IN SEVERAL conversations with colleagues about the possible scenarios after the Presidential election results are announced in Zimbabwe, I have asked one question that has not been adequately answered or completely avoided.

The question is how would a new reformist government reconcile the preservation of the current popular and people-based land reform on the one hand and pressures from markets and political hegemons on the other to reverse the land reform and engage in a new round of pro-capital “transparent land reforms”?

Some of those I talk to respond by saying that what they need is a change of government and then they will deal with the matter later on, while others say that there is no way there can be a reversal of the land reforms. If that happens, then people would wedge a war.

My position is that there is no way that these two can be reconciled because they are two very different and adversarial positions at ideological level. We have to choose one or the other and it is the people themselves who are going to make that choice. Otherwise the third option is for people to start organising autonomously, to make sure that we will be ready to defend the people's ownership of land no matter who is in government. The most popular possibiility is that a new government will come into power, thus I will here look at why that government will sellout on land before concluding that as a result of that inevitable position we need some autonomous ideas to deal with the situation ahead

I will use “reformist government” to mean a government that is subjecting the country to violent and destructive economic structural adjustment programme (ESAP) disciplines of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

We must understand that the genesis of the current situation in Zimbabwe is the land reform programme which the Western countries opposed for several reasons. First, by embarking on the popular land reform programme, Zimbabwe challenged the privilege and superiority of the Anglo-Saxon establishment and Caucasians in general over Black people. The idea that fuels this position is that the former group is entitled to privileges over other peoples of the world.

Secondly, we must understand that land is the basis of capital and it is, therefore, important that capitalists own and control it since it is a central means of production. The underlying idea is that if people retain ownership of land then they would not have to heavily rely on food or products manufactured by big businesses. Also, people will not have to sell their labour at knockdown prices if they have an alternative means of livelihood.

People can also control the price of goods and products that they manufacture or grow to the detriment of the capitalist profiteering system that could be held at ransom by ordinary people who want to make a decent living.

Thirdly, if Zimbabwe were allowed to successfully undertake the land reforms then they would influence other countries in the region and the world where land ownership structure is skewed towards the Westerners.

Currently, Westerners have control of about 80 percent of resources although they constitute about 20 percent of the world population. Something that we also need to underline is that the struggles that Zimbabwe is undergoing are not exclusive but worldwide hence the solidarity it enjoys mainly in the developing world. The difference is the level and courage with which the Zimbabwe government decided to go in pushing for equity.

Granted, there might have been problems within the programme but this is inevitable in such huge undertakings. It is important that should the current government remain in office that they fix the weak areas. On the other hand, other governments have not dared challenge the Anglo-Saxon supremacy or they have simply been co-opted to this imperial liberalism order.

It is dangerous, therefore, for Zimbabweans to think that their problems are unique and more dangerous to imagine that the West is driven by benevolent considerations in ousting President Robert Mugabe. They do not care what President Mugabe does to Zimbabwe but rather what he is doing to thwart Western capital of a chance to take over business opportunities in Zimbabwe.

Fourth, the Western countries are opposed to indigenous ownership of land because there is an increased demand for land to grow crops for biofuels and fodder production.

International capital is looking for land to grab and turn it into the money spinning venture of growing crops for ethanol production. International capital will soon be colonising – not the old fashioned way – but through direct foreign investment many areas of the world even in developing world where FDI has been negligible, to get land to grow crops for biofuels, which pays handsomely compared to ordinary food markets or the grain marketing boards.

While many of us think we could see a new, bright era, I see a grim one which will leave us not only poor but without our own resources to exploit. The same grim scenario as in 1998 when we experienced food riots although we had full shelves and a reasonably steady economy.

The Western countries have said it many times and nowhere clearer than in the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 that for relations to normalise with Zimbabwe, the government needs to embark on a “transparent land reform”. In this case a transparent land reform would entail a programme that privileges foreign capital more than local small scale farmers and ordinary people.
The logic is informed by neoclassical economics which argues that foreign capital and markets deploy resources more efficiently for an optimum output.

Specifically, they would see themselves as in a better position in utilising land far much better than small scale farmers. This is not necessarily true as studies have shown that not only are these mechanised huge agribusinesses not inefficient in terms of input costs and output per unit but they also displace small farmers and throw people out of employment. African farmers are struggling on the international market mainly because of the huge agricultural subsidies the Western countries give to their farmers – about US$300 billion per year. In terms of comparative advantage African farmers have low production costs and higher yields per hectare than their Western counterparts.

Getting the Land

Since, the reformist government would be re-engaging the multilateral institutions and could obviously enjoy goodwill it will be forced into entering several schemes that constitute economic structural adjustment such as the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC) which facilitates a country receive debt forgiveness. This will also serve as the vehicle through which land reforms are reversed. For a country to qualify for HIPC it needs to have made deep structural changes to its economy.

The initial stage that triggers bits and pieces of debt relief based on the progress of implementing International Monetary Fund and World Bank’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers is called the decision point. And for a country to complete the HIPC process and get full debt forgiveness it needs to have reached what is called completion point. By the time a country reaches completion point it would have privatised, deregulated and liberalised itself to the bone! And most probably the debt would have risen substantially again. The PRSPs is a name given to the structural adjustment facility because the IMF replaced its Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility (ESAF) with the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility.

In essence this is ESAP in another name. As stated by the US government in the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 that there will not be funds released to Zimbabwe or debt forgiven extended without a “transparent land reform”. The IMF and World Bank would therefore make this a prerequisite for borrowing money to Zimbabwe. So Zimbabweans will be faced with a choice whether to keep their land or surrender it to market forces in return for aid.

Supposing that Zimbabwe would reach completion point, still a country would have already started getting into another round of debt. So it is not really debt relief, but its access to getting more debt while at the same time selling off the country.

In order to avoid direct confrontation with people over land, and to facilitate a “transparent land reform” the reformist government will device indirect ways of getting the land. One way is to engage in a campaign to convince people that they do not know how to farm commercially (even if we do not need to all farm commercially) and therefore they should let those who have the capital to do so. And it is those foreigners and local elites who have the money.

Either the reformist government could legislate a law to take off all those people deemed unable to farm after high technical standards have been set such as having a mechanised farm. The reformist government could privatise current landholdings thereby placing land as a tradable commodity in the market. In that way, many of the current landowners can be enticed by what may seem sweet deals to sell their lands.

Many times the money paid is neither good enough nor able to sustain a livelihood over a long period of time, considering also that we would be entering into an era whereby almost everything is privatised and for sale. Food is going up, education would be more expensive, so would healthcare and other programmes.
I have shown the scenarios that will drive the new market led so-called transparent land reform that could benefit foreign capital and the privileged elite at the expense of ordinary people. The reformist government would not have to use absolute brutal force to reverse land reforms rather it can use several economic instruments such as the schemes I mentioned above. But that does not mean that the reformist government will not use brute force, it will and it is necessary when applying structural adjustment programmes.

Good examples of this are the often cited Asian Tigers that used US backed dictators such as Indonesia’s Suharto and governments (such as South Korea) to implement and enforce economic structural adjustments. In other words, the reverse land reform could happen in Zimbabwe but it would be done within the context of the structural adjustment programme. My colleagues seem not to have considered this strategy. They do not know what awaits them. They will be frustrated and even devastated to realise the same problems we face now coming in a different way. This, to me demonstrates where the real battles lie: international capital, the hegemonic US and UK interests and global governance institutions such as the World Bank and the, IMF.

Thus the only way to protect the people's interests will be to organise now. It would also seem that horizontalism is the most effective way of organising against oppression.

Kuthula Matshazi is a Zimbabwe journalist and a member of ZiPAN. He hosts African Perspective, a current affairs programme on CHRY Radio Station in Toronto, Canada. He can be contacted at kuthulamatshazi@yahoo.co.uk