Moyo, Sam. The Land Question and the Peasantry in Southern Africa.

En libro: Politics and

Social Movements in an Hegemonic World: Lessons from Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Boron, Atilio A.; Lechini, lad!s. CLACSO, Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales,
Ciudad Autnoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Junio. 2005. ! 2"5#$0".
Acceso al te%to comleto!
&tt!''(i(lioteca)irtual.clacso.org.ar'ar'li(ros'sursur'olitics'Moyo.rt*
+++.clacso.org
RED DE BIBLIOTECAS VIRTUALES DE CIENCIAS SOCIALES DE AERICA
LATINA ! EL CARIBE" DE LA RED DE CENTROS IEBROS DE CLACSO
&tt!''+++.clacso.org.ar'(i(lioteca
(i(lioteca,clacso.edu.ar
Sa# oyo$
The Land Question and the Peasantry
in Southern Africa$$
Introduction
-&e land .uestions *acing Sout&ern A*rica are dominated (y t&e negati)e e**ects o* distorted settler#
colonial decoloni/ation and t&e associated *ailure to address t&e national .uestion, sustaina(le
de)eloment, and democracy, +it&in t&e conte%t o* incomlete national democratic re)olutions. 0&ile
imortant di**erences e%ist in t&e nature o* t&e Sout&ern A*rican countries1 land .uestions and +ays in +&ic&
t&ese &a)e (een addressed, t&ere are critical similarities in t&e *undamental socio#olitical and economic
.uestions t&at arise *rom t&e ersistent con*licts t&at ensue *rom une.ual land distri(ution and discriminatory
land tenure systems 2Moyo, 200$3.
Land remains a (asic source o* t&e li)eli&ood o* t&e majority o* Sout&ern A*ricans, and is essential to t&e
de)eloment o* agriculture, tourism and &ousing. 4conomic de)eloment +it&in a conte%t o* agrarian
trans*ormation and industriali/ation tends to (e distorted (y t&e sread o* s5e+ed agrarian structures in t&e
region. -&us, t&e land .uestion is not only an agrarian issue (ut also a critical social .uestion regarding
ine.uita(le atterns o* resource allocation +it&in t&e rural#ur(an di)ide and t&e agricultural#industrial di)ide.
-&is underlies t&e ersistently con*licti)e relations o* class, gender, race and et&nicity, as +ell as t&e
rocesses o* inter#class la(our e%loitation, di**erential ta%ation and resource access and (ene*its, in t&e
conte%t o* t&e marginali/ation o* t&e majority rural oulations in t&e region. 4)en in Sout& A*rica and
6am(ia, more ur(ani/ed t&an else+&ere in t&e region, &ig& unemloyment rates 2ranging (et+een $0#5073
&a)e caused land .uestions to (e attenuated (y t&e +ider crisis o* &omeless and jo(less ur(ani/ation and
deendence on straddling rural#ur(an li)eli&oods. 8ne.uita(le land o+ners&i and utilisation atterns distort
t&e integration o* sace and de)eloments strategy due to t&e redominance o* narro+ encla)e
de)eloment 29/imande, 200:3.
-&e easant .uestion in Sout&ern A*rica &as *or long (een su(ordinated in terms o* ideology and
su(stance (y +&ite setter landlordism and institutionali/ed racial discrimination (y t&e state and caital, and
justi*ied (y an agrarian moderni/ation roject (ased on eri&eral e%ort oriented caitalist agriculture
2Moyo, "he land #$estion in Africa3. -&us, land and racial con*licts t&at a**ect 9ami(ia, Sout& A*rica and
6im(a(+e &a)e remained unaddressed *or long, desite t&e *act t&at t&eir easantries continue to (e
marginali/ed and to e%and. 8n ot&er Sout&ern A*rican countries, ne+ land .uestions arise *rom emerging
land and agrarian di**erentiation.
6im(a(+e &as (ro5en +it& t&is trend, and e%&i(its critical insig&ts on t&e *uture o* t&e easantry &a)ing
res&aed its agrarian structure su(stantially in terms o* t&e scale and .uality o* t&e roducer (ase and social
relations. -&is &as yielded rural and'agrarian class *ormation rocesses +&ic&, +&ile ena(ling t&e easantry
to maintain itsel* at (asic le)els o* social reroduction, &a)e sa+ned a ne+ di**erentiated agrarian class
structure, +&ic& &o+e)er ri)ileges ;eri&eral< 2or semi#eri&eral3 caital accumulation among an
e%anded (ut deracialised economically straddling elite. -&is essentially (imodal at& o* agrarian c&ange
resents t&e contradictory class interests o* large caitalists, middle ;easants< and ;oor< easants and
+or5ers, +&ere(y resol)ing racial asects o* t&e land .uestion t&roug& a eri&eral e%ort economic model
redicates t&e continuation o* o)erty among a easantry +it&in a marginali/ed economy.
On t&e ot&er &and, t&e land .uestion in Sout& A*rica remains unresol)ed artly (ecause o* its o+n
gradualistic neoli(eral aroac& to land re*orm, (ut largely (ecause t&e easant .uestion 2or e)en t&e small
*armer de)eloment trajectory3 &as (een denied (y o**icial land re*orm olicy and intellectual de(ate. -&is
re*lects teleological tendencies o* de(ates, +&ic& en)ision greater industrial and non#agricultural
emloyment gro+t& t&at is e%ected to diminis& easant demand *or land, as +ell as ideologies t&at decry
t&e ;ine**iciency< o* easant roduction systems and li)eli&oods %er se. -&e gro+ing ur(an and eri=ur(an
demand *or land, re.uired *or &ousing and etty commodity roduction, +&ic& is contingent uon gro+ing
semi#roletarianisation and unemloyment, &as &o+e)er also (een neglected (y Sout& A*rica1s mar5et
(ased land re*orm and neoli(eral social security olicies. -&ese trends raise t&e sectre o* increased land
con*licts resulting *rom t&e demands o* a gro+ing (ut (loc5ed easantry and t&e ur(an oor, as +ell as a
nascent (lac5 (ourgeoisie, oised against minority +&ite landlords.
-&e dilemmas o* t&e land .uestion in Sout&ern A*rica arise *rom a oor understanding o* t&e easant
.uestion in articular, and o* t&e constraints on ;articulated< de)eloment in t&e semi#eri&ery.
-&e *ate o* t&e easantry in terms o* its socio#economic c&aracter and olitical signi*icance under
caitalism remains central to neo#colonial Sout&ern A*rican *utures
>
. 8s t&e easantry disaearing
economically or (ecoming olitically insigni*icant 2Moyo and ?eros, 200:3 gi)en t&e emerging ercetion on
agrarian c&ange, since ;t&e imlementation o* structural adjustment olicies and mar5et li(eralisation
+orld+ide &as &ad a dissol)ing e**ect on easant li)eli&oods<@ 2Bryceson, 20003. 8n t&is lig&t, +&at is t&e
land .uestion in Sout&ern A*rica@
The %and &uestion in Southern Africa
'ro# deco%oni(ation to radica% and neo%i)era% %and refor#s
Ai**erent *orms o* settler coloni/ation in t&e region, +it& regard to t&e degree o* colonial e%roriation o*
land, de*ine t&e main di**erences in t&e land .uestions *aced, articularly +it& regard to t&e nature o* t&e
unresol)ed national .uestions. -&us, +&ere mild land e%roriation and +&ite settler occuation +as
o(tained, *or instance in S+a/iland, Bots+ana, 6am(ia, and Mala+i, less e%losi)e land .uestions are
*ound, alt&oug& o)er time land concentration among (lac5s &as (ecome t&e issue. 4%treme settlerist land
e%roriation in 6im(a(+e, Sout& A*rica, 9ami(ia, Mo/am(i.ue and Angola led to a more rotracted
li(eration struggle and ersistent land con*licts. Bo+e)er, it is critical to recognise t&e regionally systemic
nature o* t&e land .uestions t&at t&e legacy o* colonialisation (roug&t to Sout&ern A*rica. 9amely, t&at land
e%roriation in arts o* t&e region, generali/ed migrant la(our mo(ili/ation 2esecially in Lesot&o3, and
disossession o* land in t&e current *ree state o* Mala+i, t&e *ormer C&odesia and Sout& A*rica, +ere
intert+ined *acets o* t&e gro+t& o* Sout& A*rica1s regional agro#industrial, mining and commercial *arm
encla)es, and o* 6im(a(+e and 6am(ian mining and agricultural encla)es in t&e middle o* t&e last century.
-&e regions1 economies *ounded on la(our migration and encla)e settlement atterns deended on t&e
su(sidi/ing o* ur(an +age incomes (y t&e so#called rural su(sistence economies, (ased on marginal lands,
as +ell as on t&e com(ined rural#ur(an li)eli&oods t&at de*ine oular income *lo+s in t&e regional economy.
-&e lin5age o* agro#industrial caital in t&e Sout&ern A*rica Ae)eloment Community 2SAAC3 region today
re*lects &istorically &egemonic settler interactions and common models o* land and agrarian management,
+it&in an agro#industrial de)eloment strategy *ocused on 4uroean e%orts, and are mediated mainly
t&roug& large Sout& A*rican caital and regional la(our mar5ets. -&is de)eloment model de*ines t&e &ig&ly
ine.uita(le income and consumtion distri(ution atterns, and t&e ersistence o* marginali/ed rural and
in*ormal economies.
-&e *orm and outcome o* t&e national li(eration rocess &as &ad )aried imlications on t&e manner in
+&ic& t&e national .uestion, t&e land .uestions and democracy &a)e (een addressed in Sout&ern A*rica.
Seci*ic national aroac&es to resol)ing t&e land .uestion re*lected t&e )aried decoloni/ation rocesses
and mo(ili/ations o* t&e li(eration mo)ements, articularly since t&e mid#>D"0s, +&en dEtente emerged, and
t&e +aning Fend1 o* t&e cold +ar *rom t&e >DG0s. Bence, t&e )aried tactics o* land re*orm e%erienced in
Sout&ern A*rica since t&e >D"0s 2in t&e Luso&one /one3, in t&e >DG0s and early >DD0s in 6im(a(+e and
9ami(ia, and t&e ost#aart&eid aroac&es 2o* Sout& A*rica, 6im(a(+e and 9ami(ia3 as +ell as t&e neo#
li(eral land 2essentially tenure3 olicy *ormation rocesses e%erienced since t&e >DH0s in ot&er SAAC
countries. 0&ere li(eration +as decisi)ely concluded, as in Mo/am(i.ue and Angola, in site o* internal
armed con*licts o)er t&e national .uestion, *uelled (y e%ternal desta(ili/ation, t&e land .uestion aears to
&a)e (een (roadly resol)ed. 0&ere li(eration +as artially concluded, as in t&e main settler territories o*
6im(a(+e, 9ami(ia and Sout& A*rica, negotiated settlements le*t (ot& t&e national and land .uestion
relati)ely unresol)ed. 8n articular, t&e racial dimensions o* t&e national .uestion &a)e not (een ade.uately
addressed, as +e &a)e seen recently. -&us, racially ine.uita(le structures o* +ealt&, income and land
distri(ution remained intact, +&ile li(eral democratic constitutions and mar5et rinciles rotected t&ese
ine.ualities and ine.uities. -&is limited t&e scoe and ace o* land and agrarian re*orms.
Moreo)er, t&e cororatist#li(eral states t&at emerged, and t&eir articulation +it&in glo(al caital t&roug&
t&e 8I8s 2esecially t&e Bretton 0oods 8nstitutions3, t&e de)eloment aid structures 2(ilateral and multi#lateral
donors and lending structures3 and t&e trade system, e)entually consolidated t&e neo#li(eral *rame+or5
used to address t&e regions1 national .uestions and t&e land re*orm strategies adoted. -&e latter can (e
seen to &a)e (een interconnected (y an increasing common neo#li(eral ideology and common economic
management strategies o* e%ternally imosed and &omegro+n SAJ#tye macro#economic sta(ili/ation,
out+ard#loo5ing trade li(eralisation and de#regulation o* domestic mar5ets 2land, la(our and commodity3.
-&ese rocesses led, o)er *our decades, *rom -an/ania to 6im(a(+e, to )arying degrees o* de#
industriali/ation o* gro+t& encla)es t&at &ad (een (ased on caital#intensi)e industriali/ation rocesses,
since t&e >D50s, alongside an increasing deendence o* most o* t&e regions1 economies on land *or social
sur)i)al. -&e lessons *rom t&is are common *ailure o* land re*orms and economic transitions, and narro+
dissidences o* aroac& to land re*orm and economic management.
-&ere*ore, t&e seci*ic trajectory o* land re*orm rocesses in t&e SAAC region needs to (e e%amined in
terms o* t&e :0#year &istory o* national li(eration, i* t&e aarently )aried e%eriences o* t&e e)ol)ing land
.uestions *acing Sout&ern A*rica and t&e land re*orm tactics used are to (e understood. 0&ereas di**erent
socio#economic and olitical seci*icities need to (e critically re*lected uon, it is &o+e)er t&e gradual s&i*ts
in t&e terrain o* national indeendence and li(eration struggles among t&e countries since t&e >DH0s, in
terms o* t&eir ideological and olitical mo(ilisation o* social *orces in resonse to imerial tactics, +&ic&
distinguis&es t&e seci*ic land re*orm strategies e%erienced.
-&us, t&e SAAC region o* t&e >DH0s and >D"0s e%erienced a clear di)ide (et+een t&e radical
nationalist#cum#socialist orientation to land re*orm and li(eral aroac&es. -&e *ormer +ere (ased uon t&e
nationali/ation o* settler lands and *oreign commercial'industrial structures o* caital 2as ursued in -an/ania
and 6am(ia during t&e >DH0s and early >D"0s3 and in Mo/am(i.ue and Angola 2*rom t&e mid#>D"0s3. 8n
contradistinction to t&is, t&e more li(eral strategies o* land re*orm +ere *ound during t&e same eriod in t&e
smaller colonial Frotectorates1, +&ic& redominantly *aced indirect colonial rule accomanied (y minor
degrees o* +&ite settlerism alongside c&ea migrant la(our systems in Bots+ana, S+a/iland, Lesot&o and
Mala+i. 8n t&e latter countries, t&e land re*orm e%eriences in)ol)ed a limited degree o* mar5et#(ased
e%roriation o* settler lands, accomanied (y mar5et#led comensation +it& some colonial *inance, as +as
t&e case in S+a/iland and Bots+ana, *or e%amle. Suc& lands &eld (y small settler communities +ere
mainly indigeni/ed +it& limited *oreign and +&ite minority#dominated large#scale land o+ners&i and +it&
estate *arming, remaining alongside t&e emergence o* state *arms and t&e resilience o* largely easant and
astoral agrarian structures.
-&e nature and outcome o* land re*orm radicali/ation also )aried. 0&ereas -an/ania, 6am(ia and
Mo/am(i.ue &ad ursued socialistic land and agrarian re*orms largely (ased uon state mar5eting systems,
and land settlement and use reorgani/ation 2)illagisation and rural de)eloment in -an/ania and
resettlement and integrated de)eloment in 6am(ia3, Mo/am(i.ue *ollo+ed land nationali/ation +it& e)en
more intensi)e attemts at socialistic trans*ormation o* t&e land and agrarian .uestion t&roug& state and
cooerati)e *arms. Angola, +&ic& started mired in ci)il +ar t&roug&out, did not ursue *urt&er signi*icant land
re*orm a*ter t&e land nationalisation *rom >D"5. Ci)il +ar in t&e Luso&one territories, *uelled (y Sout&
A*rican desta(ili/ation and relati)e international isolation, &o+e)er contained radical agrarian re*orms t&ere.
-&e li(eral aroac& to t&e resolution o* t&e land .uestion )aried slig&tly. 8t consisted mainly o* limited
mar5et#led land re#distri(ution e**orts and attemts to moderni/e easant agriculture +it&in a contradictory
conte%t o* im(alanced u(lic resources allocations. -&e latter +ere *ocused rimarily on de)eloing t&e
large#scale indigeni/ed and state caitalist *arming su(#sector and its increasing incororation into glo(al
agricultural e%ort mar5ets. -&is *orm o* land and agrarian re*orm led to intensi*ied land concentration in t&e
)arious Sout&ern A*rican countries, a steady gro+t& o* agrarian social di**erentiation (ased on caitalist
accumulation, la(our e%loitation and rural marginali/ation, and a (i#modal agrarian structure, +&ic&
(ecame entrenc&ed at di**erent scales t&roug&out t&e region.
The nature and si*nificance of the +easantry in Southern Africa
Jeasantry =small#scale'*amily agriculturalists oerating +it&in t&e generali/ed system o* commodity
roduction= does not constitute a class in itsel*, (ut in&erent in it are t&e antagonistic tendencies o*
roletarian and rorietor. -&e ideal#tye Feasant &ouse&old1 reroduces itsel* as (ot& caital and la(our
simultaneously and in internal contradiction, (ut t&is com(ination o* caital and la(our is not sread e)enly
+it&in t&e easantry, *or t+o reasons. Iirst, t&e easantry is di**erentiated (et+een t&e ric&, middle, and oor
etty#commodity roducers, a sectrum t&at ranges *rom t&e caitalist +&o emloys la(our#o+er, (eyond
t&e *amily, to t&e semi#roletarian +&o sells it. As suc&, t&e middle easantry is t&e only category t&at
em(odies t&e ideal#tye o* etty#(ourgeois roduction, managing to neit&er &ire nor sell la(our#o+er =and
+&ic& in turn is rare 2Moyo and ?eros, 200:3. Second, t&e com(ination o* caital and la(our is not sread
e)enly +it&in a single &ouse&old eit&erK di**erentiated (y gender and generation, atriarc&s +ill control t&e
means o* roduction, +&ile +omen and c&ildren +ill ro)ide unaid la(our. 0&ile t&is may aear on t&e
sur*ace as a Fdi**erent1 mode o* roduction, it &as (een argued con)incingly t&at etty#commodity roduction
is *irmly em(edded in t&e caitalist system and in *act is a normal *eature o* caitalist society, e)en i*
su(ordinate and unsta(le 2Li((on and 9eocosmos, >DG53.
Mnder caitalism, t&e easantry remains in a state o* *lu%, +it&in t&e centre#eri&ery structure sa+ned
(y colonialism, as roletarianisation co#e%ists +it& easantisation and semi#roletarianisation. -&e *orm and
scale o* t&e actually e%isting easantry is (ot& an emirical and an interreti)e ro(lem to (e understood
*rom t&e comosition o* &ouse&old income (y source, including non#e%c&angea(le sources o* sustenance,
and *rom an analysis o* &ouse&old residential atterns, and (et+een to+n and country. 8t &as (een argued
t&at under structural adjustment easants &a)e (ecome Fro(lematic1, inso*ar as t&ey are Fmulti#
occuational, straddling ur(an and rural residences, NandO *looding la(our mar5ets1 2Bryceson, 20003. ?et,
t&e easantry &as (een ro(lematic in t&is +ay *or muc& o* t&e t+entiet& century
2
.
Structural adjustment &as (een accomanied (y intensi*ied migration. A*rica no+ &as notc&ed u t&e
*astest rate o* ur(ani/ation in t&e +orld 2$.57 annually3, and nearly :07 o* t&e oulation is no+ ur(anised.
-&is *act is o*ten used as roo* t&at t&e land'agrarian .uestion is losing its rele)ance. Migration does not
mean *ull roletarianisation or ermanent ur(anisation, (ut t&e sreading o* ris5 in &ig&ly ad)erse
circumstances, +it& ur(ani/ation mo)ing alongside de#industrialisation and retrenc&ments, illegal and
unlanned settlement, so t&at, *or e%amle, &al* t&e ur(an oulation o* Penya and Sout& A*rica li)es in
slums 2Moyo, "he land #$estion in Africa3.
Migration is not merely one#+ay. 0or5ers retrenc&ed *rom mines and *arms are also 5no+n to see5
easantisation, as recorded in a case study o* rural Fs.uatting1 in 6im(a(+e 2?eros, 2002a3, or as ur(anites
enter t&e land re*orm rocess 2Moyo, "he ne& %easant #$estion in 'imbab&e and So$th Africa3. Also, as
oosed to secular ur(ani/ation, +&ic& Pay 220003 terms t&e Frurali/ation o* ur(an areas1 and Fur(ani/ation
o* rural areas1, +&ere(y rural and ur(an +or5ers comete *or (ot& jo(s, including agricultural jo(s, and
residential lots in (ot& ur(an and rural areas. 8t &as also (een o(ser)ed t&at retrenc&ed +or5ers *rom
mines and industry &a)e joined t&is struggle and soug&t to (ecome easants t&emsel)es 2e.g. Boli)ia +&ere
*ormer miners &a)e ta5en u coca roduction3 2Jetras, >DD"3.
-&us ur(ani/ation and roletarianisation are not de*initi)e, and agrarian re*orm cannot (e seen as
anac&ronistic 2see also Jetras and Qeltmeyer, 200>3, nor must one underestimate t&e olitical signi*icance
o* t&e countryside, in +&ic& t&e Fend o* land re*orm1 t&esis +rites o** an alternati)e attern o* accumulation.
-&e semi#roletarianisation t&esis, under current agrarian c&ange +it&in t&e contemorary centre#eri&ery
structure, does not ro)ide *or massi)e oulation relocations to t&e nort& 2Moyo and ?eros, 200:3.
-&e e**ect &as (een t&e rise o* a ric&er class o* easants, comared to t&e rest, +&o (ecame semi#
roletarianised or landless. Iull roletarianisation +as generally *orestalled, not least (y state action, and
rural &ouse&olds &eld onto a lot o* land and maintained t&e dual income strategy o* etty#commodity
roduction and +age la(our 2Barriss, >DD2K Breman, 20003. Cural non#*arm acti)ities and mar5ets
roli*erated, so t&at (et+een $0 and :07 o* &ouse&old incomes are no+ deri)ed *rom o**#*arm sources
2Mooij, 20003. -&is dual trend suggests t&at Ft&e in*ormal sector Nin t&e ur(an economyO is not a steing
stone to+ards a (etter and settled ur(an li*e, (ut a temorary a(ode *or la(our +&ic& can (e us&ed (ac5 to
its lace o* origin +&en no longer needed1 2Breman, cited (y Moyo and ?eros, 200:3.
-&e transition to caitalism in t&e eri&ery &as ta5en lace under disarticulated accumulation and
su(ordinated to t&e accumulation needs o* t&e centre. 8n conse.uence, it &as not (een c&aracterised (y an
FAmerican at&1 2Moyo and ?eros, 200:3, as identi*ied (y Lenin =t&at is, a (road#(ased accumulation (y
etty#commodity roducers F*rom (elo+1= (ut (y )aried at&s 28(id and see inter alia de Jan)ry, >DG>K Byres,
>DD>K and Moyo, "he ne& %easant #$estion in 'imbab&e and So$th Africa3. -&ese include a Fjun5er at&1 o*
landlords#turned#caitalists in Latin America and Asia 2outside 4ast Asia3, +it& its )ariant in t&e +&ite#settler
societies o* Sout&ern A*rica, oerating in tandem +it& transnational caital 2+&et&er lando+ning or not3.
Cecently, +it& large agrarian caital it &as also e%anded and con)erted land a+ay *arming to +ildli*e
management, or Feco#tourism1 )entures, a Fmerc&ant at&1 comrising a )ariety o* ur(an NettyO (ourgeois
elements +it& access to land, +&et&er lease&old or *ree&old, )ia t&e state, t&e mar5et or land re*orm,
*arming on a medium scale (ut integrated into e%ort mar5ets and glo(al agro#industry 2Moyo and ?eros,
200:3.
Measures o* Fo)erty reduction1, including Fintegrated rural de)eloment rogrammes1, soug&t to (olster
t&is *unctional dualism at its moment o* crisis *rom t&e >DG0s, leading to t&e a(andonment o* t&e o)erty
agenda, and t&e tendency *or roletarianisation to accelerate, alt&oug& direct and indirect olitical action,
and a series o* social catastro&es, &a)e 20orld Ban5, >DD03 e)en (roug&t (ac5 land re*orm in its mar5et#
(ased *orm 2Moyo and ?eros, 200:3. 0&ere t&e neoli(eral social agenda *ailed sectacularly in 6im(a(+e,
large#scale re#easantisation &ad ta5en lace outside t&e control o* t&e 0orld Ban5, and &ence, (ecause o*
enalties imosed *rom t&e nort&, a ne+ attern o* Faccumulation *rom (elo+1 &as not yet emerged 2?eros,
2002(K Moyo, "he ne& %easant #$estion in 'imbab&e and So$th Africa3.
Qarious social &ierarc&ies deri)ed *rom gender, generation, race, caste and et&nicity &a)e intensi*ied
under caitalism and *unctional dualism 2?eros, 2002(K Moyo, "he ne& %easant #$estion in 'imbab&e and
So$th Africa3, since disarticulated accumulation and its corollary o* semi#roletarianisation ro)ide t&e
structural economic (asis *or t&e *louris&ing o* o+er*ul social &ierarc&ies t&at eit&er *use +it& class 2e.g.
race, caste3 or cut across it 2gender3, and reroduce aarently Fnon#caitalist1 *orms o* Flandlordism1, e)en
desite t&e &istorical culmination o* t&e Fjun5er at&1 2?eros, 2002(K Moyo, "he ne& %easant #$estion in
'imbab&e and So$th Africa3. -&e synergy (et+een class and race is nota(le in 6im(a(+e and Sout& A*rica,
+&ere (ot& &istorical domination and t&e rocess o* resistance &a)e *used class and race discourses 2Moyo
and ?eros, 200:3.
Conse.uently, demands *or agrarian re*orm &a)e struc5 at t&e &eart o* t&e dominant national'cultural
identities t&roug& +&ic& t&e conditions o* suer#e%loitation are reroduced. 8n A*rica, &o+e)er, t&e issues o*
race and class &a)e (een strongly oliticised *or a longer eriod 2Ianon, 200>K Ca(ral, >D"D3, and armed
national li(eration struggles against colonialism intensi*ied t&em. -&e attainment o* majority rule across t&e
continent, +it&in t&e neo#colonial *rame+or5, +as c&aracterised (y t&e nurturing o* small indigenous
out+ard#loo5ing (ourgeoisies com(ined to de*end nationally t&e disarticulated attern o* accumulation, +&ile
in Sout&ern A*rica neo#colonialism coincided +it& structural adjustment. 9ational olitics &a)e (een
gal)anised (y rural and ur(an class struggles in*ormed (y gro+ing class di**erentiation among (lac5s, and
inter#caitalist con*lict (et+een emergent (lac5 (ourgeoisies and esta(lis&ed +&ite caital, (ot& out+ard
loo5ing, and (ot& (idding o)er t&e land .uestion. -&e result &as (een a star5 (i*urcation o* t&e national
.uestion! on t&e one &and, (lac5 caital &as con*ronted +&ite caital, trans*orming t&e meaning o* Fnational
li(eration1 in its o+n terms and &ijac5ing land re*orm. On t&e ot&er &and, t&e &istorical realities o* class and
race ersist, c&aracterised (y *unctional dualism +it&in a +&ite suremacist *rame+or5, including t&e
racialised landlordisms to +&ic& it gi)es rise 2Moyo, 200>K Cut&er*ord, 200>K ?eros, 2002(3.
Lender &ierarc&y &as (een as intrinsic to *unctional dualism as race, male la(our *or mines and *arms
resting on a olicy o* con*ining +omen to t&e communal area (y institutionalised means, under desotic
c&ie*taincies 2C&anno5, >DG5K Sc&midt, >DD0K Mamdani, >DDH3. 0&ile c&ie*taincy &as (een trans*ormed in
)aria(le +ays, and +omen &a)e entered t&e la(our mar5et in large num(ers, t&ey &a)e continued to (e a
rural illar o* *unctional dualism. Mnder structural adjustment, gender &ierarc&y &as (een t&oroug&ly
instrumentalised, as structural adjustment rogrammes 2SAJs3 &a)e curtailed social ser)ices and relied on
*emale reroducti)e la(our, +&ic& in turn &as intensi*ied, as +ell as on c&ild la(our. At t&e same time,
+omen &a)e also (een comelled to di)ersi*y t&e sources o* &ouse&old income. Bo+e)er, t&e traditional
o(stacles to access to land &a)e ersisted and remained su(ject to atriarc&al 5ins&i relations, +&ile t&e
illegal use o* land &as in many cases roli*erated 2Moyo, >DD5K Agar+al, >DD:K Aeere and Len, 200>3.
-&e a(o)e trends underlie t&e emergence o* scattered (ut signi*icant land con*licts in t&e region, a direct
negati)e outcome o* neo#li(eral land re*orms, +&ic& tends to *uel rene+ed struggles o)er national and
democracy .uestions. -&e rest o* t&is aer e%amines t&ese land .uestions and land re*orm e%eriences in
Sout&ern A*rica, including t&e nature o* t&e neo#radical *ast#trac5 land re*orms o* 6im(a(+e, and t&e
regional imlications o* t&ese *or t&e *uture land .uestions in t&e SAAC region.
Land concentration" +ri,atisation and e-terna% contro% in Southern Africa
.istorica% conte-t of the %and &uestion in Southern Africa
-&e o)erriding land .uestion *acing Sout&ern A*rica is t&at little rogress &as (een ac&ie)ed in t&e
imlementation o* land re*orm, esecially +it& regard to redressing colonially deri)ed and ost#
indeendence une.ual land o+ners&i, discriminatory land use regulations, and insecure land tenure
systems, +&ic& marginali/e t&e majority o* rural and ur(an oor oulations. -&e legacy o* racially une.ual
land control, +&ic& con*ronted mainly t&e *ormer settler colonies, +as at indeendence maintained t&roug&
constitutions t&at guaranteed t&e rotection o* ri)ate roerty (y sancti*ying +illing#seller#+illing#(uyer
aroac&es to t&e redistri(ution o* *ree&old land. -&ose SAAC states, +it& legacies o* limited settler
colonialism, &a)e tended to *ace t&e c&allenges o* romoting e.uita(le legal and administrati)e systems o*
land tenure security and e**ecti)e land management +it&in a conte%t o* gro+ing land concentration and
agrarian class di**erentiation.
A major underlying ro(lem +&ic& con*ronts t&ese land .uestions in Sout&ern A*rica is t&e continued
increase in oulation among t&e easantries in marginal and congested lands, +it&out a net increase in t&e
access to t&e maldistri(uted and underutili/ed ara(le lands, and a slo+ rate o* gro+t& in land roducti)ity
and agricultural intensi*ication. Aiscriminatory land use olicies and ractices, and land tenure la+s, &a)e
tended to encourage underutili/ation o* land or ine**icient land use among large#scale *armers, +&o
nonet&eless &a)e &ig& le)els o* roducti)ity on limited arts o* t&e land t&ey control. ?et, e%anding t&e
num(er o* land&olders t&roug& land redistri(ution could redress t&e land s&ortages and t&e atterns o*
insecurity o* tenure t&at arise *rom maldistri(ution o* land. 8nstead, Sout&ern A*rican land re*orm olicies
&a)e *ocused on re*orming t&e regulation o* land use and en)ironmental management ractices among
small&olders, as +ell as customary tenures to+ards mar5et#(ased land tenure systems, in t&e (elie* t&at
t&ese can lead to increased agricultural in)estment and intensi*ication.
A ersistent *eature o* t&e land re*orm .uestion in t&e su(#region is t&ere*ore t&at racial im(alance and
&istoric grie)ances o)er land e%roriation ro)ide a (inding *orce *or t&e olitical mo(ili/ation o* social
grie)ance and gro+ing o)erty *or land re*orm. 8ndeendence, olitical settlement and reconciliation olicies
in 6im(a(+e, 9ami(ia and Sout& A*rica &a)e t&us *ailed to cur( racial con*lict in a conte%t +&ere t&e eace
di)idend o* t&e mid#>DD0s &as not led to economic gro+t& t&roug&out t&e su(#region, nor deli)ered
structural c&anges t&at include t&e majority into t&e *ormal economy. 9ot surrisingly, e)en in t&e non#settler
territories, t&e land ro(lem and its racial *oundations resonate. -&us, con*lict o)er land tends to (e *ueled
(y ideological and land olicy discourses +&ic&, in Sout&ern A*rica, &a)e not resol)ed t&e .uestion o*
+&et&er and to +&at degree t&e rig&ts &eld (y +&ites o)er land t&at &ad (een e%roriated &istorically are
)alid and socially and olitically legitimate 2Moyo, 200$3.
Land re*orm discourses are *urt&er *ueled (y t&e myt& t&at t&e *ree&old land&olding system and ri)ate
land mar5ets are more e**icient and suerior to customary 2so#called ;communal<3 land tenure systems. -&is
myt& tends to justi*y t&e reser)ation o* une.ually &eld land in t&e dual tenure systems, +&ile incorrectly
arguing t&at land re*orm %er se undermines *ood security and e%orts, as +ell as t&e con*idence o* t&e
in)estors in t&e economy. 0&ile t&is may (e correct +&ere con*licti)e land trans*ers o(tain, as in 6im(a(+e
since 2000, t&is could (e a s&ort to medium#term transitional ro(lem, deending on t&e suort gi)en to
ne+ settlers. 8n t&is conte%t, +&ere small&older *armers are regarded as (eing less e**icient in land use,
roducti)ity and ecological ractices, intrinsically, t&an large#scale +&ite *armers, +&o &old large c&un5s o*
t&e rime lands and ot&er resources, t&is ro&ecy can (e sustained (y t&e +it&&olding o* agricultural
resources *rom so#called su(sistence *armers. -&at is, land re*orm can only succeed to t&e degree t&at
attendant resources are reallocated (y t&e state and t&roug& aroriate mar5et inter)entions.
Land con*licts today result *rom grie)ances o)er and struggles *or access to land and natural resources
(y (ot& t&e oor and emerging (lac5 caitalist classes. Suc& grie)ances re*lect t&e dee roots o* social
olarisation along racial and nationality lines. -&ese arise &istorically *rom t&e discriminatory treatment o*
(lac5s on *arms, mines and to+ns t&roug& a roletarianisation rocess (ased on land alienation and c&ea
la(our mo(ilisation, and t&e ersistence o* racially ine.uita(le de)eloment. -&e increasing radicali/ation o*
land ac.uisition aroac&es in 9ami(ia and Sout& A*rica, and t&e gro+t& o* t&e tactic o* land occuations in
t&e SAAC region since t&e >DD0s, are mani*estations o* t&is deely rooted &enomenon o* common
grie)ances o)er t&e unresol)ed land .uestions, and t&e *ailure o* mar5ets or lando+ners to reallocate land
to a (roader constituency.
Racia% and forei*n %and distri)ution +atterns
-&e e%isting structure and atterns o* land ine.ualities in Sout&ern A*rica are (ased uon a relati)ely
uni.ue racial distri(ution o* socio#economic *eatures including oulation, +ealt&, income and emloyment
atterns 2Moyo, 200$3. Land e%roriation +as ramant in most Sout&ern A*rican countries, and only
Bots+ana &ad no +&ite settlers (y >D5G. On t&e ot&er &and, Angola, Lesot&o and 6am(ia &ad lo+er
ercentages o* alienated land. 8n terms o* settler oulation, 9ami(ia seems to &a)e &ad a signi*icant +&ite
settler oulation, mainly comosed o* t&e A*ri5aners and Lermans, in >DH0, +it& >D7. -&e greatest +&ite
settler land alienation occurred in Sout& A*rica, +&ere G"7 o* t&e land +as alienated in t&e >Gth century.
Alt&oug& at indeendence t&e +&ite settler oulations &a)e tended to decrease, t&e roortion o* land
ossessed (y +&ite minorities &as tended not to decrease roortionately in *ormer settler lands, +&ile t&ere
&as (een a gradual increase in *oreign land&oldings in countries suc& as Mo/am(i.ue, 6am(ia and Mala+i,
in t&e conte%t o* rene+ed interest (y ri)ate international caital in tourism (ased on t&e control o* natural
resources 2Moyo, 200$3.
Countries suc& as Sout& A*rica and 9ami(ia are con*ronted +it& une.ual land &oldings +it& titled land in
t&e &ands o* a *e+ +&ite commercial *armers. -&is attern is e%cessi)e in Sout& A*rica, +&ere H0,000 +&ite
*armers, +&o ma5e u only 57 o* t&e +&ite oulation, o+n almost G"7 2G5.5 million3 o* t&e land. Only
20,000 +&ite commercial *armers roduce G07 o* t&e gross agricultural roduct. A *urt&er :0,000, including
some 2,000 (lac5 *armers, roduce >57, +&ile 500,000 *amilies li)ing in t&e *ormer &omelands roduce an
estimated 57. At least >2 million (lac5s in&a(it >".> million &ectares o* land, and no more t&an >57 2or 2.H
million &ectares3 o* t&is land is otentially ara(le 20ildsc&ut and Bul(ert, >DDG3. -&us, +&ites o+n H times
more land in terms o* t&e .uantity o* land a)aila(le and its .uality 20ildsc&ut and Bul(ert, >DDG3.
Bo+e)er, 9ami(ia &as t&e &ig&est num(er o* +&ite settlers, +it& a(out G7 o* t&e total oulation.
Commercial land under *ree&old title comrises aro%imately H,$00 *arms, (elonging to :,>2G mostly +&ite
*armers, and measuring a(out $H.2 million &ectares. -&e *ree&old land co)ers ::7 o* a)aila(le land and
"07 o* t&e most roducti)e agricultural land, co)ering $H million &ectares. Only 2.2 million &ectares o* t&e
commercial *armland (elong to (lac5 *armers. By contrast, communal lands comrise >$G,000 &ouse&olds
+it& an area o* $$.5 million &ectares, +&ic& is only :>7 o* t&e land a)aila(le.
8n countries +it& redominant customary land tenure systems, t&ere is a tendency to &ig& oulation
densities on land regarded as oor around largely mountainous areas and scarce ara(le land. 8n *act, in
S+a/iland and Mala+i, t&e struggle *or e.uita(le land o+ners&i in)o5es t&e control (y traditional leaders
o)er land allocation 2Mas&inini, 20003. 8ncreased ri)atisation o* state lands as art o* t&e *oreign in)estment
dri)e &as cro+ded out t&e oor onto t&e +orst lands. 8n Mo/am(i.ue, alt&oug& all land is constitutionally
state land, ;ri)atisation< started in >DG: as art o* t&e imlementation o* t&e structural adjustment
rogrammes. -&is &as created grounds *or racial animosity, as *oreigners and +&ite Sout& A*ricans tend to
dominate t&is in)estment. Con*rontation o)er land in 6im(a(+e &as seen t&e emigration o* +&ite
6im(a(+eans to Mo/am(i.ue
$
. Mo/am(ican o**icials &a)e called *or greater social integration o* incoming
+&ite *armers to a)oid creation o* ;+&ite islands< +&ere commercial de)eloment outaces t&at o* t&e
indigenous oulations +&o surround t&ese ne+ settlers.
8n 6im(a(+e, (e*ore t&e *ast#trac5 land re*orm rogramme, most o* t&e *ree&old lands +ere in t&e &ands
o* :,500 +&ites 2comrising 0.0$7 o* t&e oulation3 and located in t&e most *ertile arts o* t&e country, +it&
t&e most *a)ora(le climatic conditions and +ater resources. 0&ite *armers controlled $>7 o* t&e country1s
*ree&old land, or a(out :27 o* t&e agricultural land, +&ile >.2 million (lac5 *amilies su(sisted on :>7 o* t&e
country1s area o* $D million &ectares.
A di)erse and di**erentiated structure o* land tenure and land use also e%ists among t&e regions +it&
+&ite oulation. Cacial o+ners&i o* land ranges *rom *amily lando+ners to a *e+ +&ite#dominated large
comanies =most o* +&ic& are multinational comanies +it& strong international lin5ages. 0&ilst t&ese
comanies tend to under#utili/e most o* t&eir land, it is &o+e)er t&e nationality and citi/ens&i o* large
lando+ners t&at is mostly contested. 8n 6im(a(+e, it is estimated t&at (et+een 20,000 to $0,000 +&ite
6im(a(+eans are Britis& and Sout& A*ricans +it& dual citi/ens&i
:
. 0&ile t&e de*inition o* +&o is indigenous
remains contested, e)en *or non#+&ite mem(ers o* minority grous +&o are citi/ens (y (irt& or t&roug&
naturali/ation, a(sentee land o+ners&i e%acer(ates *eelings against *oreign land o+ners&i. 8n 9ami(ia,
cororate o+ners&i o* land &ides t&e in*lu% o* *oreign lando+ners, articularly t&ose +&o are s&i*ting land
use *rom agricultural use to tourism.
Ioreign land o+ners&i &as a &istorical and contemorary dimension to it. Jast colonial land
e%roriation tends no+ to (e rein*orced (y ne+ land concessions to *oreign in)estors. -&is tends to (e
comlicated socially and olitically (y t&e &ysical a(sence o* many *oreign large#scale lando+ners. Ioreign
lando+ners increasingly use stoc5 &olding land tenure arrangements *or t&e control o* land, esecially in t&e
gro+ing eco#tourist industry, t&us increasing t&e glo(ali/ation o* t&e region1s land .uestion 2Moyo, 20003.
-&e rural oor are t&us marginali/ed *rom t&eir o+n landscae, and li)eli&ood systems are undermined.
-&e mar5et aradigm s&i*t o* t&e >DG0s sa+ ne+ +a)es o* migration (y +&ite large *armers into 6am(ia,
Mo/am(i.ue and t&e Aemocratic Ceu(lic o* Congo.

-&is migration, encouraged (y neo#li(eral in)estment
olicies, &as led to increased *oreign land o+ners&i in many countries and ressures *or increased ri)ate
land tenure roerty regimes in order to rotect in)estments.
-&e agricultural sector &as (een t&e rime target o* suc& in)estment t&roug& lucrati)e incenti)es
ro)ided *or *oreign in)estment, esecially in e%ort rocessing /ones.
Contested sett%er notions of %and si(e and +easant #ar*ina%isation
Jer caita ara(le land o+ners&i er &ouse&old &as (een declining due to t&e increase in oulation in
t&e regions1 customary tenure areas, +&ile t&e *e+ +&ite and some (lac5 large#scale *armers o+n most o*
t&e (est ara(le land in *arms t&at are o)ersi/ed. -&us, according to 8IAA 2200>3, o)erty tends to (e
concentrated in &ouse&olds +it& *arm si/es under >&a, and esecially under 0.5&a. 0&ile oor (lac5
small&olders and t&e landless call *or increased land redistri(ution, rural and ur(an (lac5 elites also call *or
access to large o)er#si/ed commercial *arms, as it &aened recently in 6im(a(+e, +&ere t&e rescri(ed
land si/e ceilings are (ased uon outdated notions o* t&e land si/es re.uired *or ;)ia(le< commercial
*arming
5
.
Iarm si/es in t&e region re*lect t&e trends in land o+ners&i. 8n 9ami(ia, t&e a)erage +&ite LSCI *arm
si/e is 5,"00 &ectares. 8n 6im(a(+e, t&e a)erage +as 2,500, +it& )ariation (et+een 9C 88 to Q
H
. 8n t&e
communal areas, t&e a)erage *arm si/e is around 2 &ectares, and in resettlement, it is 5 &ectares. 8n Sout&
A*rica 2G.57 o* t&e *arms +ere larger t&an >,000 &ectares 20ildsc&ut and Bul(ert, >DDG3. 8n Mala+i :07 o*
t&e small&olders culti)ate less t&an 0.5&a, +it& an a)erage *arm si/e o* 0.2G&a 28IAA, 200>3. -&e areas
in&a(ited (y small&olders &a)e t&e &ig&est o)erty.
-&e resettlement rogrammes in t&e region are roceeding on t&e (asis o* small#si/ed *arms *or (lac5s
a)eraging less t&an >0 &ectares o* ara(le land in areas suc& as 9C 88 in 6im(a(+e. Land re*orm (ased on
controlling *arm si/es t&roug& ceilings &as not (een ursued in most o* t&e countries.
-&is lea)es a *e+ lando+ners &olding e%cessi)ely large tracts o* land. Msing t&e cut#o** oint o* o)er
>0,000 &ectares o+ned eit&er t&roug& comany or indi)idual title, or as single or multile *arms, a(out HH
lando+ners 2+it& >5G *arms3 occuied o)er t+o million &ectares o* 6im(a(+e1s land (y >DDG 2Moyo, 200$3.
Most o* t&ese *arms are multile o+ned comany *arms. Multile *arm o+ners&i is t&us a decided *eature o*
6im(a(+e1s landed gentry, +&et&er comany or indi)idually o+ned.
-&e criterion used to determine )ia(le *arm si/es is (ased on a legacy o* +&ite settler notions o* t&e
Fsmall scale1 (eing su(sistence oriented, and t&e Fcommercial1 (eing large#scale +&ite *arms.
Alt&oug& t&e categorisation is osited as a *unction o* di**erent resource le)els, t&ere is a *undamental
class and racial (asis *or its de*inition. Bistorically, large *arms &a)e rescri(ed &ig&er le)els o* income
targets *or +&ites, against lo+er Fsu(sistence1 incomes *or (lac5s. -&e latter +ere re.uired to ro)ide c&ea
la(our to sulement incomes. Large#si/ed lots are also said to allo+ *or multile land uses at a
Fcommercial1 scale, and to allo+ some o* t&e land to remain *allo+ *or some time. -&ey are also considered
necessary *or mec&anised agriculture, on t&e *alse grounds t&at economies o* scale o(tain in *arming. ?et
(lac5s &a)e &istorically (een una(le to ac.uire large#scale mac&inery t&roug& institutionalised resource
allocation (iases and *inancial institution discrimination. Bo+e)er, +&ilst many o* t&e large *arms so
suorted are roducti)e (y t&e region1s standards, most o* t&eir lands are underutili/ed.
8n order to conceal land under#utili/ation and seculati)e uses o* land, +&ite commercial *armers and
multinational comanies &a)e tended to ut t&eir land under +ildli*e ranc&ing, e)en t&oug& t&e social and
economic (ene*its o* suc& uses remain contested 2Moyo, 20003. 9onet&eless in)esting in game ranc&ing,
tourism in t&e *orm o* conser)ancy re.uires t&e continued e%clusion *rom large areas o* t&e oor, and in
some countries t&e enclosure o* ne+ly consolidated lands to t&e same end. Qarious s&are&olding structures
t&at remain in t&e cli.ue o* +&ite *armers e%clude (ot& elite and oor (lac5s, +&o contest suc&
arrangements t&roug& )arious strategies, including land occuations. -&e tourism sector &as justi*ied t&e
e%clusion o* (lac5s (y arguing t&at it is too tec&nical *or (lac5 small&olders1 land management, and t&at its
mar5eting re.uirements are too so&isticated *or t&em. 8t is argued t&at t&e latter s&ould instead concentrate
on less tec&nical cros suc& as *ood grains rat&er t&an &orticulture e%ort cros 20orld Ban5, >DD>K >DD53.
-&is racist notion is (uttressed (y t&e (elie* t&at (lac5s only aim to secure &ome consumtion and
residence, and t&at t&ey do not re.uire land *or commercial uses. Bo+e)er, t&e outut er*ormance o*
small&olders, including resettled (lac5 *armers and t&ose +&o &a)e in)ested in eri#ur(an areas,
demonstrates t&at +it& ade.uate access to land (lac5s contri(ute su(stantially to domestic and e%ort
mar5ets. Mn*ortunately, racism, in some donor circles as +ell, continues to ursue t&e mislaced notion t&at
+&en (lac5s o(tain large#si/ed land t&roug& state suort, it is only a re*lection o* unroducti)e cronyism
rat&er t&an a de#racialisation rocess. Bo+e)er, since &istorically +&ites o(tained large#si/ed land aimed at
commercialising *arming t&roug& t&e same rocedures, suc& notions are un*ounded.
-&ese contradictions o* access to land (ased on race, class and nationality clea)ages are t&us a
*undamental source o* con*lict o)er demands *or land in a region +&ere t&e &egemonic neoli(eral ideology in
*act romotes agrarian caitalism, +it& li ser)ice aid to o)erty reduction#*ocused land re*orm.
Land refor# e-+eriences in the SADC states
The de#and for %and refor#
-&e demand *or land redistri(ution, in terms (ot& o* redressing &istorical and racially grounded ine.uities
and o* gro+ing needs (y (ot& t&e (lac5 oor 2rural and ur(an3 and (lac5 elites, &as (een a consistent
*eature o* Sout&ern A*rican olitics and olicyma5ing. Cecently, most o* t&ese countries &a)e (een
*ormulating land olicies in resonse to (ot& ressures *or redistri(ution.
-&ese e**orts are dominated (y o**icial ersecti)es t&at tend to em&asi/e t&e con)ersion o* customary
tenure systems to ri)ate *ree&old land tenure systems. Most o**icial analyses o* t&e land .uestion &a)e,
&o+e)er, tended to underestimate t&e nature and scale o* demand *or land redistri(ution, and to ignore t&e
racial tensions t&at &a)e ersisted as a result o* t&e un*inis&ed land re*orm agenda.
-&e demand *or land re*orm ta5es )arious *orms and arises *rom )arious sources. -&ese include *ormal
and in*ormal demands, legal and underground, or illegal, *orms o* demand *or land redistri(ution, and
demands t&at may (e (ased uon t&e restitution o* &istoric rig&ts, or contemorary demands (ased uon
di**erent needs. -&e di**erent socio#olitical organi/ations t&at mediate suc& demands include ci)il society
organi/ations, *armers1 unions, olitical arties, 0ar Qeterans Associations, (usiness reresentati)es1
associations, community#(ased organi/ations and traditional structures. Suc& structures are central to t&e
e)olution o* t&e demand *or land redistri(ution. -&e social content o* t&ese structures, &o+e)er, is decidedly
racially olari/ed in Sout&ern A*rica, +&ile t&e class comosition o* t&e ;)isi(le< olicy actors &as (een elitist.
Since t&e decoloni/ation o* 6im(a(+e, Sout& A*rica and 9ami(ia, t&e de(ate on land re*orm &as mainly
(een *ocused on mar5et instruments o* land trans*er. Aesite (road consensus among go)ernments, t&e
landless, lando+ners and t&e international community on t&e need *or land re*orm in t&e su(#region, land
re*orm remains limited. -&e onset o* structural adjustment rogrammes, as +ell as multiarty
;democrati/ation< in Sout&ern A*rica since t&e >DG0s, &a)e tended to rein*orce t&e li(eral olitical and
mar5et dimensions o* de(ate on t&e land .uestions. 8n t&e rocess o* economic li(eralisation, &o+e)er,
in*ormal rural olitical demands *or land, including land occuations and natural resource oac&ing, &a)e
remained a critical source o* ad)ocacy *or radical land re*orm, and, indeed, &a)e succeeded in 5eeing land
re*orm on t&e agenda 2Moyo, 200>3. O)er time, t&e salient land demands o* t&e (lac5 middle classes and
elites &a)e tended to (e ad)anced +it&in ci)il society organi/ations and (ot& t&e ruling and oosition
arties, +it&in a li(eral olitical and &uman rig&ts *rame+or5, +&ic& lea)es t&e *undamental issues o*
economic restructuring and redistri(ution o* resources to t&e mar5et 2Moyo, 200>3.
-&us, t&e redominantly ur(an#led ci)il society &as not *ormally em(raced t&e land re*orm agenda,
er&as due to t&e enduring middle#class (asis o* its leaders&i, esecially in t&e 9LO mo)ement.
Li#ited ci,i% society ad,ocacy for %and refor#
-&is &as relegated rural social mo)ements on land re*orm to in*ormal olitics, +&ile gi)ing rominence to
more organi/ed, middle#class ci)ic grous and olicy organi/ations t&at tyically ad)ocate mar5et#(ased
met&ods o* land re*orm and li(eral ci)ic and olitical rig&ts issues. ?et, t&e race .uestion o* land re*orm
ersistently dominates land re*orm struggles and de(ate, (ecause t&e land to (e redistri(uted is mainly
e%ected to come *rom land largely o+ned (y +&ites, +&ile t&e (lac5 otential (ene*iciaries comete *or
redistri(ution and a**irmati)e action along class lines, (ut in t&e common name o* &ealing t&e +ounds o* ast
grie)ances.
-&is raises contradictory tendencies in t&e ideologies and *oci o* social mo)ements (et+een t&ose +&o
struggle *or access to social 2land and (roader resource redistri(ution3 rig&ts and t&ose *ocused on olitical
2ci)ic and &uman3 rig&ts. -&us, most ci)il society organisations, +&ic& are generally one#issue oriented in
t&eir ad)ocacy, &a)e tended to di)ide (et+een t&ose +it& structuralist 2redistri(utionist3 and roceduralist
2go)ernance3 ersecti)es o* social and economic c&ange, e)en t&oug& in reality (ot& issues need to (e
addressed in cali(rated com(ination. O)er t&e years, &o+e)er, t&e *ormal demand *or radical or merely
e%tensi)e land re*orm &as tended to (e su(merged, esecially in recent struggles *or democrati/ation, (y
t&e roceduralist t&rust o* ci)il society acti)ism, muc& o* +&ic& is ensconced +it&in a neoli(eral *rame+or5.
-&is is rein*orced (y t&e *act t&at t&e (alance o* e%ternal aid, in 6im(a(+e, *or e%amle, &as tilted in t&e last
*i)e years to+ards t&e suort o* go)ernance acti)ism.
0&ile suc& suort is necessary, t&is trend &as ser)ed to &ig&lig&t mainly t&e issues o* &uman rig&ts and
electoral transgressions (y t&e state, to t&e detriment o* t&e redress o* structural and social rig&ts issues.
-&e e%cetions &ere are *ood aid and B8Q'A8AS and &ealt&, +&ic& de*y t&e dic&otomy and tend to (e
considered as (asic &umanitarian suort.
Ci)il society discourses on land re*orm, t&ere*ore, to t&e e%tent t&at t&ey go (eyond rule o* la+ issues,
&a)e (een *ocused on a criti.ue o* met&ods o* land ac.uisition and allocation, +it&out o**ering alternati)es to
land mar5et ac.uisition and e%roriation instruments or mo(ili/ing t&e more deser)ing (ene*iciaries o* land
re*orm in suort o* e%tensi)e land re*orm in t&e *ace o* resistance (y landlords and ot&er sta5e&olders.
Because o* t&e olari/ation o* society on olitical arty and ideological grounds, in 6im(a(+e, *or e%amle,
engaging t&e state in *urt&erance o* land re*orm &as (een sacri*iced *or rejecting t&e administrati)e
rocesses and legal rules alied in land re*orm, desite legal c&allenges and resistance. ?et, t&ere is a fait
acom%li redistri(ution on t&e grounds 2see also 9yoni, 200:3 t&at t&is trend o* ci)il society land ad)ocacy is
not conjunctural or limited to t&e 6im(a(+e e%erience.
Bistorically, Sout&ern A*rica in general &as not &ad an organi/ed ci)il society t&at &as made radical
demands *or land re*orm or land redistri(ution. Mnder colonial rule t&e land cause +as led (y t&e li(eration
mo)ements, and in t&e >D"0s it +as ursued (y means o* armed struggle 2C&itiyo, 20003. 8n t&e
indeendence eriod, ci)il society land ad)ocacy &as (een constrained (y t&eir redominantly middle#class,
social +el*arist and neoli(eral de)elomentalist )alues, +&ic& are in turn deendent on international aid.
Mean+&ile, *ormal rural and ur(an community#(ased organi/ations +&ic& see5 land tend to (e aendages
o* middle#class dri)en intermediary ci)il society organi/ations, +&ile local land occuation mo)ements &a)e
tended to (e s&unned (y t&em 2Moyo, >DDG3. -&e rural oerations o* 9LOs +it&in a neoli(eral *rame+or5
&a)e t&us (een c&aracteri/ed (y demands *or *unds *or small ;de)eloment< rojects aimed at a *e+
selected (ene*iciaries 2Moyo, Ca*toolous and Ma5um(e, 20003, and &a)e le*t a olitical and social )acuum
in t&e leaders&i o* t&e land re*orm agenda.
Ad)ocacy *or land re*orm in t&e region &as increasingly (een dominated (y *ormer li(eration mo)ements1
associations, scattered traditional leaders and siritual mediums, secial#interest grous and ot&er narro+ly
(ased structures rat&er t&an (y (roadly#(ased ci)il society organisations, as +e &a)e seen in 6im(a(+e,
9ami(ia and Sout& A*rica. 8n t&e latter, a *e+ le*t#leaning 9LO grous &a)e suorted t&e *ormation o* t&e
Landless Jeole1s Mo)ement 2LJM3, alt&oug& t&e contradictions o* +&ite middle#class intellectual leaders&i
o* (lac5 eole1s landless structures, and t&e transclass and nationalist nature o* t&e interests in land, &a)e
(ecome e)ident in t&e slo+ maturation o* a nation#+ide radical land re*orm agenda.
Blac5 indigeni/ation or a**irmati)e action lo((ies, some +it& et&no#regional and gender *oci, &a)e on t&e
ot&er &and re#*ocused t&e land re*orm agenda, including t&e demand *or t&e ;return o* lost lands< more
to+ards t&e de#raciali/ation o* t&e o+ners&i (ase o* commercial *armland, at times as a racial su(stitution
*ormula *or caitalist *arming 2Moyo, 200>3. So *ar, &o+e)er, a dual aroac& o* land redistri(ution to large
(lac5 and oor easants remains on t&e *ormal or o**icial land re*orm agenda, e)en i* resource allocations
&a)e tended to *a)our elites. Bo+e)er, large +&ite *armer organi/ations, (lac5 tec&nocrats, and many
9LOs, &a)e tended to suort t&e commercial#*armer orientation o* land redistri(ution in general, gi)en t&eir
general tendency to (elie)e in t&e ine**iciency o* small *armers. -&is &as s&i*ted olicy discourses on t&e
criteria *or access to land, re*ocusing t&e redistri(ution )ision *rom t&e ;landless< and ;insecure< to+ards t&e
;caa(le<, and resumed ;e**icient<, indigenous agrarian caitalists, +it&in t&e terms o* t&e neoli(eral glo(al
de)eloment aradigm.
-&is is e%emli*ied, *or instance, e)en in t&e similarity (et+een t&e (i#*ocal land allocation olicies o* t&e
oosed olitical arties, in t&e case o* t&e 6anu#JI#led go)ernment o* 6im(a(+e and t&e MAC 2MAC,
200:3. -&e *ormer tal5s a(out ro)iding t&e needy 2t&e landless and Fcongested13 and t&e Fcaa(le1 +it& land
as de*ined (y t&e A> and A2 allocation sc&emes resecti)ely, +&ile t&e latter romises to gi)e according to
need and a(ility. 9eit&er de*ines *ormally t&e roortionate class#(ased tilt intended in t&e land allocations,
alt&oug& in 6im(a(+e $57 o* t&e land &as so *ar (een gi)en to t&e caa(le elites, +&ic& num(er less t&an
20,000, comared to >$0,000 Fneedy1 (ene*iciaries. -&is &o+e)er suggests also t&at t&ere is a common
intra#elite (iartisan interest in a caitalist agrarian class roject. -&ese terms o* t&e land re*orm agenda
tend also to (e dictated (y t&e *a)oura(le disosition o* t&e middle#class and elite dominated olitical arty
and ci)il society to e%ternal 2glo(al3 mar5ets, (uttressed (y otimistic e%ectations o* t&e romise o* *oreign
in)estment. -&e latter, it seems, tends to (e e%ected to o()iate t&e need *or e%tensi)e redistri(uti)e land
re*orm, and t&e (elie* e%ists t&at t&e latter could (e su(stituted (y ot&er economic de)eloment (ene*its,
including emloyment creation. But emloyment gro+t& remains aallingly lo+ and in*ormalised and +ell
(elo+ sur)i)al +ages among t&e majority, +&ile t&e rural remain marginalised.
Neo%i)era% %and refor# +ro*ra##e desi*n
8n t&is conte%t, t&e o(jecti)es and strategies *or land redistri(ution adoted in t&e region )ary. Land
redistri(ution rogrammes &a)e tended to em&asi/e re&a(ilitating and olitically sta(ili/ing countries torn
(y armed struggles. -&e generic o(jecti)es o* land re*orm in most Sout&ern A*rican countries tend to
include! to decongest o)eroulated areasK to increase t&e (ase o* roducti)e agricultureK to re&a(ilitate
eole dislaced (y +arK to resettle s.uatters, t&e destitute, t&e landlessK to romote e.uita(le distri(ution o*
agricultural landK to de#racialise commercial agriculture. -&ese are mostly underinned (y t&e aim o*
addressing &istorical injustices o* colonial land e%roriation and to assert t&e rig&t o* access o* Findigenes1.
Land redistri(ution initiati)es in t&e region &a)e tended to (e constrained (y e%isting legal, institutional and
constitutional *rame+or5s, +&ic& &a)e led to costly and slo+ rocesses o* land ac.uisition and trans*er o*
land rig&ts to )arious (ene*iciaries. Land redistri(ution olicies &a)e tended to (e in*luenced (y mar5et#
oriented aroac&es to land ac.uisition and roscri(ed (y t&e legal c&allenge, (y large lando+ners, o* t&e
land e%roriation mec&anism, +&ile t&e negotiated )oluntary trans*ers o* large amounts o* land on a
signi*icant scale &as not occurred. -&e e%erience +it& land redistri(ution in t&e SAAC region &as (een in
general (ased uon *our inter#related tactical aroac&es.
-&e dominant aroac&, used mainly in 6im(a(+e and 9ami(ia (e*ore t&e imlementation o*
comulsory land ac.uisition, is t&e state(centred b$t mar)et(based aroac& to land trans*ers. Land +as
urc&ased (y t&e state *or redistri(ution *ollo+ing +illing#seller#+illing#(uyer rocedures. -&e ri)ate sector
led land identi*ication and suly t&roug& t&e mar5et, and t&e central go)ernment +as a reacti)e (uyer
c&oosing land on o**er. Lo)ernments identi*y t&e demand and matc& t&e ri)ate suly +it& (ene*iciaries
selected (y its o**icials. -&e land restitution aroac& *ollo+ed in Sout& A*rica is essentially a state initiati)e
in +&ic& go)ernment ays mostly mar5et rices *or land claims o* indi)iduals and communities in a limited
land rig&ts and time#(ound *rame+or5. -&ese rogrammes +ere slo+ in redistri(uting land, e%cet during
t&e early years in 6im(a(+e, +&en t&is +as accomanied (y e%tensi)e land occuations o* a(andoned
+&ite lands.
-&e use o* com%$lsor! land ac#$isition b! the state &ith com%ensation *or land and imro)ements &as
(een ursued in t&e region since t&e >DD0s, mainly in 6im(a(+e. -&is aroac& in)ol)es direct inter)ention
(y t&e go)ernment in t&e identi*ication and ac.uisition o* land at mar5et rices, and go)ernments tend to
manage t&e resettlement rocess, alt&oug& settler selection is generally more locally controlled. 6im(a(+e
&as used a mass comulsory ac.uisition strategy, and u to ",000 *arm roerties &a)e (een ga/etted *or
ac.uisition (et+een >DD2 and 200>. Litigation (y lando+ners against comulsory ac.uisition &as (een a 5ey
constraint. 8n Sout& A*rica, a *e+ cases o* comulsory ac.uisition &a)e recently e)ol)ed out o* its land
restitution rogramme, gi)en t&e resistance o* lando+ners to art +it& t&eir land, +&ile legislation +as
amended in 200$ to ena(le smoot&er land e%roriation. -&e Sout& A*rican go)ernment argues t&at t&is
aroac& +ill (e used saringly. 8n early 200:, t&e 9ami(ian go)ernment initiated legal measures to
e%roriate eig&t *arms, t&ree o* +&ic& are intended to assuage ur(an landlessness, +&ile some o* t&e
ot&ers are (eing e%roriated in resonse to t&e e)iction o* *arm +or5ers *rom t&eir *arms (y t&eir landlords.
A t&ird aroac& to land redistri(ution t&at &as (een tried to a limited degree in (ot& Sout& A*rica and
6im(a(+e, in t&e conte%t o* testing ;alternati)e< aroac&es, is t&e mar)et(assisted land reform aroac&,
esoused mainly (y t&e 0orld Ban5. -&is land re*orm aroac& is meant to (e led (y t&e ri)ate sector,
communities and 9LOs, +&ic& identity land *or trans*er or (ene*iciaries to urc&ase land +it&in a mar5et
*rame+or5. -&is *rame+or5 o* land ac.uisition seems to *a)our t&e large lando+ners1 comensation
re.uirements gi)en t&e land rice resonse to demand. Bo+e)er, (lac5 communities in t&e su(#region resist
aying *or land, +&ic& t&ey *eel +as e%roriated t&roug& con.uest. Qery little land &as (een redistri(uted
t&roug& t&is aroac& so *ar, mainly in Sout& A*rica. 4**orts to *ollo+ t&is aroac& in 6im(a(+e during >DDG
and >DDD +ere a(orted (e*ore t&ey too5 o** as t&e actors tended to *ail to agree on *inancing t&e rocess, on
t&e com(ined use o* mar5et and comulsory ac.uisition, and on aroac&es to t&e identi*ication o* agreed
amounts o* land and (ene*iciaries *or redistri(ution.
Iinally t&ere is t&e comm$nit!(led land self(%rovisioning 2Moyo, 20003 strategy, mainly in t&e *orm o* land
occuations or in)asions (y otential (ene*iciaries. -&is aroac& &as tended to (e eit&er state *acilitated
and *ormali/ed, or reressed (y t&e state at )arious oints in time 2Moyo, 2000K Ca*tooulos, 200$K
Ale%ander, 200$ and Marong+e, 200$3. As a *ormal strategy to land redistri(ution, it &as not (een
imlemented on a large scale in most o* t&e countries, e%cet in 6im(a(+e during t&e *irst *our years a*ter
indeendence, and in 2000 under di**erent olitical and economic conditions, +it& di**erent *ormal resonses
(y t&e state in t&e t+o eriods, and its reression during t&e mid#>DG0s to mid#>DD0s. Occasional isolated
land occuations &a)e (een reorted in Mala+i, Bots+ana and Sout& A*rica. -&e latter &o+e)er e%erienced
large ur(an land occuations (et+een t&e >DG0s and early >DD0s, +&ic& are (eing *ormali/ed in &ome
o+ners&i sc&emes. -&is &o+e)er is not a *ormal go)ernment olicy in t&e SAAC region, and tends in *act
to (e o**icially discouraged in general.
-&ese )arious aroac&es to land redistri(ution increasingly tend to (e used in com(ination, alt&oug&
t&e mar5et#(ased aroac& &as remained dominant. Cecent donor suort *or land re*orm tends to *a)our
t&e as yet untested mar5et#assisted aroac& to land re*orm, and is intended to ro)ide an alternati)e to t&e
ursuit o* comulsory ac.uisition on a large scale or to ure +illing#seller#+illing#(uyer aroac&es.
Bo+e)er, most o* t&e Sout&ern A*rican countries *acing demands *or land re*orm may re.uire strong state
inter)ention in land mar5ets gi)en t&e legacy o* ine.uita(le social caital and t&e control o* *inancial
mar5ets.
Li)en t&e general slo+ ace o* land re*orm in t&e region, ersistent oular demands *or land
redistri(ution in terms o* (ot& redressing &istorical and racially#grounded ine.uities and in terms o* t&e
gro+ing demands (y (ot& t&e (lac5 oor 2rural and ur(an3 and (lac5 elites *or land to en&ance t&eir
li)eli&oods and accumulation strategies resecti)ely, &a)e consistently resur*aced on t&e Sout&ern A*rica
olitical and land olicy agendas. -&ese structures &a)e tended to (e central to in*luencing t&e e)olution o*
t&e demand *or land redistri(ution (ot& in colla(oration and in con*rontation +it& t&e state.
-&e social and olitical mo(ilisation *or land re*orm in Sout&ern A*rica &as &eig&tened racial and class
olarisation and contradictions around aroac&es to imlementing land re*orm +it&in a conte%t o*
democratisation. Ior e%amle, in 6im(a(+e, +ar )eterans, landless easants, and t&e ur(an oor, utilised
land occuations, in colla(oration +it& dominant elements in t&e state and ruling arty, to *orce t&e
go)ernment to ursue o**icial comulsory land ac.uisition in a *ast#trac5 rogramme. 8n Sout& A*rica, t&e
demand *or land &as mainly (een in t&e ur(an and eri#ur(an areas, gi)en t&at "07 o* t&e oulation is
ur(anised. Bo+e)er, t&e demand *or land in t&e rural areas is also gro+ing and leading to olarisation at t&e
olitical arty le)el and (et+een +&ite *armers and (lac5s demanding access to t&e land o* t&eir ancestors,
(ac5ed (y signi*icant )iolence against lando+ners. -&e emergence in Sout& A*rica o* a landless eole1s
mo)ement demanding land redistri(ution *or +or5ers and easants, +it& an e%licit t&reat to (oycott t&e
A9C in elections, &as &ad t&e e**ect 2alongside t&e ressures *rom 6im(a(+e1s e%eriences3 o* (ringing
greater urgency to t&at go)ernment1s land re*orm initiati)es.
O**icial and *ormal studies tend to underestimate t&e demand *or land, esecially in 6im(a(+e, Sout&
A*rica and 9ami(ia. Cecent e%eriences o* rural land occuations in 6im(a(+e and in eri#ur(an Sout&
A*rica and 9ami(ia s&o+ t&e intensity o* oular demand *or land redistri(ution among a di)erse range o*
(ene*iciaries suc& as t&e rural landless, *ormer re*ugees, +ar )eterans, t&e oor and *ormer commercial
*arm +or5ers, t&e ur(an oor and (lac5 elite 2Moyo, 200>K Pinsey, >DDD3. -&us, +&ile land re*orm &as (een
rural#oriented and *ocused on romoting national *ood security and agricultural de)eloment, ur(an demand
&as also come to t&e *ore. -&e cutting edge o* demands *or land re*orm at t&is stage t&us rests on
e%anding t&e access and rig&ts to land (y t&e oor, t&e landless and disad)antaged sections o* society
suc& as +omen and *arm +or5ers, and a nascent (lac5 agrarian caitalist class.
The sca%e and nature of %and redistri)ution
-&e scale and social comosition o* t&ose (ene*iting *rom land redistri(ution t&us *ar &as (een narro+.
Since indeendence in >DD0, only a(out $0,000 (lac5 9ami(ians &a)e (een resettled. O* t&ese, H,5>5 only
&a)e (een resettled on commercial *arms. -&e rest &a)e (een resettled in communal areas. Land re*orm in
Sout& A*rica &as gradually ic5ed u ace, alt&oug& less t&an $7 o* t&e +&ite#&eld lands &a)e (een
redistri(uted. By >DDG, 6im(a(+e &ad redistri(uted $.H million &ectares to "0.000 *amilies, during t&e *irst
*i)e years o* indeendence. Bet+een 2000 and 200:, a(out >$0,000 *amilies &a)e (een resettled on a(out
>0 million &ectares o* land e%roriated under t&e *ast#trac5 rogramme. Bo+e)er, muc& o* t&e ac.uired
land is still (eing contested (y lando+ners, and t&e ro)ision o* in*rastructure and ser)ices to t&e resettled
*amilies &as (een minimal, gi)en t&e lac5 o* state resources during t&e attendant economic do+nturn.
-&e demand *or land redistri(ution increasingly includes t&e emerging (lac5 middle classes, suc& as
(usiness e%ecuti)es, agricultural graduates, academics, including ci)il ser)ants. -&e 5ey issue no+ *acing
t&e region1s land re*orm olicies is &o+ to (alance t&e control and access to land (y e%isting large#scale
land&olders +&o underutili/e t&eir land, t&e demands o* ne+ small and medium#scale asiring *armers. Ae#
racialising commercial *arming is a olicy ersecti)e t&at &as (een gaining imortance in t&is conte%t, and
to a critical e%tent at t&e e%ense o* t&e landless.
8n 6im(a(+e, land re*orm in t&e >DD0s romoted emergent (lac5 large#scale *armers in +&at aeared
less as a resettlement t&an a land reallocation rogramme intending to redress racial im(alances. -&us,
state land &ad (een used to *acilitate access to land (y a(out :00 middle#class (lac5s, +&ile anot&er >,000
(lac5s used t&eir o+n resources to urc&ase a(out "H0,000 &ectares.
By >DDD, (lac5 elites &eld a(out >>7 o* 6im(a(+e1s commercial *armlands. -&e *ast#trac5 rocess t&en
added >D,000 more ne+ small to medium commercial#scale *armers, as discussed (elo+. 8n Sout& A*rica
and 9ami(ia, olicies &a)e also soug&t to create and emo+er (lac5 commercial *armers as an integral
asect o* land re*orm.
8n t&is conte%t, land re*orm &as tended to marginali/e critical )ulnera(le and organi/ed grous. Ior
e%amle, secial grous suc& as +ar )eterans in 6im(a(+e and else+&ere &a)e recei)ed articular
attention in olicy, (ut t&eir rescri(ed .uota o* resettlement land &as generally not (een met. 0&ereas
signi*icant rogress &as (egun to (e seen in recogni/ing +omen1s land rig&ts in olicy, in ractice +omen1s
land rig&ts &a)e remained marginali/ed at la+ in most o* t&e countries. Iarm +or5ers1 land rig&ts, esecially
to residential and *arming land, &a)e tended to (e marginali/ed in all t&e *ormer settler territories. 8n
6im(a(+e, t&e *ast#trac5 land re*orm rogramme &as accommodated less t&an $7 o* t&e *arm +or5ers,
+&ile in 9ami(ia and Sout& A*rica landlords continue to e)ict t&em at +ill.
Conc%usions/ re*iona% di#ensions of radica% %and refor#
-&e e**ects o* t&e 6im(a(+ean land re*orms since 2000, as a dissident model o* radical land re*orm on
t&e Sout&ern A*rica region, need to (e recognised at )arious le)els, alt&oug& t&ere is a tendency (y some to
d+ell only on some o* t&e imacts leading to a narro+ discourse on t&is matter 2Moyo, *ast trac) land and
agrarian reform3. By *ar t&e most commonly considered imact &as (een t&e e%ectation t&at t&e rocess o*
land occuations as a oular strategy *or redressing land grie)ances and &unger mig&t relicate itsel*
+idely, esecially in *ormer settler states suc& as Sout& A*rica 2Cousins, 2000K Cut&er*ord, 200>K La&i**,
20023, in 9ami(ia and e)en Penya. -&e *ormation o* t&e Landless Jeoles Mo)ement o* Sout& A*rica in
200> +as a signi*icant sign o* t&e rosect *or t&e di**usion o* land occuations
"
, since t&e ur(an land
occuations in Jo&annes(urg too5 lace during 200>. -&ese judgments all seem remature, gi)en t&at t&e
olitical coalition *or majority rule aears to (e relati)ely intact, and t&at t&e economic gro+t& rosects o*
Sout& A*rica still loo5 romising, desite t&e .uite &ig& le)els o* unemloyment, o)erty and +ealt&
ine.ualities *acing t&at country.
-&e greatest incidence o* land occuations in Sout& A*rica &ad already s&o+n itsel* in t&e late >DG0s
during t&e olitical struggle and turmoil at t&at time, +&ile soradic land occuations &ad (een o(ser)ed in
t&e late >DD0s in Bots+ana 2Molomo, 20023, in 9ami(ia and in Mala+i 2Panyongolo, 200:3. -&ese incidents
&ad coincided +it& t&e lo+ ro*ile and soradic land occuations t&at 6im(a(+e &ad e%erienced at t&at
time. Li)en t&e strict e)ictions o* land occuiers t&at t&e Sout& A*rican go)ernment &ad (egun to ursue
since majority rule, it could (e con*idently claimed t&at t&ese +ould not sread +idely t&ere or else+&ere in
t&e region, and t&at instead t&e SAAC go)ernments +ere no+ more intent on ursuing orderly land re*orm
2La&i**, 20023.
-&ere &as (een a gro+ing tendency among Sout&ern A*rican go)ernments to raidly de)elo
comre&ensi)e 9ational Land Jolicies to re#emt t&e 6im(a(+e scenario, as +e &a)e seen in Mala+i,
S+a/iland and Lesot&o in 200>, and in Bots+ana, 6am(ia and Angola in 200$ 2La&i**, 20023. -&ese national
olicies are yet to (e imlemented. -&ere &a)e also (een e**orts to imro)e t&e land redistri(ution olicy and
strategy in Sout& A*rica and 9ami(ia since 200>. 8n (ot& t&ese countries, small#scale attemts to utilise land
e%roriation la+s +ere underta5en +it&out muc& success during t&at eriod. 8n Sout& A*rica, streamlining
t&e (ureaucratic rocedures *or land restitution &as since increased t&e ace o* land trans*ers. 9ami(ia &as
mo)ed .uite s+i*tly (et+een 200> and 200$ to institute a land ta% +&ic&, toget&er +it& t&e t&reat o* land
e%roriation, may (e e%ected to release more land *or redistri(ution. Bot& countries are introducing
regulations +&ic& limit t&e urc&ase o* land (y *oreigners, articularly a(sentee landlords in t&e 9ami(ia
case. 8t also aears t&at donors are increasing t&eir *unding o* t&ese t+o countries1 land re*orms.
8n most o* t&ese countries, t&e most salient land olicy c&ange, &o+e)er, and er&as t&e one +it& t&e
greatest otential to re#concentrate land&oldings, &as (een t&e legal ro)isions introduced to ena(le
customary land tenures, under +&ic& t&e majority o* eole li)e, to lease out land to de)eloers t&roug&
long#term lease&old and natural resources concession arrangements. -&ese olicy de)eloments largely
emulate t&e Mo/am(i.ue and Bots+ana customary tenure arrangements and e%and t&e land lease
ractices already *ound in state#&eld land and u(lic natural resources roerty regimes. -&ese olicy
directions &a)e recei)ed muc& international donor suort, +&ile t&e SAAC is currently in t&e rocess o*
adoting a Cegional Land Ce*orm -ec&nical Iacility intended to mo(ilise aid and regional e%ertise to
imro)e land olicy *ormation rocesses 2La&i**, 20023.
8n conclusion, land re*orm olicies in Sout&ern A*rica seem to (e e)ol)ing t&roug& t&e interacti)e use o*
mar5et and comulsory aroac&es to land ac.uisition *or redistri(ution, restitution and tenure re*orm to
(ot& t&e landless and an emerging (lac5 agrarian (ourgeoisie.
O**icial land re*orm olicies are increasingly (eing *orced to resond to gro+ing oular demand *or land.
An imortant lesson to (e learnt *rom t&e olitical indeendence settlements in t&e settler territories o* t&e
su(#region is t&at, (y not su**iciently addressing t&e ro(lem o* ine.uita(le land and natural resource
o+ners&i, t&e do+n#stream entrenc&ment o* une.ual racial economic oortunities ensuing *rom suc&
control, in economies *acing slo+ emloyment gro+t&, is li5ely to *uel agitation *or radical land re*orm. -&us,
land redistri(ution, restitution and tenure re*orm to redress &istorical grie)ances, social justice and o)erty
are crucial ingredients o* reconciliation and de)eloment, and essential to t&e resolution o* t&e national
.uestion and democrati/ation rocesses.
Bi)%io*ra+hy
Agar+al, B >DD: A *ield of +ne,s +&n: ender and Land -ights in So$th Asia 2Cam(ridge! Cam(ridge Mni)ersity
Jress3.
Ale%ander, J. 200$ ;FS.uatters1, )eterans and t&e state in 6im(a(+e< in Bammar, AmandaK Ca*tooulos, Brain and
Jensen, Stig 2eds.3 'imbab&e,s $nfinished b$siness: rethin)ing land, state and nation in the conte.t of crisis 2Barare!
0ea)er Jress3.
Breman, J. 2000 ;La(our and Landlessness in Sout& and Sout&#east Asia< in Bryceson, A. et al. 2eds.3 /isa%%earing
Peasantries0 2London! 8-AL Ju(lis&ing3.
Bryceson, A. 2000 ;Jeasant -&eories and Small Bolder Jolicies! Jast and Jresent< in Bryceson, A. 2ed.3
/isa%%earing Peasantries0 2London! 8-AL Ju(lis&ing3.
Bryceson, A.K Pay, C. and Mooij, J. 2eds.3 2000 /isa%%earing Peasantries0 -$ral Labo$r in Africa, Asia, and Latin
America 2London! 8-AL Ju(lis&ing3.
Byres, -. J. >DD> ;-&e agrarian .uestion and di**ering *orms o* caitalist transition! an essay +it& re*erence to Asia< in
Breman, J. and Mundle, S. 2eds.1 -$ral transformation in Asia 2Ael&i! O%*ord Mni)ersity Jress3.
Co&en, C. >DD> ;Jeasants to 0or5ers and Jeasant#0or5ers in A*rica< in 2ontested /omains: /ebates in
3nternational Labo$r St$dies 2London and Atlantic Big&lands, 9.J.! 6ed Boo5s3.
Ca(ral, A. >D"D ;Mnity and Struggle< in Monthl! -evie& Press 29e+ ?or53.
C&annoc5, M. >DG5 La&, c$stom and social order: the colonial e.%erience in Mala&i and 'ambia 2Cam(ridge!
Cam(ridge Mni)ersity Jress3.
C&itiyo, -. 2000 ;Land )iolence and comensation! reconcetualising 6im(a(+e1s land and +ar )eterans de(ate< in
"rac) "&o 2Sout& A*rica3 Qol. D, 9R >.
Cousins, B. 2000 ;-&e 6im(a(+e crisis! lessons *or t&e Cegion. Could Land 8n)asions &aen &ere too@<. Seminar
aer, JLAAS, Sc&ool o* Lo)ernment, M0C, Sout& A*rica.
Ae Jan)ry, A. >DG> "he Agrarian 4$estion and -eformism in Latin America 2Baltimore and London! -&e Jo&ns
Bo5ins Mni)ersity Jress3.
Aeere, Carmen A. and Len, Magdalena 200> ;0&o O+ns t&e Land@ Lender and Land -itling Jrogrammes in Latin
America< in 5o$rnal of Agrarian 2hange, >! $.
Ianon, I. 200> 2>DH>3 "he Wretched of the Earth 2London! Jenguin Boo5s3.
Iirst, C. >DG$ Blac) old: "he Mo6ambican Miner, Proletarian and Peasant 2Brig&ton! Bar)ester3.
Li((on, J. and 9eocosmos, M. >DG5 ;Some ro(lems in t&e olitical economy o* FA*rican Socialism1< in Bernstein,
Benry and Cam(ell, Bonnie 2eds.3 2ontradictions of acc$m$lation in Africa 2Be)erly Bills'London'9e+ Ael&i! Sage3.
Barriss, J. >DD2 ;Aoes t&e FAeressor1 still +or5@ Agrarian structure and de)eloment in 8ndia! a re)ie+ o* e)idence
and argument< in 5o$rnal of Peasant St$dies 2MP3 Qol >D, 9R 2.
8IAA 200> 2>DDD3 ;Assessment o* rural o)erty in t&e eastern and Sout&ern A*rican region<. Aocument circulated at
t&e 0or5s&o on Cural Jo)erty 2Come3 2:#25 January.
Panyongolo, I. 4. 200: ;Land occuations in Mala+i! c&allenging t&e neoli(eral legal order< in Moyo, Sam and
?eros, Jaris 2eds.3 -eclaiming the land: "he res$rgence of r$ral movements in Africa, Asia and Latin America
2London! 6ed Ju(lis&ers3 Iort&coming Boo5.
Pay, C. 2000 ;Latin America1s agrarian trans*ormation! easanti/ation and roletariani/ation< in Bryceson, A. et al.
2eds.1 /isa%%earing Peasantries0 2London! 8-AL Ju(lis&ing3.
Pinsey, B. B. >DDD /eterminants of r$ral ho$sehold incomes and their im%act on %overt! and food sec$rit! in
'imbab&e 2Come! Iood and Agricultural Organisation3.
La&i**, 4. 2002 "he regional im%lications of the crisis in 'imbab&e. -ational and %rinci%les of regional s$%%ort for
land reform and economic s%illover 26im(a(+e! 8nstitute o* Security Studies3 2"t& 9o)em(er.
Mamdani, M. >DDH 2iti6ens and s$b7ects: contem%orar! Africa and the legac! of late colonialism 2MP! Jrinceto+n
Mni)ersity Jress3.
Marong+e, 9. 200$ ;Iarm occuations and occuiers in t&e ne+ olitics o* land in 6im(a(+e< in Bammar, AmandaK
Ca*tooulos, Brain and Jensen, Stig 2eds.3 'imbab&e,s $nfinished b$siness: rethin)ing land, state and nation in the
conte.t of crisis 2Barare! 0ea)er Jress3.
Mas&inini, Q. 2000 ;-&e land ro(lem in Lesot&o! *ocus on contestation and con*licts<. Jaer resented at t&e
SAC8JS'Saes -rust Annual Collo.uium 2Barare3 Setem(er 2:t&#2"t&.
MAC 200: -ES"A-": +$r %ath to social 7$stice. "he M/2,s economic %rogramme for reconstr$ction, stabilisation,
recover! and transformation 2Barare3.
Molomo, M. L. 2002 Land and s$stainable develo%ment in Bots&ana 2Barare! A*rican 8nstitute *or Agrarian Studies3
mimeo.
Mooij, J. 2000 ;C&anging easantries in Asia< in Bryceson, A. et al. 2eds.3 /isa%%earing Peasantries0 2London! 8-AL
Ju(lis&ing3.
Moyo, S. >DD5 "he land #$estion in 'imbab&e 2Barare! Saes -rust3.
Moyo, S. >DDG "he land ac#$isition %rocess in 'imbab&e 89::;<=1 2Barare! Mnited 9ations Ae)eloment
Jrogramme, M9AJ3.
Moyo, S. 2000 Land reform $nder str$ct$ral ad7$stment in 'imbab&e: land $se change in the Mashonaland
%rovinces 2Stoc5&olm! 9ordis5a A*ri5a 8nstitutet3.
Moyo, S.K Ca*toolous, B. and Ma5um(e, J. M. 2000 >+s and develo%ment in 'imbab&e 2Barare! SAJ4S Boo5s3.
Moyo, S. 200> ;-&e land occuation mo)ement and democrati/ation in 6im(a(+e! contradictions o* neo#li(eralism<
in Millenni$m: 5o$rnal of 3nternational St$dies 2MP3 Qol. $0, 9R 2.
Moyo, S. 200$ ;-&e olitics o* land distri(ution and race relations in Sout&ern A*rica< in *ort&coming (oo5 on -acism
and P$blic Polic! to (e u(lis&ed (y Jallgra)e Jress 2MP3.
Moyo, S. and Su5ume, C. 200: Agric$lt$ral sector and agrarian develo%ment strateg!. Jaer reared *or 0orld
Ban5 26im(a(+e3, Iort&coming.
Moyo, S. and ?eros, J. ;Land Occuations and Land Ce*orm in 6im(a(+e! -o+ards t&e 9ational Aemocratic
Ce)olution< in Moyo, Sam and ?eros, Jaris 2eds.3 -eclaiming the Land: "he -es$rgence of -$ral Movements in
Africa, Asia and Latin America 2London! 6ed Boo5s3 Iort&coming.
Moyo, S. *ast trac) land and agrarian reform in 'imbab&e contradictions of neo(liberalism. Iort&coming (oo5 to (e
u(lis&ed (y Iord Ioundation, Sout& A*rica.
Moyo, S. "he ne& %easant #$estion in 'imbab&e and So$th Africa. Jaer resented *or u(lication.
Moyo, S. "he land #$estion in Africa: research %ers%ectives and #$estions 2Aa5ar! COA4SC8A Lreen Boo53
Iort&coming.
9yoni, J. 200: ;6im(a(+e land olicy<. Jaer resented at t&e 4conomic Con*erence on 6im(a(+e Cestart
2Jo&annes(urg, Sout& A*rica3 2"t&#2Gt& Ie(ruary.
9/imande, B. 200: ;Continental ersecti)es on 6im(a(+e<. Jaer resented at t&e 4conomic Con*erence on
6im(a(+e Cestart 2Jo&annes(urg, Sout& A*rica3 2"t&#2Gt& Ie(ruary.
Jetras, J. >DD" ;Latin America! -&e Cesurgence o* t&e Le*t< in >e& Left -evie& 2MP3 9R 22$.
Jetras, J. and Qeltmeyer, B. 200> ;Are Latin American easant mo)ements still a *orce *or c&ange@ Some ne+
aradigms re)isited< in 5o$rnal of Peasant St$dies 2MP3 Qol. 2G, 9R 2.
Jresidential Land Ce)ie+ Committee 2JLCC3 200$ -e%ort of the Presidential Land -evie& 2ommittee 26im(a(+e3
Qol. > and 2, main reort to &is 4%cellency -&e Jresident o* -&e Ceu(lic o* 6im(a(+e, August.
Ca*tooulos, B. 200$ ;-&e state in crisis! aut&oritarian nationalism, selecti)e citi/ens&i and distortions o* democracy
in 6im(a(+e< in Bammar, AmandaK Ca*tooulos, Brain and Jensen, Stig 2eds.3 'imbab&e,s $nfinished b$siness:
rethin)ing land, state and nation in the conte.t of crisis 2Barare! 0ea)er Jress3.
Cut&er*ord, B. 200> ;Commercial *arm +or5ers and t&e olitics o* dislacement in 6im(a(+e! colonialism, li(eration
and democracy< in 5o$rnal of Agrarian 2hange 2MP3 Qol. >, 9R :.
Cut&er*ord, B. 2002 Labo$r, land and civil societ!: the case of farm &or)ers 2MP! 8nstitute o* Ae)eloment Studies,
Aeartment o* Agrarian and La(our Studies3 Iirst Annual.
Sc&midt, 4. >DD0 ;9egotiated saces and contested terrain! men, +omen and t&e la+ in colonial 6im(a(+e, >GD0=
>D$D< in 5o$rnal of So$thern African St$dies 2MP3 Qol. >H, 9R :.
0ildsc&ut, A. and Bul(ert, S. >DDG A seed not so&n: %ros%ects for agrarian reform in So$th Africa 2Sout& A*rica!
Lerman Agro Action, 8nter*und and t&e 9ational Land Committee3 mimeo.
0orld Ban5 >DD0 World develo%ment re%ort 2O%*ord! O%*ord Mni)ersity Jress *or t&e 0orld Ban53.
0orld Ban5 >DD> 'imbab&e: agric$lt$re sector memorand$m 20as&ington! 0orld Ban53 Qol 8 and 88, 9R D:2D.
0orld Ban5 >DD5 'imbab&e achieving shared gro&th: co$ntr! economic memorand$m 20as&ington! 0orld Ban53
Qol. 2.
?eros, J. 2002a "he %olitical econom! of civilisation: %easant(&or)ers in 'imbab&e and the neo(colonial &orld
2Mni)ersity o* London3 J&A -&esis.
?eros, J. 2002( ;6im(a(+e and t&e dilemmas o* t&e le*t< in Historical Materialism 2MP3 Qol. >0, 9R 2.
Notes
S 4%ecuti)e Airector o* t&e A*rican 8nstitute o* Agrarian Studies, Barare, 6im(a(+e. Be &as u(lis&ed se)eral +or5s related to t&e
land .uestion.
SS Ce)ised aer resented at t&e CLASCO Con*erence on 9e+ 0orld+ide Begemony. Alternati)es *or c&ange and social
mo)ements, Ba)ana, Cu(a.
> A recent collection o* essays entitled Aisaearing Jeasantries@ 2Bryceson, Pay and Mooij, 20003.
2 Semi#roletarianisation &as a longer re#SAJ &istory t&at is not +ell ac5no+ledged, and is indeed generalisa(le to A*rica 2Iirst,
>DG$K Co&en, >DD>K Mamdani, >DDH3 and t&e rest o* t&e eri&ery.
$ Mo/am(i.ue e%ects >00 +&ite 6im(a(+eans commercial *armers, +&ile >0 &a)e (een allocated :,000 &ectares in t&e Manica
ro)ince. A grou o* H$ +&ite 6im(a(+eans &ad re.uested :00,000 &ectares, (ut t&e go)ernment o* Mo/am(i.ue &as ut a ceiling
o* >,000 &ectares er indi)idual alication 2Aaily 9e+s, 20'0"'200>3.
: Aual citi/ens&i is not legal in 6im(a(+e, and ne+ amendments to tig&ten t&e la+ &a)e recently (een introduced, also generating
ro(lems around t&e citi/ens&i o* long standing Mo/am(icans and Mala+ian *arm +or5er migrants +&o &a)e not yet denounced
t&eir original citi/ens&i.
5 -&ese land si/es &a)e since undergone *urt&er reduction, e)en t&oug& t&ey still remain on t&e &ig& scale *or )ia(le commercial
*arming.
H -&at +as until t&e go)ernment o* 6im(a(+e ac.uired and redistri(uted around >0 million &ectares o* land to an estimated
250,000 &ouse&olds 2Moyo and Su5ume, 200:3. 8n addition, it ga/etted ma%imum *arm si/es er agro#ecological natural region t&at
o(literated t&e large *arm si/es.
" 8nter)ie+ +it& Andile Mng%itama.