Land, History, and the Zimbabwe Narrative: A Deep Dive into Africa's Farming Crisis

The conversation around land ownership and agricultural productivity in Africa is as complex as it is emotionally charged. Using Zimbabwe as a powerful case study, this analysis dissects the historical roots of land inequality, the disastrous execution of post-independence land reforms, and the persistent, harmful myths surrounding Black farmers.

The recent return of white farmer Robert Smart to his land in Zimbabwe, met with jubilation from the local community, is a powerful visual that seems to validate one side of the argument: that white farmers are indispensable to the continent’s food security and economy. However, as we peel back the layers of history, the narrative shifts from a simple matter of productivity to a profound question of justice, systemic failure, and the legacy of colonialism.

The Stolen Soil: A Look at Colonial Land Injustice

To understand the land crisis, one must go back to the 1890s, when Cecil John Rhodes and the British colonizers violently invaded and took over the fertile lands of what would become Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia).

Violent Displacement: The indigenous Shona and Ndebele people were violently displaced from their ancestral homes.
The Land Apportionment Act (1930): This legally reserved 50-51% of the most fertile land for a mere 5% of the white settler population. The remaining 95% of the indigenous population was pushed onto “Native Reserves” with poor soil and low rainfall, ensuring massive inequality.
Independence in 1980: By the time of independence, approximately 4,500 white settlers owned 70% of Zimbabwe’s arable land. This massive disparity—a direct result of legalized land theft—set the stage for future conflict.

The Lancaster House Agreement and the Betrayal of the War Veterans

The transition to independence in 1980 was governed by the Lancaster House Agreement (1979). This agreement, a painful compromise, prohibited the new Zimbabwean government from forcefully taking white-owned land for the first ten years.

Willing Buyer, Willing Seller: Land redistribution was to be funded by Britain, operating on a “willing buyer, willing seller” basis. While initially leading to the redistribution of 3.5 million hectares, this system proved inadequate.
The Flaw in Redistribution: Only 20% of the fertile land was ever redistributed through this process. More crucially, a significant portion of the land that was acquired ended up in the hands of President Robert Mugabe’s Black elite friends and inner circle, rather than the war veterans and landless rural masses who had fought for independence. This early act of betrayal fueled widespread resentment.

The Land Reform Agenda: Revolutionary Principle, Disastrous Execution

As President Mugabe’s popularity declined around the year 2000, he needed a political lifeline. He weaponized the deep-seated land grievance, encouraging war veterans to violently invade and seize white-owned farms—the infamous Fast-Track Land Reform Program.

A Win for Decolonization? For many, this was a moment of dignity and empowerment. Roughly 30% of Zimbabwe’s land was redistributed to Black people, fulfilling the promise of taking back stolen ancestral soil.
Disastrous Execution: The process was chaotic, unplanned, and violent, resulting in:
- Massive Job Loss: The farms employed over 350,000 to 400,000 people, representing nearly 20% of the population’s livelihood, which were instantly lost.
- Lack of Infrastructure: The government failed to provide the necessary support—loans, tools, training, or a robust export infrastructure—to the new Black farmers.
- Elite Capture: Even during the chaotic seizures, Mugabe’s political and military elite (like Emerson Mnangagwa) captured the best, most prime tracts of land, again bypassing the poor and landless.
- Economic Collapse: Sanctions, hyperinflation (leading to the infamous wheelbarrow-full-of-cash joke for a loaf of bread), and a crippling food security crisis followed.
  
  Advertisement

Note: In 2020, Zimbabwe agreed to pay $3.5 billion in compensation to the disposed white farmers. Crucially, this is not for the land itself, but for the improvements and infrastructure on the land. This compensation deal remains highly controversial, with many questioning the ethical basis of paying for improvements on stolen property.

Demystifying the Myth of the “Lazy Black Farmer”

One of the most insidious and long-standing colonial narratives is that Black farmers are lazy and incapable of farming successfully without white supervision. This claim is fundamentally false and ignores history:

Generational Knowledge: Black people in Zimbabwe (Shona and Ndebele) and across Africa were successful farmers for millennia before colonization, using advanced techniques like intercropping, terracing, and crop rotation to sustain themselves.
The Real Backbone of Success: While 4,500 white farmers produced up to 90% of Zimbabwe’s food and massive export revenue (e.g., $700 million/year from tobacco), they were the supervisors and beneficiaries. The actual labor—the grueling work that made the farms successful—was done by the 350,000 to 400,000 poorly paid Black farm workers, often earning as little as $20–$30 USD per month.
Unequal Playing Field: Black farmers who succeeded, like George Tawangua Sr., often struggled to compete because:
- White farmers received massive state support, free land, tax breaks, and equipment loans from their respective colonial and post-colonial governments.
- Their land holdings were vast (e.g., the 12,000-hectare Mount Camel farm) compared to the small plots of Black farmers.
- To compare the yield of a person farming with bare hands to one farming with tractors and state-backed loans is disingenuous.

The core issue is not a deficit in Black farming capability, but the existence of systems designed to starve one while feeding the other—systems that were not replaced by the post-independence government.

The Irony of Neighbors: Zambia and Mozambique

The flight of successful white farmers from Zimbabwe following the land invasions led to an unexpected boom in neighboring countries like Zambia and Mozambique.

Transfer of Expertise: These countries were accommodating, providing land and support to the displaced farmers.
Measurable Impact: In Zambia, white farmers’ contributions helped maize production jump from 60,000 metric tons per year in 2009 to an average of 300,000 to 420,000 metric tons per year.

This success in new lands proves that the problem was not simply the presence of white farmers in Zimbabwe, but the destructive, violent manner of their eviction and, critically, the failure of the Zimbabwean government to establish a functioning, replacement system that favored the new Black landholders.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The conversation must move beyond the false dichotomy of “lazy Black people” vs. “savior white farmers.” The true enemy is the system of land injustice and the systemic failure of African elites to redistribute resources fairly after independence.

The key questions for the future are:

Systemic Replacement: How can African nations build new, functioning agricultural support systems (access to capital, modern equipment, market access, and infrastructure) that specifically favor and empower small-scale and commercial Black farmers?
Addressing Elite Capture: How can nations ensure that genuine land reform benefits the poor and landless masses, not just the political and military elite?
Historical Reckoning: Are white farmers and their ancestral governments willing to acknowledge the foundational fact that the land was stolen, which would provide a basis for genuine reconciliation and less contentious discussions on compensation?

The potential of Zimbabwe—and Africa—as a global breadbasket remains immense. Realizing that potential requires honest conversation, equitable policies, and a commitment to justice that transcends political expediency.