In his book Farm Invasions in Zimbabwe, L D ZUNGA argued that that the first intention of the land invasions in 2000 was to destroy a decisive farm workers electorate, by driving it out of its constituency. This was to prevent it from taking part in June 2000 elections which would have seen Zanu (PF) defeated at the polls. It was not land distribution, and no beneficiaries had been prepared.
The Zanu (PF) hierarchy has ended up with more farms than the beneficiaries and they hold on to the farms to prevent the possibility of re-establishment of the farm workers constituency – which they dread.
The ministry of lands showed in 2000, before the farm invasions, that 73% of the 40 million hectares making up Zimbabwe was already in black hands or under black control. 27% was productive commercial farmland under white control. The Zimbabwe government and supporters of land distributions, seems to suggest that white people owned most of Zimbabwe.
What is clear is that black land owners, before and after the land distribution, are not using the land productively. Therefore the economy suffered because the 27% productive part has been obliterated.
Here is the puzzle. Since independence 60% of voters have been rural and 40% urban. Because the rural areas are under control of vigilantes, who are immune from prosecution and therefore able to control the vote in favour of Zanu (PF), Mugabe was assured of winning. Over time, due to constrained economy, rural youth moved into farms to combine those who had emanated from Malawi and Mozambique, because there was work, food, schools – a thriving community, which finally reached 10% of the electorate.
The equation changed. Now, 50% of the electorate was rural, 10% on farms and 40% urban. Mugabe discovered this at the loss of the constitution referendum in January 2000. Jonathan Moyo, the spokesperson of the constitutional effort, exclaimed, They were all over town, about 100 000 of them (the farm voters). These were the voters who tipped the scale towards the constitutional loss and would cause the same loss to Zanu (PF) in elections planned for April 2000, then just two months away.
The constitutional loss took away the mandate for Mugabe to engage in the land exercise. But he ignored that and went ahead, aided by Jonathan Moyo who designed the plan, to recruit Dr Chenjerai Hunzvi, gave him Z$20 million (a lot of money then) to recruit youths and unemployed people from the towns and truck them to farms. They were deposited, not on open land if they wanted land, but in front of the farmers houses where they were fed and supplied with beer (scuds), as they sang, danced and threatened. This attracted the media.
In the background other groups swamped and destroyed the farm workers compounds and drove the workers out thus destroying their vote. Foreign media then started reporting on activities at the farm compounds. I was in Zurich when I saw the footage. The media clampdown was swiftly imposed leading to AIPPA.
Some farm workers dispersed into towns, as lodgers, with no municipal papers. Others drifted back into rural areas. Those who drifted into towns posed a further threat as they could vote in the 2002 Presidential elections. So the electoral laws were altered, that every voter must have a municipal lodgers papers or title deeds to be able to vote and this was backdated to make sure it excluded the recent influx.
Over time many did manage to get onto the voters roll. Mugabes response? Operation Murambatsvina.
There no such thing as regime change. The machinations of Mugabe will not end with his stepping down from power. There is more to come.
Post published in: News