
1 777
89
226
11
Mash East30
12 967
76 3 992
24
*
*
*
*
Matabele South
7 754
87 1 169
13
215
79
56
21
Matabele North
7 919
84 1 490
16
574
83
121
17
Manicaland
9 572
82 2 190
18
961
91
97
9
Total
106 986
82 2 2723
18
6 043
88
796
12
Adapted from Utete Report, 2003
30
Data was not available for the A2 model
58
Appendix 4: Table 3. Land Ownership by Gender
Category
Model A2 (N=41)
Model A2 (N=236)
Percentage
%
%
Men
95.12
85.17
Women
4.88
14.83
Total
100
100
Women
N=2
N=2
Married
50
20.00
Single
50
80.00
Total
100
100
Adapted from Mpahlo, 2003
59
REFERENCES
Alexander, J., 2007. The Histography of Land in Zimbabwe: Strengths, Silences and
Questions. Safundi 8:2, pp 183-198
Agarwal, B., 1994. A Field of One’s Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia. Cambridge
and Cambridge University Press
Barnes, T.A., 1992. Fight for Control of Women’s Mobility in Colonial Zimbabwe. Signs Vol
17, No. 3, pp 586- 608
Bernstein, H., 2003. Bernstein, H., 2003. Land Reform in Southern Africa in WorldHistorical Perspective. Review of African Political Economy, 30: 96, 203 — 226
Bhatasara, S., 2008. Poverty and the Consumerist Culture: An Analysis of HIV and AIDS
Infections among Young Women in Zimbabwe, University of Kwa-Zulu Natal Online
Journal
Chaumba, J., Scoones, I., and Wolmer, W., 2005. “New politics, new livelihoods”: Agrarian
change in Zimbabwe, Review of African Political Economy, 30: 98, pp 585-606
Cheater, A., and Gaidzanwa, R.B., 1996. Citizenship in Neo- Patrilineal States: Gender and
Mobility in Southern Africa. Journal of Southern African Studies, 22, pp. 189-200
Clark, D, A., 2005. Sen’s Capability Approach and the Many Spaces of Human Well-being.
The Journal of Development Studies, Vol.41, No.8, November 2005, pp.1339 –1368
Cliffe, L., 1988. Zimbabwe’s Agricultural Success and Food Security in Southern Africa.
Review of African Political Economy, No. 43, pp 4-25
Degeorges, A and Reilly, B,. 2007. Politicization of Land Reform in Zimbabwe: Impacts on
Wildlife, Food Production and the Economy. International Journal of Environmental
Studies, 64: 5, pp 571-586
60
Deininger, K., Hoogeveen, H., and Kinsey, B.H., 2004. Economic Benefits of Land
Redistribution in Zimbabwe in the early 1980s. World Development, Vol 32, No. 10,
pp 1697- 1709
Fairclough, N.F., 2009. Critical Discourse Analysis as a Method in Social Scientific
Research. In: Wodak, R, and Meyer, M. 2009. Methods for Critical Discourse
Analysis. Sage Publications, pp 121- 147
Flowerdew, J., 1999. Description and Interpretation in Critical Discourse Analysis. Journal of
Pragmatics 31, pp 1089-1099
Frenier, M.D., 1983. The Effects of the Chinese Communist Land Reform on Women and
their Families. Women’s International Study Forum, Vol 6, No 1, pp 41-55
Gaidzanwa, R.B., 1995, Land and the Economic Empowerment of Women: A Gendered
Analysis, Southern African Feminist Review (SAFERE), Vol1, No1, pp 1-12.
Gaidzanwa, R.B., 1988. Women’s Land Rights in Zimbabwe: An Overview. Occasional Paper,
No. 13, Harare, Department of Rural and Urban Planning, University of Zimbabwe
Gaidzanwa, R.B., 1981, Promised Land: Towards Land Policy for Zimbabwe. Institute of
Social Studies, Netherlands, MA Thesis
Gasper, D., 1990. What happened to the Land Question in Zimbabwe? Rural Reform in the
1980s. Working Paper Series, No.91
Goebel, A., 2005. Zimbabwe's 'Fast Track' Land Reform: What about women? Gender,
Place and Culture 12(2): 154-172
Goebel, A., 2005. Land Reform and Gender: Zimbabwe’s Experience. McGill-Queen’s
University Press
61
Goebel, A,.1999. Here is to our land, the two of us”: Women, Men and Land in a
Zimbabwean Resettlement Area. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 17:1,
pp75-96
Gonese, F.T., Marongwe, N., Mukora, C., and Kinsey, B., 2000. Land Reform and
Resettlement Implementation in Zimbabwe: An Overview of the Programme against
Selected International Experiences. SN
Government of Zimbabwe. June 2001. Zimbabwe’s Land Reform Programme. Harare
Government of Zimbabwe (1998): Inception Phase Framework Plan 1999-2000: An
Implementation plan of the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme Phase 2.
Ministry of Lands and Agriculture, Harare.
Government of Zimbabwe.1997. Land Resettlement Programme Policies and
Procedures. Ministry of Local Government, Rural and Urban Development July
1997.
Government of Zimbabwe. 1986. First Five-Year National Development Plan, 1986-1990.
Harare .Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning and Development Vol 2
Hammar, A., Raftopoulos, B., and Jensen, S., (Eds). (2003) Zimbabwe’s Unfinished
Business: Rethinking Land, State and Nation in the Context of Crisis .Harare: Weaver
Press
Hantarck, A., 2005. “My life got lost”: Farm workers and displacement in Zimbabwe.
Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 23:2, pp173-192
Herbst, J., 1990. State Politics in Zimbabwe. Harare. University of Zimbabwe Publications
Hellum, A., and Derman, B,. 2004. Land reform and Human Rights in Contemporary
Zimbabwe: Balancing Individual and Social Justice through an Integrated Human
Rights Framework. World Development, Vol 32, No.10, pp1785-1805
62
Hennessy, R., and Ingraham, C., 1997. Materialist Feminism: A Reader in Class, Difference
and Women’s lives. Routledge
Ikdahl, I., Hellum, A., Benjaminsen, T., Kaarhus, R., and Kameri-Mbote, P., 2005: Human
Rights, Formalization and Women’s Land Rights in Southern and Eastern Africa.
Noragric Report No. 26
Izumi, K., 1999. Liberalization, Gender, and the Land Question in Sub Saharan Africa.
Gender and Development, Vol7, No.3, pp 9-18
Jacobs, S., 2003. Democracy, Class and Gender in Land Reform: A Zimbabwean Example.
Research in Rural Sociology and Development, Vol 9, pp 203- 228
Jacobs, S., 2002.The Effects of Land Reform on Gender Relations in Zimbabwe. In: BowyerBower. A.T.S., and Stoneman, C., (Eds), Land Reform in Zimbabwe: Constraints and
Prospects, pp175-186, Ashgate, Adershot
Jacobs, S., 2001. Land Reform: Still a Goal worth Pursuing for Rural Women, Paper for
Development Study Association. University of Manchester
Jacobs, S., 2000. Zimbabwe: Why land reform is a Gender Issue? Sociological Research
Online http//www.socreson.org.uk//2/Jacobs.Html
Jacobs, S,. 1995. Gender Divisions and the Formation of Ethnicities in Zimbabwe. In:
Stasiulis, D.K., and Yuval- Davis, N., (Eds). Unsettling Settler Societies:
Articulations of Gender, Race, Ethnicity and Class. Sage Publications, pp 241-262
Jacobs, S,. 1992. Gender and Land Reform in Zimbabwe and Some Comparisons.
International Sociology, Vol 7, No1, page 5-34.
Jackson, C., 2003, Gender Analysis of Land: Beyond Land Rights for Women, Journal of
Agrarian Change 3 (4) pp 453-480
63
Jackson, S., 1995. Gender and Heterosexuality: A Materialist Feminist Analysis. In:
Maynard, M., and Purvis, J., (Eds), (Hetero) Sexual Politics. Women’s Studies
Network (UK Association) pp 11- 27
Jager, S., 2009. Discourse and Knowledge: Theoretical and Methodological Aspects of a
Critical Discourse and Dispositive Analysis. In: Wodak, R, and Meyer, M. 2009.
Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis. Sage Publications, pp 32-59
Kariuki, S.M., 2004. Can Negotiated Land Reforms Deliver? A case of Kenya’s, South
Africa’s and Zimbabwe’s Land Reform Policy Debates, ASC Working Paper 59,
Leiden University. The Netherlands
Kawewe, S.M., 2005. The Impacts of Gender Disempowerment on the Welfare of
Zimbabwean Women. International Social Work 44(4): 471-485
Kesby, M., 1999, Locating and Dislocating Gender in Rural Zimbabwe: The making of Space
and the Texturing of Bodies, Place. Gender and Culture 6, pp27-47
Kinsey, B.H., 2004. Zimbabwe’s Land Reform: Underinvestment in Post-Conflict
Transformation. World Development, Vol 32, No. 10, pp 1669-1696
Li Ping, J.D., 2003. Rural Land Tenure Reforms in China: Issues, Regulations and Prospects
for Additional Reform. Land Reform Special Edition
Locke, T., 1997. Critical Discourse Analysis. Toronto. Continuum International Publishing
Group
Luke, A., 2002. Beyond Science and Ideology Critique: Developments in Critical Discourse
Analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22, pp 96-110
64
Magaramombe, G., 2003. Farm Workers: The Missing Class in Zimbabwe Fast Track
Resettlement. In: Gonese, F., and Roth, M., Deliveing Land and Securing Rural
Livelohoods: Post Independence Land Resettlement in Zimbabwe, pp 277-282,
Harare, Center for Applied Social Sciences (CASS), University of Zimbabwe and
Madison, Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin
Magaramombe, G., 2001. Rural Poverty: Commercial Farm Workers and Land Reform in
Zimbabwe. Paper presented at the Conference on Land Reform and Poverty
Alleviation in Southern Africa, The Southern African Regional Poverty Network
(SARPN).
Mamdani, M., 2005. Political Identity, Citizenship and Ethnicity Post Colonial Africa.
Arusha Conference,”New Frontiers of Social Policy”–December 12-15, 2005
Masiiwa, M,. 2004. (Ed). Post Independence land reform in Zimbabwe: Controversies and
Impact on the Economy. Harare. Friedrich Stiftung
Masiiwa, M., 2004. Land Reform Programme in Zimbabwe: Disparity between Policy Design
and Implementation, Institute of Development Studies, University of Zimbabwe
Masilela, C.O., and Rankin, D., 1998. Land Reform in Zimbabwe: ZANU PF Red Herring.
East Africa Geographical Society, Vol 20, No. 1, pp11-29
Mbaya, S., 2001. Land Reform in Zimbabwe: Lessons and Prospects from a Poverty
Alleviation Perspective. Paper presented at the Conference on Land Reform and
Poverty Alleviation in Southern Africa, The Southern African Regional Poverty
Network (SARPN).
Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs. 2005. Constitution of Zimbabwe as
Amended at 14th September, 2005 (Up to and including 14th Amendment)
Moyo, S., and Yeros, P., (Eds). 2005. Reclaiming the Land: Resurgence of Rural Movements
in Africa, Asia and Latin America. London. Zed Books
65
Moyo, S., 2001. Land Policy, Poverty Reduction and Public Action in Zimbabwe. SAPES
Moyo, S., 2003. The Land Question in Africa: Research Questions and Perspectives. Draft
Paper Presented at Codesria Conference on Land Reform, Agrarian Question and
Nationalism, Gaborone, Botswana and Dakar, Senegal
Moyo, S., and Matondi, P., 2003, Politics of Land Reform in Zimbabwe, In: Baregu, M.L.,
and Landsberg, C., From Cape to Congo: Southern Africa’s Evolving Security
Challenges. Boulder and London, Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp73- 95
Moyo, S., 1999. The Political Economy of Land Acquisition and Redistribution in
Zimbabwe, Journal of Southern African Studies, Vol 26, No.1, pp 5-28
Moyo, S., 1995. The Land Question in Zimbabwe. SAPES Books
Moyo, S., and Skalness, T., 1990. Land Reform and Development Strategy in Zimbabwe:
Autonomy, Class and Agrarian Lobby. Afrika Focus, Vol 6, No 3-4, pp 201- 242
Mpahlo, R., 2003. Women and the land reform programme in Zimbabwe. Institute of
Development Studies, Agrarian Reform and Development Project. pp 6-15
Mgugu, A., and Chimonyo, R., 2004. Land Reform and Gender in Zimbabwe. In: Masiiwa,
M., (2004), (Eds). Post Independence land reform in Zimbabwe: Controversies and
Impacts on the economy. Harare. Friedrich Stiftung, pp 149- 1678
Mgugu, A., 2008.Womens’s Land and Economic Rights in Zimbabwe: Gender Audit Report.
Women Land and Water Rights in Southern Africa (WLWRSA), Harare
Naples, N., 2003. Feminism and Method: Ethnography, Discourse Analysis and Active
Research. London. Routledge.
66
Palmer, R. 1977. Land and Racial Domination in Rhodesia. London. Heinemann
Peters, L., and Peters, J.E. 1998. Women and Land Tenure Dynamics in Pre-Colonial,
Colonial and Post- Colonial Zimbabwe, Journal of Public and International Affairs,
Vol, 9, pp 183- 209
Raftopoulos, B., 2002. The Crisis in Zimbabwe. Paper Presented at the Canadian Association
of African Studies Annual Conference, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.
Ranchod-Nilsson, B., 2008. Gender Politics and Gender Backlash in Zimbabwe. Politics and
Gender 4(4), pp 642-652
Redcliffe, S., 2006. Development and Geography: Gendered Subjects in Development
Processes and Interventions. Sage Publications
Richardson, C.J., 2005. The Loss of Property Rights and the Collapse of Zimbabwe. Cato
Journal, Vol 25, No. 3
Robeyns, I., 2005.The Capability Approach: A Theoretical Survey. Journal of Human
Development Vol. 6, No. 1, March 2005
Rukuni, M., 1994. Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Appropriate Agricultural Land
Tenure Systems. Harare.
Rutherford, B., 2008. Conditional Belonging: Farm Workers and the Cultural Politics of
Recognition in Zimbabwe. Development and Change, 39: 1, pp 73-99
Sachikonye, L.M., 2004. Land Reform in Namibia and Zimbabwe: A Comparative
Perspective: In. Hunter, J.,(Ed) Who Should Own the Land, Analysis and Views on
Land Reform and the Land Question in Namibia and Southern Africa.NID and KAF,
pp1-7
67
Sachikonye, L.M., 2003. The Situation of Farm Workers after the Land Reform in Zimbabwe.
A Report Presented for Farmers Community Trust of Zimbabwe.
Sachikonye, L.M., 2003.From Growth with Equity to Fast Track Reform: Zimbabwe’s Land
Question: Review of African Political Economy, pp 227-240
Sachikonye, L. M., 2002. Land Reform for Poverty Reduction: Social Exclusion and Farm
Workers in Zimbabwe. Paper Presented on Conference. “Staying Poor: Chronic
Poverty and Development Policy”. Manchester University
Sen, A. K., 2005. Human Rights and Capabilities. Journal of Human Development Vol. 6,
No. 2, July 2005
Sen, A. K., 2000. Social Exclusion: Concept, Application and Scrutiny Master of Trinity
College, Cambridge, and Lamont University Professor Emeritus, Harvard University
Sen, A.K., 1992. Inequality Re-examined. Cambridge. Harvard University Press
Schmidt, E., 1988. Farmers, Hunters and Gold Washers: A Re-evaluation of Women’s roles
in Pre-colonial Zimbabwe. African Economic History 17 (45)
Sithole, B., Campbell, B., Dore, D., and Kozanayi, W., 2004. “Narratives of Land: State
Peasant Relations on Fast Track Land Reform in Zimbabwe”, African Studies
Quarterly7, No, 2&2
Stubbs, M., 1997. Whorf’s Children: Critical Comments on Critical Discourse Analysis.
Germany. Universitat Trier
Taylor, S., 2004. Researching Educational Policy and Change in “New Times”: Using
Critical Discourse Analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 19: 4 pp 433-451
UNDP, United Nations Development Programme. A Human Rights-based Approach to
Development Programming .In. UNDP –Adding the Missing Link, August 2001
68
Utete, C.M.B., 2003, Report of the Presidential Land Review, Volume 2, Special Studies
Van Dijk, T.A., 1998. Critical Discourse Analysis. Online Publications.
Waeterloos, E., and Rutherford, B., 2004. Land Reform in Zimbabwe: Challenges and
Opportunities for Poverty Reduction among Commercial Farm Workers. World
Development, Vol 32, No. 3, pp 537-553
Walker, C. 2002: Land Reform and Southern and Eastern Africa: Key Issues of
Strengthening Women’s Access to and Rights in Land; FAO Report, Harare
Walker, C., 2005. Limits to Land Reform: Rethinking “The Land Question”, Journal of
Southern African Studies, Vol, 35, No. 4, pp 805- 824
Wisborg P., 2002. Is Land a Human Rights Issue? Approaching Land Reform in South Africa.
Noragric, Working Papers, No. 24
Wodak, R., and Meyer, M., 2009. Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis. Sage Publications
Women and Land Lobby Group (WLLG), 2001, Report on Workshop on Gender Gaps in
Land Reform Policy Documents, May 2001
Women and Law in Southern Africa (WLSA), 1997. Inheritance in Zimbabwe, Harare,
WLSA Trust
Women and Land in Zimbabwe. 2008. Women’s Harvest. Vol 2, Issue 1, December 2008
Women and Land in Zimbabwe. 2007. Women and Land in Zimbabwe: Its Formation,
Strategies used and Lessons Learnt
Wood, L.A., and Kroger, R.O., 2000. Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for studying
action in Talk and Text. Sage Publications
69
Zimbabwe Community Development Trust (ZCDT). 2003. Displaced Farm Workers Survey
Report, February 2003
Zimbabwe Women’s Resource Centre and Network (ZWRCN), 1994, The Gender
Dimensions of Access and Land use Rights in Zimbabwe: Evidence to the Land
Commission. Harare
Other Sources
www.undp.org
www.ruralpovertyportal.org
www.wlsa.org
http://www.hum.uva.nl/~teun/cda.htm
http://www.parlzim.gov.zw
70