Accusatory Podcasts Instigate Public Dissent.
This week someone sent me a podcast with the chairman, Kevin Higgins of the Valuation Consortium (Valcon) in Zimbabwe, defending the organisation. The podcast title was Valcon’s Response to SAAI, following a podcast by the SAAI executive director, Theo De Jager, posted the previous week. I had not formerly watched Theo’s at this time. Of course, Kevin’s podcast prompted me to view it as the one he was responding to.
Interestingly to my non-Zimbabwean readers, both these organisations, SAAI and Valcon, claim to be seeking the same thing, fair compensation for the Zimbabwean farmers. They just cannot agree on who and how it should be achieved. Valcon, as I have written before, has done a wonderful job of identifying individual farms, their titles, improvements and their value, which have been recognised by the Government as being substantive. Valcon represents the interest of the farmers as a service organisation; although all costs to date have not been recovered, there is an agreement with their clients to receive a commission on success. No doubt a large incentive. Many farmers feel that it, now a signatory to the GCD (Global Compensation Deed), they have now incurred a conflict of interest. Why? Any settlement is likely to offer them a substantive reward, not necessarily the best for the farmer.
Meanwhile, SAAI now claims to have over nine hundred Zimbabwean Title Deed Holders (TDHs), which it is willing to support, not necessarily represent, in achieving fair compensation. With a no-winner fee, it claims membership is all that is required for their support of the farmers’ endeavours in pursuit of compensation, also allowing them to set precedents for future claims in South Africa.
The main reason I decided to listen to Kevin was that despite the podcast title, I have known him for many years, using his excellent services while actively farming in purchasing and selling cattle. He presently heads up CC Sales, whose core business is still cattle auctions. Someone I trust. Unfortunately, or fortunately, it was a very defensive statement despite this with some enlightening comments. It sparked my interest to the extent I downloaded Theo De Jagers's podcast, to which he was referring to. It is clear that while both parties declare a common purpose, they certainly disagree on the required process and methods to achieve the common goal, even the form of payment. Theo claimed a number of unsatisfactory outcomes in their dialogue or lack of dialogue, while Kevin defended their position and added some of his own disappointments and counterclaims. Basically, both accused each other of a lack of transparency and good faith. This is a classic example of counter-accusation and finger-pointing in public without a solution to resolving their differences, which the TDHs see as being very much to their detriment. Unless they can resolve it, including the Commercial Farmers Union (CFU), it will only ensure the divisions amongst us remain and remove any chance of benefit to us, the people they claim to represent.
Valcon is a service organisation required to be impartial other than representing us, their clients, in providing valuations and proof of ownership of our titled land and its improvements. They should not have been signatories of the GCD, but Kevin explained that the Government insisted on their signatories being on the Deed. A disingenuous move by the Government that should have been rejected. He went on to inform us that in doing so, he, along with the other members of the Compensation Steering Committee (CSC), was required to negotiate and present the offer by the Government for the land to the TDHs. In doing so, real or perceived, it now appeared the deal was an inclusive one being presented by the Government and the CSC. This a clear conflict, rather than a report back, it became a hard sell by some of the CSC members. By default, both in values and terms of payment, that is; bonds undermined the TDHs trust in the CSC and the integrity of the GCD. Valcon, as part of CSC, tarred with the same brush and therefore needs to regain the trust of those farmers that feel disfranchised.
“When trust is lost, perceptions gain more credibility than the truth.” - Peter McSporran
Meanwhile, as a South African organisation, SAAI, I am sure does not sit happily with many in representing us. They would rather have an ex-Zimbabwean farmer-led team to do that. Unfortunately, through the perceived support of the GCD and by recently renewing the mandate to the CSC, CFU has also lost credibility, even trust. Something many of us, including me as an ex-President, have trouble reconciling.
Unfortunately, the CFU’s recent actions have only consolidated this negative view. When we required strong leadership to represent us, we could not find it leading to the huge divisions that now exist amongst us and have now openly emerged in the podcasts between those parties claiming to represent us. This is an untenable position; the leadership of both entities must recognise it and see the resolution of their differences as a priority.
“Houses say it all. The TDHs need to be seen coming from under one roof, telling the same story. Not having opposing representatives offering different solutions, many unpalatable in the extreme. While we bicker, the Government is enjoying their sundowners.” - Peter McSporran.
As a personal suggestion, there are many other ideas; SAAI needs to form within its organisation, a representative formal group from its Zimbabwean TDH members with a mandate to negotiate for them led by a sub-committee elected by postal (electronic) vote. No other organisation can lay claim to representing nine hundred-odd title deed holders. Once this is done, then resolve the present divisions with all interested parties. Here I would exclude service providers, unmandated representatives or Government. They need to sit around the table, not for an hour or two, but for a number of days if necessary and resolve these differences, agree on a strategy going forward, even if it requires a referendum amongst the TDHs on formulating a substantive objective. First, we have to get our houses in order.
“Self-appointed, undemocratically mandated committees will not be seen as truly representing TDHs. Defensive or accusatory podcasts will not resolve the present differences, let alone the goal of compensation.” - Peter McSporran.
The Great Farmer Indaba.
It so happens in my life tale, I have got up to about 1991 when the first major divisions appeared in the commercial farming community. This was about the land issue way back then and how contentious a subject it was. Following an announcement of a new policy on land procurement, the farmers and their leaders within the CFU were filled with apprehension. Probably and with hindsight, rightly so. Despite the platitudes of the Government on the proposed changes to the Land Procurement Acts, both land identification and compensation would be solely in its hands. Compensation would be deemed as ‘fair’ with no definition of what fair meant. It felt like a willing buyer and willing seller, in regard to land, would be a thing of the past. The shortage of available land was being used as an excuse for the failure of the land redistribution program despite vast areas of land in the Government's hands lying idle or, even worse, full of informal settlements or politically connected benefactors.
To try and explain the implications and show solidarity amongst commercial farmers and outline the possible impact of the proposed changes, the President of the CFU, Alan Burl, decided to call a meeting of all farmers at the Harare Conference Centre on the 11th of January 1991. There was little notice given of this meeting, with its purpose not clearly defined or understood by many, not just farmers but also within the government. Many ex-presidents advised against it, but the council supporting their President decided to go ahead with it. Despite our misgivings, nearly every white commercial farmer attended; many of us attending just to show our solidarity.
The divisions or rather misgivings of the farmers were never openly displayed, but where they did appear was within Government first. Following this meeting, it appeared the Government land program was a great tool for garnering support for the militant factions within the ruling party, with the more moderate voices finding themselves in the minority. We had the steady heads, such as Chidzero, the Minister of Finance, saying the rule of law would be obeyed while the hot heads were saying the opposite. Even Joshua Nkomo seemed to be in the latter ranks; after all, he himself had just recently benefited from getting the largest property in the country, Nuanetsi Ranch, some eight hundred and sixty thousand hectares. Fingers would be pointed if others did not also benefit; after all, he wasn’t even ZANU but ZAPU.
So Mugabe played the hardliners and moderates against each other within his cabinet and the farmer's organisations against each other. Luckily, the level heads in the CFU and the other African Farmers’ Unions seemed to hold things together, while in Government, the greedy, corrupt and downright racist seemed to have the loudest voice and be the biggest benefactors in the new policy.
Would not having the Great Farmers Indaba, as it was known, have made a difference in resolving the land issue? I doubt not in hindsight, as political expediency overtook any policy, good or bad in regard to procuring land. Resettlement was to be forgotten in the future land grab, especially in appeasing the so-called war veterans. Whether legal or illegal, it all came under the banner of ‘Land Reform.’
With over four thousand farmers and their spouses attending, nearly all of the commercial farming community, it showed the vulnerability we were all feeling at that time and our solidarity behind the CFU. The vulnerability remains, but I am afraid the solidarity has gone.
Disclaimer: Copyright Peter McSporran. The content in this blog represents my personal views and does not reflect corporate entities.
댓글