Southern Africa and the Zimbabwean Crisis (2003-2006)

Comparative Study of Land Policies in the Freedom and Post-Freedom Struggle Constitutional Regimes.


In short

Initiated in 2003 by IFAS-Research and the London School of Economics and Political Science, this research programme is directed by internatinal relations specialist Prof. Chris Alden (London School of Economics and Political Science) and co-organised by agro-economist Dr Ward Anseeuw (CIRAD, University of Pretoria, FAO). The central theme of the programme places the nature of the present regime as a major determinant in understanding land policy elaboration process in Southern African states. The analysis aims to clarify the tensions between bureaucratic autonomy, neo-liberalism and the imperatives of neo-patrimonialism in the making of public-policies.

The results of this programme have been published in the book Land, Liberation and Compromise in Southern Africa (Alden C., Anseeuw W., 2009, Palgrave Macmillan).


Who?

This programme is the result of a partnership between IFAS-Research and the London School of Economics and Political Science, with the Institute for Global Dialogue, headed by Garth Le Pere, also participating as a partner.

The programme is directed by:

  • Specialist of international relations Prof. Chris Alden (London School of Economics and Political Science),
  • Agro-economist Dr Ward Anseeuw (CIRAD, University of Pretoria, FAO), and benefited from a post-doctoral six-month bursary in 2005.


Why?

Unlike many (if not most) policy issues in Southern Africa, the land crisis in Zimbabwe resonates deeply with the domestic populations of neighboring states, all of which have, at some point in their history, experienced land dispossession in favor of white commercial farming interests. As such, governments have had to tread with an unusual degree of care in managing the crisis, conscious of their domestic populations and the potential for opposition political parties to exploit foreign policy positions taken by the state. This interpretation, commonly found in scholarly analysis, has received considerable attention, particularly in explaining the tepid response of SADC countries. It has, in fact, often served as the rationale for the “quiet diplomacy” pursued by the South African government.

However, this interpretation of the regional response to the Zimbabwean crisis ignores significant anomalies in the conduct and policies of SADC states. For instance, despite their support for “constructive engagement” with Mugabe, the governments of Mozambique and Zambia were quick to invite white farmers for Zimbabwe to settle in their agricultural regions, providing considerable incentives to secure their presence. The government of Namibia, while initially upholding the position of white commercial farming in its own country through adherence to constitutionalism (within the framework of “willing buyer/willing seller”), has moved towards adopting an increasingly radical redistribution scheme in concert with its regional support for the Zimbabwean government’s programme. South Africa’s Government has famously prevaricated, pursuing dialogue with the Mugabe administration while imposing penalties upon the regime at a Commonwealth summit, at the very same time that it has maintained a market-oriented approach to land restitution and resettlement seen similar to Namibia and pre-1998 Zimbabwe.

The crisis in Zimbabwe, and the variegated responses by neighboring states, both in their domestic policies, their bilateral relations with Harare, and at SADC level, invites a number of key-questions:

  • To what extend is regime legitimacy in Southern African states based on the legacy of the liberation struggle?
  • How is nation-building, the defining task of post-independence regimes, linked to issues of identity and race?
  • What impact has the crisis had on the liberation era norms of solidarity and on decision-making at the regional level (SADC)?
  • What role do governing political parties play in shaping foreign policy on regional issues?
  • How have domestic influences, such as civil society and opposition political parties, influenced foreign policy, especially as promoters of new post-liberation norms in regional issues?

The central thesis of this project is that the nature of the regime is the key determinant for understanding decision making on regional issues at both the domestic and foreign policy level amongst Southern African states. It serves as the ideological font and source of domestic and regional legitimacy, shapes interaction and cooperation between governments, and situates the government in relation to the established regional norms of solidarity at the sub-system level.

The Zimbabwean crisis poses significant challenges to these established state and regional norms, derived from the liberation era, by pitting them against a range of post-liberation norms such as electoral democracy, human rights and adherence to a market-based economy. Furthermore, in addition to the sources of legitimacy of post-colonial regimes being questioned, the crisis highlights the conflicts between bureaucratic autonomy and the imperatives of neo-patrimonialism in the making of public-policies.

 

What?

The project is investigating the conduct of foreign and domestic policy, particularly in relation with land policies, towards the Zimbabwean crisis amongst four Southern African states. The analysis is framed by a typology of regimes – constitutional, liberation and post-liberation – which serves as the touchstone for analyzing decision-making processes, domestic and regional influences, and the relationship between government and society.

The four examined countries, South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and Mozambique, all share the following characteristics: they are geographically in proximity to Zimbabwe; they maintain substantive economic and infrastructural ties with Zimbabwe; they share a common historical legacy of colonial appropriation for white settler commercial use; they provided diplomatic if not material support to anti-colonial and anti-apartheid struggles upon independence; they are members of the Southern African Development Community and took part in its predecessor, the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference.


How?

The project is informed by qualitative and quantitative research done in the four selected countries. Since the project argues that the “regime” of Southern African independent states is inextricably intertwined with domestic and regional legitimacy, this project brings two major methodological consequences.

  1. The need for analyzing policy development and policy legitimacy. This implies analyses at national level (ie elites / political parties / government / national departments and policies), as well as at provincial and local levels (provincial and local institutions, effective policy implementation). 
  2. It leads to the apprehension of regional influences, relationships and cooperations between the Southern African States since the anti-colonial and the anti-apartheid struggle.

Both analyses, at national and international levels, will be achieved through:

  • extensive reviews of literature and policy documents; 
  • extensive examination of government and non-government documentation;
  • interviews with key elites and “stakeholders” within civil society;
  • surveys amongst communal farmers, commercial (white and black) farmers and farm workers.


Where?

Several fieldwork took place over 2004 and 2005 in the four examined countries:

  • South Africa: KwaZulu-Natal and North-West (stand of rural inhabitants compared with traditional authorities); Durban (research groups from the University of Kwa-Zulu-Natal).
  • Botswana: Kweneng district (land policies and social demands at local level).
  • Namibia: Ovamboland and Hereroland.
  • Mozambique (meeting with interlocutors at governmental and university levels and among NGOs working on land issues). 


Results

Preliminary results were shared and discussed through a series of events and publications:

  • A workshop on the 1st of December 2004, at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
  • An international colloquium, on 28-29 November 2005, at the University of Pretoria, entitled “the Changing Politics of Land in Africa: Domestic Policies, Crisis Management and Regional Norms”, sponsored by IFAS-Research, the London School of Economics and Political Science, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the University of Pretoria, CIRAD and the French Embassies of Pretoria, Maputo, Harare and Windhoek. Twenty-five papers, selected though an international review committee, covering land issues from 19 African countries, were presented, covering six themes: 1) Ethnic and indegenous land conflicts, 2) State building, post-conflict normalisation and elites, 3) Reconciling ‘traditionalism’ and ‘modernity’, insecurity, privatisation, marginalisation and minorities, 4) Urban land and tenure security, 5) Land use, resource management and conflicts, 6) Regional scopes of land conflicts and changing norms.
  • Publication of the book Land, Liberation and Compromise in Southern Africa (Alden C., Anseeuw W., 2009, Palgrave Macmillan), presenting the results of the research programme.
  • Publication of the book The Struggle over Land in Africa: Conflicts, Politics and Change (Anseeum W., Alden C. (Eds.), 2010, HSRC/IFAS-Research), as the proceedings of the international colloquium organized on November 28-29, 2005.