ZIMBABWE: Why Britain fears Mugabe's land gamble

May 17, 2000
Issue 

The loud complaints from the British Labour government and hysterical coverage by the international capitalist mass media have given undeserved credibility to Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe's populist claims that he suddenly intends to "resolve" his country's unjust distribution of land, the legacy of Britain's brutal colonialism. The fevered communiques, the panicked headlines and the breathless BBC dispatches reflect imperialism's fears that Mugabe may not be able to control what he has unleashed.

Mugabe's state-sanctioned occupations of plantations owned by some wealthy white Zimbabweans began as a desperate pre-election ploy to revive fading support for the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) among the country's millions of land-hungry peasants.

Once the bedrock of ZANU-PF's support, the rural population's mass abstention in the constitutional referendum in February (and the sudden emergence of the popular labour-based opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change — MDC) starkly revealed just how cynical the peasantry has become towards Mugabe's on-again, off-again threats of radical land redistribution.

Shocked at the drubbing he received at the hands of MDC-aligned activists, and with a parliamentary election due before June, Mugabe realised that ZANU-PF needed to be seen to go beyond issuing more empty threats if it was to recapture the support of the sceptical peasantry.

The go-ahead for paid pro-government "war veterans" to occupy 1000 white-owned properties — accompanied by a crescendo of government race-baiting and "anti-imperialist" rhetoric — was given to create the impression that this time ZANU-PF was finally going to deliver.

Under the cover of the farm occupations, it is becoming increasingly apparent that Mugabe's hired thugs — organised and coordinated by members of the feared 5th Brigade presidential military guard — are more concerned with intimidating farm workers who might support the MDC, murdering and bashing MDC activists and obstructing the MDC's efforts to organise in rural areas than with mobilising peasants to carry out a genuine radical land reform (it is notable that the 30% of commercial farms owned by black capitalists, as well as those of prominent white supporters of ZANU-PF remain untouched).

Land

The land question remains key in Zimbabwean politics and the British government bears the responsibility for its unjust distribution.

In 1890, the British conquistador Cecil Rhodes and his 700 white settlers and armed mercenaries invaded what is now Zimbabwe. In 1893, the Ndebele people unsuccessfully fought back when they realised that they had been tricked.

Ndebele leader Lobengula had signed an agreement with Rhodes in 1889. Lobengula believed it only granted Rhodes' British South Africa Company mining rights. Rhodes interpretation was that the deal meant BSAC had effectively annexed Ndebele land. In 1896, the Ndebele joined forces with the majority Shona people in the first chimurenga (liberation war) but were bloodily defeated in 1897.

The process of stealing most of the prime agricultural land from the African people was rapid. Under the provisions of an 1889 British law, the BSAC paid the British government for the land rather than its true owners. In 1898, the British government passed a law that established the infamous native reserves, on the most unproductive land, into which the African people were herded. These areas today are the "communal areas" in which 1 million families struggle to make a living.

By 1914, white settlers — 3% of the population — controlled 75% of the most fertile land, while 97% of the population was restricted to the native reserves. Southern Rhodesia became an official British settler-colony in 1923. The 1930 Land Apportionment Act formalised the apartheid in land, excluding Africans from 50% of the country with the best farming land.

The brutal white minority regime of Ian Smith fought to the bitter end to maintain this situation. Throughout the 1970s, the Zimbabwean people fought a fierce war of liberation to regain their land and their right to rule their own country.

Before Zimbabwe's independence in 1980, Mugabe agreed with London that land redistribution must take place only if white farmers' land was obtained on the "willing seller-willing buyer" principle. This made radical land redistribution impossible.

For 20 years, Mugabe has stuck to his side of the bargain, despite his periodic populist threats to do otherwise. Fewer than 72,000 black families were resettled on redistributed land between 1980 and 1990, well below the target of 162,000. Since 1990, much of the redistributed land has not benefited poor Africans but capitalists and cronies well-connected to ZANU-PF and Mugabe.

Mugabe has no intention of fundamentally altering the pattern of land ownership in Zimbabwe in favour of the poor. ZANU-PF has maintained the status quo for 20 years, in an uneasy alliance with imperialism.

Britain's fears

What worries imperialism is not that Mugabe will carry out his threats — on every previous occasion he has privately backed down — but that the rural masses, having had their expectations raised by Mugabe's rhetoric, may refuse to obey Mugabe's almost inevitable order to demobilise. This may spark a genuine mass land reform movement that is outside ZANU-PF's control. Even more worrying for imperialism is that Mugabe's grandstanding could inspire similar movements in other parts of southern and east Africa.

British capitalists have extensive economic interests in southern and east Africa, and London maintains close political, economic and military ties with the region's ruling classes. The economic and political interests of both British imperialism and the local capitalist classes cannot be disentangled from the unjust distribution of land.

The dominance of large capitalist farms — usually in the hands of descendants of colonial settlers, but a growing proportion owned by "indigenous" capitalists — is a common feature throughout the region. Such land inequality is central to the structure of the capitalist economies that have evolved there, upon which the local capitalist classes that collaborate with imperialism derive their wealth.

The "willing seller-willing buyer" principle has stymied radical land reform in South Africa, Namibia and Kenya. Calls have been raised recently in each of these countries for the landless to follow the example of the Zimbabwean "war veterans". Such a development would send a shudder down the spine of the British ruling class.

A mass movement of the landless that successfully demanded that the "willing seller-willing buyer" principle — based as it is on guarantees against expropriation without compensation at market value — be abandoned would strike at the heart of imperialist interests.

This is why the British government's loudest demand is that Mugabe abide by the "rule of law". It is the rule of law throughout the region that prevents the restoration of the land to those from whom it was forcibly seized by white settlers.

According to figures from the British foreign office, British capitalists have a lot to lose in the region. In Zimbabwe — the second most industrialised country in the region after South Africa — more than 400 companies have British connections. Britain is the largest foreign investor, with around £350 million invested, and the second largest exporter to Zimbabwe. It is also one of the largest importers of Zimbabwean goods — much of it produce like tobaco from the commercial farms.

One gauge of how "anti-imperialist" Britain really considers the Mugabe regime to be is the fact that Britain is one of Zimbabwe's major military suppliers (on May 3, Britain announced all new export licences for arms and military equipment to Zimbabwe would be refused) and that a British military advisory and training team remains deployed there.

In Kenya, almost 80% of the population work on plantations that produce exports, including tea (the world's fourth largest producer) and coffee. Britain is the largest foreign investor. In 1998, combined trade between Britain and Kenya was £440 million. British investment and trade are similarly significant in Zambia, Botswana, Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda.

Britain's largest economic partner in the region is South Africa, with two-way trade worth £3 billion per year. Britain is South Africa's largest foreign investor (at more than £10 billion) and South African capitalists have significant investments in Britain.

Too reckless

Mugabe has become too politically reckless for imperialism. Despite Mugabe largely following the dictates of the Western powers and their financial institutions, they have never been comfortable with his regime's origins in the victory of a mass liberation struggle.

Mugabe's past role in the struggle gave him and his party a legitimacy that most neo-colonial Third World leaders lacked and thus greater political room to move. Mugabe's goal of developing a strong, independent local capitalist class (in partnership — even if it is somewhat tense — with the existing white establishment) has also put him at odds with the West and his powerful southern neighbour, South Africa.

Mugabe has often found himself caught between the West's demands for greater austerity and economic "liberalisation" and the expectations of the masses. To retain his struggle credentials, Mugabe must sometimes be seen to be responding to the people's complaints.

Until now, there has not been a political alternative in Zimbabwe with any real chance of replacing Mugabe, so the West has had to grin and bear ZANU-PF rule. With the rise of the MDC, led by moderate "social democrats" who have made it clear they will also abide by the West's economic institutions, and with Mugabe's and ZANU-PF's popularity at an unprecedented low (ironically because he has attempted to impose the austerity policies demanded by imperialism in 1997-98), Britain and the mass media no longer feel the need to disguise their hostility.

BY NORM DIXON

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.