All govts have got a moral and legal obligation to their citizens to implement “well-rounded” policies that fully explore the impact of any prospective policy on the respective country’s short and long term interests. Zimbabwe’s land “reform” policy is probably one of the worst thought out policies in Zimbabwe’s history. Here is why:
- A sitting gvt presides over a chaotic, lawless programme of land grabbing mainly as an instrument of power retention.
- It’s economy is mainly agro based.
- A significant number of the grabbed farms are protected by bilateral agreements with other countries, clearly precluding such conduct, with many others having been bought well after independence, with the state issuing certificates of no interest in the land.
- The gvt refuses to provide compensation, even for improvements, notwithstanding that this is provided for in the constitution.
- Almost immediately, there is a ripple effect as food production suffers, banks owed loans by the farmers collapse and people lose jobs in massive numbers – with the gvt’s revenue collection also suffering.
- Land immediately and inevitably loses it’s economic value as certainty of tenure vanishes and legal battles start in the courts.
- Meanwhile, also clearly foreseeable, the currency crumbles and economic confidence suffers.
- The violation of bilateral trade agreements inevitably leads to conflicts with the affected countries but more importantly, at an international level, it violates international trade agreements and engages significant multi-lateral international economic players such as the IMF & World Bank and insurance companies that are crucial in International Economic Law as they insure international business transactions. The Zim gvt appears not to know that even countries like China are significant stakeholders in this order.
At present, a lot of Zimbabweans are oblivious to the fact that the land question will never be resolved unless and until compensation is paid. You cannot wish Title and Mortgage Deeds away. You cannot wish the International Legal Framework away. The President of Zimbabwe trumpets the refusal to pay compensation as a badge of honour but at what cost to the country’s national interest?
- Does it make economic sense that if the compensation bill is approximately $4 billion dollars you then lose investment value of approximately $50 billion over 17 years all to make a political point?
- At the height of the land invasions, Tony Blair’s gvt refused to accept direct responsibility in relation to providing compensation. However, more importantly, the point that is missed by a lot of political and legal commentators is that it accepted providing funding to a programme “designed to alleviate poverty” via the UNDP and other funding partners. This was clearly a major climb down and would have delivered the task at hand.
- Tony Blair’s gvt was providing compensation but using a different term for political and legal reasons. Had this initiative been accepted, it would have led to the programme being adequately funded and avoided many of the economic and political outcomes we are now confronted with.
- As we stand today, those occupying farms in Zimbabwe are at the mercy of the political vagaries of the day. They only have possession for a limited period, predicated on their relevance and worth to the political order of the day. As they know very well, the “offer letters” they have are of no economic value. They cannot get credit to fund their operations on this basis.
- The above notwithstanding, politically sanctioned land invasions continue today and yet, the connection still appears not to be made between such policies and sanctions, lack of direct foreign investment (the “doubling down” of Indigenisation has worsened this) and the state of the economy.
- Whilst it is not in dispute that colonialists forcibly took land when they colonised Africa, the legal and political reality is that they went on and created a legal order that cannot be done away with now. If you behave as Zimbabwe has done and try to ignore or disregard the regime that they put in place, you simply create untold suffering for your people. There is no any other choice but to find a smart way of existing with this framework.
- This realisation is the reason why the current Minister of Finance is now engaging with the IMF. You simply cannot run away from them. The International Legal Order is interconnected. Even Dangote, Africa’s richest man will have to contend with paying massive insurance costs for his businesses to insure his business commitments in Zimbabwe if he wants to invest there.
