Following last week's blog, Tim Henwood, president of the CFU from 1999 to 2001, who is now a resident in Australia, corrected me on the return of Nick Swanepoel to the presidency of the CFU within a year of standing down. Tim and I are part of an informal chat come advisory group known for no real good reason as the PPG (Past Presidents Group). We have been involved through advice and lobbying to get the CFU back within its own constitution. We have no constitutional or legal standing vested in us, as I say it is informal. We certainly cannot claim or have any mandate. Most of the past presidents, along with a couple of ex-senior staff members and voluntary professional advisors, are part of the group.
For obvious reasons, those past presidents close to or involved in promoting the legally defunct Global Compensation Deed (GCD) are not part of it. The GCD, even when it was instigated with a promise of a cash settlement, we saw as a legally flawed agreement, as did the CFU’s own legal advisors. We do not mind dissent between ourselves within the group. As a group, following inclusive discussion of all our views and others, including heeding the Title Deed Holders (TDHs), with professional legal opinion when required, we come to a consensus on what we will or will not support or for that matter, actively oppose. Obviously, being informal what we say need not be heeded, we just hope good sense prevails. Our opposition is normally in the form of discussion to let others understand our position or by lobbying, the latter not so much as we are scattered far and wide around the globe. It should be said the most active members remain in Zimbabwe. We certainly do not want to be involved in the running of the CFU; we only try to ensure it sticks to its constitution as the world sees it as the voice for active farmers and those that have lost their land, the TDHs. Personally, I am glad to see the recent changes within the CFU and their efforts to listen to all. That is to work by consensus rather than by discord and division. Until recently, it seemed that some of those who had influence over the CFU, amongst them, not the least the Government, were intent on creating division within the TDHs.
Well, that was a big diversion from my correction. Let me get back to that. Tim informed me that Nick was asked back by the CFU council, not by his own or other influence or instigation. Tim was Bob Swift’s vice president at that time and, by his own admission, felt he was not yet ready to take up the presidency of the union. There then followed a vote of no confidence in Bob as some felt he had lost all communication with the Government and, further, he had been irresponsible in travelling on a World Bank-sponsored trip to Brazil in the middle of the escalating land crisis. No doubt emotions were running high, and reason and blame would have to be hung somewhere. Part of the CFU’s strength was the set time rotation of its presidents, always new faces, which disallowed complacency in office and brought new ideas to the organisation. I will return to this subject at the appropriate timeline in my blog; suffice to say that at that time, I was personally receiving threatening phone calls from Bredenkamp to take a more appeasing line when talking about the land issue when I was asked my opinion. I had written an article in The Farmer about this time stating that what the Government was doing and planning to do was a form of ethnic cleansing of whites from the land. My reticence to change my view soon transformed these threatening calls into one-way tirades until I put the phone down. Was he also under pressure, or did he make promises to the higher office Bredenkamp could not fulfil? He even had Patrick Mavros make a few late-night calls to ensure he got through to me when I refused to listen. I could never understand why Mavros was acting as his backup voice piece. Tim now tells me Mavros had also contacted him. recently Patrick posted a blog on his life stories, it would be interesting for him to tell us his side ofthe story at that time. As for Bredenkamp, his businesses
thrived on government contracts, so self-interest is the motivation here, I do think. Comments welcome.
Let's go back once more to 1994. In January 1994, we, the CFU office bearers, were given sight of the findings of the Land Tenure Commission, chaired by Professor Mandi Rukuni. This was a commission constituted by the President himself to look into land tenure and recommend what was required to improve its use and productivity, especially by the smallholders and, more importantly, the resettlement farmers. One of the recommendations was the importance of security of the land to the farmer, and the ‘new farmers’ should be given a subdivision leasehold title for ten years with the right to purchase. Even more surprising, they said, was the need for freehold tenure in the communal areas and recommended that farmers, or at least those with access to land in the communal areas, should have the possibility of freehold title. It was pointed out in our meeting that the authors of the report thought that without freehold, the small-scale sector in the traditional tribal lands would not be able to develop their land for personal wealth creation, nor would they be able to raise funds to farm let alone to develop that land. Further, it stated that the land resettlement program was grossly underfunded and that the procurement of land, the process of which was now very confusing, should be regularised by proper process. This report came out in October of that year, and Rukuni and his team generally stuck to their findings in their final report preparation. Needless to say, later that year, the Government passed an Act that stated that land would no longer
need to be compensated for.
It should have been obvious to those involved in identifying and confiscating land, including the state president, the dire consequences of removing the title from land, that is, its value, especially productive farms, the Government's definition of which was elusive. Without legal and identifiable title or, at the very least, subdivision leasehold, any community resettlement farm program would be doomed to failure. Without the required funding and technical support, productive farms soon became unproductive, and those deemed unproductive now were good examples of what unproductive really looked like.
So many times over the years, I have seen community or joint-owned projects fail. Some projects may work while sponsor oversight is in place, but except for a few exceptions, they all fail. Africa is littered with failed agricultural projects due to governments and funders ignoring past lessons.
In Zimbabwe, by that time, we were already witnessing the destruction of the infrastructure or, at the very best, the breakdown and deterioration of the infrastructure of what were once viable farming enterprises. Becoming poverty traps for the new non-owners. Without ownership, there is no accountability. None of those resettled had a formal identity, let alone title to secure the security of the land allocated to them. Their only security was at the whim of a government bureaucrat or party minion. No surprise, Rukuni’s recommendations would be ignored. Now, due to any structured process, the chefs began fighting over the prime properties already obtained. This behaviour was whetting the appetite for that yet once again poorly defined group, ‘the war veterans’. Land reform was fast becoming a politically motivated action of expediency rather than planned reform. Despite this, we at the CFU were continually being consoled by ministers that the exercise had its parameters. The truth was with currency restrictions and the market for land depressed, we had little alternative but to keep farming. Therefore, we farmers and the business community got on with our jobs, farming, processing, manufacturing and further developing our enterprises.
Still, we lived in hope that sense would prevail.
As is often proved, ‘preserving in hope’ is not always the most sensible plan for guaranteeing your future. In saying that, it is often the last resource without the power or means to change circumstances.” - Peter McSporran
Finally, I have just learnt of the passing of Rob Beverely, a lowveld legend, rancher, and author who did much for his fellow farmers of all races. Goodbye, Rob, and my sincere condolences to his family.
Disclaimer: Copyright Peter McSporran. The content in this blog represents my personal views and does not reflect corporate entities.
Comments