Jocelyn Alexander

Wildlife and politics: CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe.

CAMPFIRE programmes have been hailed internationally for the innovative ways in which they have sought to confront the challenges of some of Africa’s most marginal regions through the promotion of local control over wildlife management. In Zimbabwe, CAMPFIRE has been cast as an antidote to the colonial legacy of technocratic and authoritarian development which had undermined people’s control over their environment and criminalized their use of game. This article explores why such a potentially positive programme went so badly wrong in the case of Nkayi and Lupane districts, raising points of wider significance for comparable initiatives. Local histories and institutional politics need careful examination. The first part of the article thus investigates the historical forces which shaped attitudes to game, while the second part considers the powerful institutional and economic forces which conspired to sideline these historically formed local views. CAMPFIRE in Nkayi and Lupane was further shaped by the legacies of post‐independence state violence in this region, and the failure of earlier wildlife projects. This range of factors combined to create deep distrust of CAMPFIRE, and quickly led to open confrontation.

State, peasantry and resettlement in Zimbabwe

The end of minority rule in Zimbabwe seemed to herald dramatic changes in agrarian and local government policies, as well as in official attitudes towards the rural areas more generally: the newly elected ZANU(PF) government promised a dramatic decentralisation and democratisation of government structures and a large scale redistribution of land. This article assesses the extent to which the promises of independence were met. It stresses the importance of the political context of debates over agrarian change — the constraints of a negotiated independence, the political clout of commercial farmers, the ruling partys own political agenda and economic interests — and focuses on change in the institutional forums in which debate took place, particularly the extent to which the inherited ideologies and practices of the state bureaucracies charged with formulating and implementing agrarian policies were transformed by decentralisation and majority rule.

An overview of Fast Track Land Reform in Zimbabwe: editorial introduction

Events in the last decade around the land question in Zimbabwe and the broader political context in which they have played out have been dramatic and transformational. Sparked by land occupations (locally referred to as jambanja meaning ‘violence’ or ‘angry argument’), and involving contested land expropriation and violent episodes, the process has not surprisingly proved contentious among policy-makers and commentators, nationally and internationally, and among all those who have sought to explain, justify or criticise it. With few exceptions, those who have engaged in writing or political rhetoric have tended to take positions on one or other end of the spectrum in what has been a highly polarised debate, between welcoming a reversal of a racial distribution of land – some of them bewailing the manner of implementation and its distorting of the state – and those who condemn the end, in principle, as well as the means. The fervour surrounding these dramatic events and their explanation was vastly heightened, as well as being framed by, a massively debilitating economic crisis. This was marked by a world record hyperinflation, for the moment resolved, and by a vast shrinkage in GDP. Debate continues as to what extent the overall economic meltdown was caused by or generated declines in post-land reform production or whether and how these processes interacted (see Davies 2005; Mamdani 2008; Scoones et al. 2010; UNDP 2008 for different positions in this debate). The political context was no less dramatic and transformational. A nationalist party, Zimbabwe African National UnionPatriotic Front (ZANU-PF ), dominant for 20 years was seriously challenged for the first time by a new party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), and reacted with a string of repressive laws and actions. These events also arguably shaped and were shaped by the land reform; one view explored below (Alexander 2006) is that repressive mechanisms were a requirement of enacting FTLRTP. The very intensity of the debates and the widespread international interest in these events make a strong case for more careful and detailed analysis of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) without preconceived conclusions. The passage of eleven years since the FTLRP began to be implemented is another trenchant reason to review these processes. The emergence of a range of studies into what has transpired over a lengthy period provides a ‘reality check’ and an opportunity to extend debates beyond policy prescriptions and their initial implementation to an assessment of what has actually been happening on the ground as a result of the land redistribution that occurred in the early 2000s. The present collection, while rehearsing past events and identifying the social and The Journal of Peasant Studies Vol. 38, No. 5, December 2011, 907–938

Dissident perspectives on Zimbabwe's post-Independence war

A much neglected perspective on Zimbabwes post-independence war is that held by its insurgents, the so-called dissidents. The experience of dissidents has been little explored, in part because of the difficulty of doing so until recently but also because scholars and journalists have analysed post-1980 violence in terms primarily of the political interests of Zapu and Zanu-PF, Zimbabwes dominant nationalist parties, or the South African state. These often partisan accounts have portrayed conflict as the product of an ill-judged bid on the part of Zapu to claim the victory it had failed to gain through the ballot box,(1) as a cynical attempt by Zanu-PF to use the incidence of violence in the early 1980s as a pretext for crushing the only real obstacle to its total supremacy (Nkomo, 1984; Spring, 1986) and/or as an attempt by South Africa to exploit tensions between Zanu-PF and Zapu, whites and blacks, so as to leave its newly independent neighbour in disarray (e.g. Martin and Johnson, 1986; Hanlon, 1986a, b; Engel, 1994). Alternative accounts, largely from human rights groups, have focused on civilian experiences of violence and repression.(2) In a class of its own in terms of method and the insights it offers is Richard Werbners anthropological study (1991) of one extended familys experience of both the post-independence conflict and the preceding guerrilla war. But none of these accounts has sought to explore the motives, goals and organisation of the dissidents themselves.(3) The hows and whys of the turn to war have thus remained obscured. Focusing on the perspectives of the dissidents allows a substantial reinterpretation of the war. Though their views are often as partisan as those of their detractors, they remain valuable for the light they throw not only on the wars origins and escalation but also on the meanings and legacies of violence. On the basis of interviews with former dissidents, all of whom had fought in Zapus armed wing, Zipra, in the liberation war of the 1970s,(4) I shall argue that their return to arms was primarily a result of distrust within and then repression by the newly formed Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA). I shall argue that dissidents had neither political leaders nor political support but that the majority nonetheless maintained their loyalty to Zapu and tenaciously clung to their liberation war identity as Zipra guerrillas, thereby helping to contain South Africas destabilisation efforts and making the wars rapid conclusion possible. In the vacuum of both leadership and political ideology, interaction with regional shrines proved important to dissidents and, after the war, would remain one of the few avenues for seeking to call national political leaders to account and easing reintegration into communities. Below, I set out the context of conflict in Zimbabwes first years of independence before turning to the views of dissidents themselves. The sequence of violence which followed Zimbabwes independence built on the historical accidents of recruitment patterns in the liberation war, the nature of the two guerrilla armies, and the history of animosity and distrust between Zapu and Zanu-PF and their respective armed wings, Zipra and Zanla. The two guerrilla armies had, over the course of the 1970s, developed regional areas of operation and recruitment which left them dominated by different language groups: Zipra by Ndebele and Zanla by Shona. After independence these operational areas continued to carry weight in terms of political loyalty. Voting largely, though not completely, followed ethnic and regional divisions, creating the possibility of conflict along those lines (see Cliffe et al., 1980). In addition, at the time of the cease-fire in December 1979, a significant disparity existed between the Zanla and Zipra forces: Zipra had developed a conventional capacity which included air, tank and regular units (Dabengwa, 1995; Brickhill, 1995). These forces had not yet been deployed within the country. …

The unsettled land: the politics of land redistribution in Matabeleland, 1980–1990

Since independence, the question of land redistribution has been central to Zimbabwes rural politics. Scant attention has, however, been paid to the western Matabeleland Provinces. This paper takes Insiza District as a case study to illustrate the atypical experience of the region. In 1980 and 1981, relatively few people moved from communal areas to the formerly European areas, reflecting a locally perceived shortage of grazing land and the dearth of abandoned ranches. Subsequently, conflict between ZAPU and ZANU‐PF led to severe military and political repression. The ZANU‐PF dominated government interpreted local demands as subversive and prevented the development of patron‐client relationships with national ZAPU politicians. Resettlement land acquired by the state in the mid‐1980s, often as a result of dissident attacks and drought, was frequently used by ranchers, civil servants and parastatals. Communal area cattle owners, under severe pressure from drought, used encroachment tactics to gain access t...

Death and disease in Zimbabwe's prisons

Jocelyn Alexander spoke to former prisoners and former and serving prison officers about the precarious conditions inside Zimbabwes prisons, where iliness and death are regular occurrences.

Introduction: Politics, Patronage and Violence in Zimbabwe

This special issue is about politics, patronage and violence in Zimbabwe. These themes provide a means of exploring Zimbabwes dramatic upheavals in the light of broader debates in African studies ...

Militarisation and State Institutions: ‘Professionals’ and ‘Soldiers’ inside the Zimbabwe Prison Service

Efforts to understand Zimbabwes recent upheavals have brought scholars into productive conversation with approaches to African politics hitherto neglected in Zimbabwe. These have included political science analyses of ‘disorder’ and ethnographic approaches to the state at its unstable ‘margins’. Such analyses have highlighted the reconstitution of power through the expansion of powerful networks inside and outside state institutions and focused attention on the social and governmental effects of uncertainty. While these approaches are very different, they share a tendency to neglect processes of change within the civil service proper. Using a study of the ‘militarisation’ of Zimbabwes prison service, I argue that these processes are essential to understanding the nature of political transformation. Militarisation catastrophically undermined the prison services capacity to carry out its most basic functions and divided its staff between ‘professionals’ and ‘soldiers’. Professionals embraced an historically rooted state ideal built on the value of rules and expertise. They cast both as essential attributes of statehood just as they were comprehensively subverted by the soldiers in the name of an ongoing liberation struggle. Civil servants in these two camps no longer shared a common set of norms or purposes, though they all participated to greater or lesser degrees in the ‘militarised’ practices that pervaded the service. The unequal battle over the nature of state authority that ensued was – and remains – crucial to the exercise and legitimation of state power.

The Historiography of Land in Zimbabwe: Strengths, Silences, and Questions

Land is fundamental to the multifaceted crisis that has so dramatically engulfed Zimbabwe since 2000. It is the centrally contested national asset and the key symbol in ZANU-PF’s narrative of national liberation. It forms, in Brian Raftopoulos’ words, ‘‘the centerpiece of the ruling party’s construction of belonging, exclusion and history.’’ Repossessing the land in the name of the nation has been cast as the singular, unwavering goal of Zimbabwe’s three ‘‘chimurengas’’—its uprisings against foreign domination, from resistance to conquest in the 1890s, to the 1970s guerrilla war against settler government, to the millennial clash with reputedly reinvigorated agents of imperialism both internal and external. As I will seek to show, this is a view of political history and the history of land that is belied by Zimbabwe’s rich literature. Land questions—and there have been many—have long cut across social, cultural, economic, and political spheres. Land is about identity as well as production and class formation; it is about aesthetic values and spiritual meaning, as well as being central to the construction of the institutions of state; it fires political struggles and violence alongside the literary imagination; and it is the basis for both building and breaking a host of social relationships. In all of these guises, the meanings and value of land are neither fixed nor uncontested. Land cannot be reduced to a static role in a single narrative. In what follows, I seek to provide an overview of the strengths of Zimbabwe’s literature on land before turning to current silences and new questions. It is of course

Outcomes of post-2000 fast track land reform in Zimbabwe

This volume will be an essential starting place for analysts, policy-makers, historians and activists seeking to understand what has happened with regards to the struggle over land in Zimbabwe since 2000 and to spotlight the key issues for the next decade. The struggle over land has been the central issue in Zimbabwe ever since white settlers began to carve out large farms over a century ago. Their monopolisation of the better-watered half of the land was the focus of the African war of liberation war, and was partially modified following Independence