Not Great Health News.
Before I posted last week's Blog, I had a medical review with my stomach oncologist. The surgeon who removed the burst appendix had to clean out my bowels and, in doing so, had discovered a couple of growths, the larger one of about three centimetres, which she removed along with some more of my bowel. Unfortunately, she decided to leave the smaller one. I must make it clear that the surgeon who did the emergency appendix operation was not the same one who did the removal of my stomach tumour three years ago. At my review with the original surgeon last week, he informed me the biopsy on this growth had proven it malignant, and my original stomach cancer, as my prostate cancer earlier, had returned.
The good news, although malignant, was that at least up to now, it appeared by action not to be highly aggressive, having taken three years to get to this stage. He recommended no treatment as it may well take time to develop. As Rozanne attended the review, we both gathered he would have preferred the two lumps to be removed. We discussed my situation at length, and although he is recommending no further intervention at this stage, he has, by protocol, referred my case to a review panel to discuss all options, including possible treatments. I have learned that all action on cancer here is done by consensus through a panel of oncologists. Therefore, any action, although carried out by one medical practitioner, is done under the recommendation of more than one specialist. Referring to the speed of growth since my original operation, if no immediate action is taken, it could possibly take six years, if I am lucky before it requires surgical or radiation intervention. He said this, I think, to cheer us up as my medical news has been continually bad recently. As we now well know, with cancer, there are no certainties. If it is six years, that is a long time in my present life scale. The added good news was my PSA number was almost still zero, which is negligible. While it remains there, it will also continue to be a wait-and-see. For each and every treatment, your consent is sought. One day, there may be some hard choices to be made. Meanwhile, I am back in the garden, pruning my roses.
The Macabre ‘I Wish’ SpreadSheet.
Now, for what some will call a macabre outlook. As many of my friends know, my early lifestyle and actions indicated I may not have reached old age. I know that on reaching fifty and then surprisingly sixty, most of my friends were astounded. Joe Whaley and Alistair Smith, especially. Both travelled to Zambia to attend my sixtieth as it was considered a major demonstration of life against the odds.
“I am proof that living your life to its limits does not necessarily shorten it; however, it may make it more enjoyable. Most people with regrets in how they led their life are about not doing something rather than doing it.” - Peter McSporran
When we lost the farms, I had little money to support myself or to give my daughters’ much financial support, both studying in Cape Town. Shortly after losing the farms, I met Rozanne and did something I vowed I would not do again, which was to get married. After that with Rozanne’s skill in accounting, not only did we have a business budget but also started working on a personal budget. Forecasting the latter into both retirement and my death, including Rozanne's retirement, was and still is not an easy task. I did not and would not put a prediction on Rozanne’s life span that remains open-ended. But I have on my own.
Having lost the farms, which were our home, along with our pensions due to devaluation, we had to rethink about funding our retirement, not just our present-day living. A million-dollar pension by 2010 was worth less than a crate of beer, while much of our cash resources were paid out to our workers under Statutory Instrument 6 (SI6) to ensure we owed the workers nothing while it further impoverished us farmers. I left for Zambia with very little except for some farm equipment we took across the border, I say legally.
"What is legal in a state that takes your land, business and home? If you resist, the thugs or, just as often, the police intervene in enforcing the illegal action. It becomes hard to define what is legal with no 'rule of law' within that state. As those that remain there know, survival takes precedence over legal."- Peter McSporran.
I called this forecast spreadsheet ‘I Wish.’ The four unknowns in this spreadsheet were our projected income, when I would have to stop working, our expenditure, and finally, my death, by which time my remaining balance should be enough for Rozanne to live out her life. She claims if need be, she will return to work. Our income was governed by our diligence while working as long as I could, certainly beyond normal retirement age. I could estimate our expenditure from living in Zambia, which is not the cheapest country in the world; income and time were the biggest unknowns. Hence, our search for a cheap retirement country with a good health service, which by circumstance would mean leaving our friends behind, for me, for the third time in my life.
The one greatest imponderable was forecasting when I would die. It has always been a great fear of mine to have a stroke or get dementia, greater than death. Like many, my preferred death would be in my sleep.
“ As we get older, we seem to lose our fear of death. Despite this, many of us just do not want it to happen today. The other big fear is running out of money before you die.” - Peter McSporran
I can tell you I have lived beyond my original predictions on my ‘I Wish’ spreadsheet and, therefore, feel grateful for the fact that we were and are conservative in our needs. When I ponder this, I must admit it is rather macabre trying to predict your definitive lifespan.
The True Nature of the Land Issue.
In the early part of 1993, following the first round of land designations for resettlement, it was agreed that all future land designated would be approved by local land committees consisting of government, local government representatives, farmers and CFU representatives. This included technocrats from government departments and ourselves to ensure the land put forward would fall under the said agreed criteria. This was a negotiated stance and made good sense we thought to all parties.
But in late April 1993, a new list was published, with many of the properties on that list being highly productive farms never even discussed by the local land committees, let alone identified for resettlement. It was obvious from the new list it was now a political action further motivated by personal greed and self-interest within the hierarchy of ZANU-PF. By this time, ZANU-PF and the state apparatus were almost fully integrated. There was little difference between elected politicians and civil servants, especially at the senior level. Most being were political appointees with a large touch of nepotism. Many of the older bureaucrats, including the secretariat at the Minister of Agriculture, voiced their ignorance and dismay. As I was and could still call the previous permanent secretary and then deputy permanent secretary friends, I took this as the truth. It was a signal to us, despite the earlier listings, that logic and the economy were no longer rational considerations in what the Government would do next in regard to land. The sad thing was that most area committees, in their search for vacant or underutilised land, soon identified the state as the largest landholder of underutilised and even abandoned land. This was especially in the southern half of the country and the Northeast, where just prior to the end of the war or immediately post-independence, farmers had resettled in what at the time was described as areas they would not be disturbed in the future. This lie was laid bare by some of my friends, the Eastwoods; having been in the army with Jeremy, being on the list. The Eastwoods who had been moved from Mtoko to the Darwendale/Banket area found themselves on the latest list. Others on buying their farms had received ‘Notices of No Present Interest’ as required by law when purchasing land. This allowed the Government to have the first option to buy, which they invariably turned down only to designate shortly after.
As I say, the new script ignored all the logic in land purchase for resettlement, although the actual resettlement had been, to date, a disaster. The government had neither the expertise to identify farmers for resettlement nor the technical support required, the human resources for its administrations, and most importantly, the funds to carry out successful resettlement. Many of us had now become aware the land was more about political expediency than righting historical wrongs or resettlement. First, it was to garner favour amongst the political heavyweight minions in the party to prop up Mugabe's regime; later, it would be the war veterans, and finally, political survivor of the party by buying the rural vote with promises of land for all. During my time, it was the first stage of this process, and throughout my term, we managed to keep a cap on it using the economy and the law as the main defence. That would all end on Black Friday 1997 during my succesors time in office when Mugabe single-handedly crashed the economy therefore removing it as a lever. It should be said that some thought it was in retaliation for the British removing funding for land purchases. Not surprisingly, the British did not like their money being used for the benefit of the ‘chefs’ rather than the country as a whole. The one certain truth is appeasement would have never resolved the issue.
Anthony sought an urgent meeting with the state President to seek clarification. You can imagine none of his minions, including Ministers, could give a definitive reason for a change in the protocols in land identification suitable for resettlement. It would take four months to get an audience with Mugabe, which I will tell you about in a couple of weeks’ time. Now, it was a question of contesting these designations, with some cases ending up in the courts to try and set conditions precedent. Adrian de Bourbon was the advocate chosen to lead the challenges.
In May, Anthony, myself and the Deputy Director, Dr Jerry Grant, were set to be attendees at the Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU) annual meeting to be held in Namibia. SACAU is a regional farmer's organisation representing the common interests of organised agriculture in the Southern African Development Community countries. Anthony was thinking of remaining behind to help in the appeals, but as the meeting was only a few days, and partly included the weekend, he decided to go to let others know the plight of Zimbabwean farmers. The ironic thing is that those farmers not involved in the land designations were going through their ‘Golden Years’ of success not seen since post-Second World War. None of us guessed the magnitude of things to come, surely the health of the economy would have precedence over land confiscation.
Disclaimer: Copyright Peter McSporran. The content in this blog represents my personal views and does not reflect corporate entities.
Another great lesson on Zimbabwe. Harry Lauder might teach us all to “keep right on!” Get well