Clarity Needed On Land Reform

THE recent statements by Deputy Lands Minister Isak Katali, expressing the need for Namibia to emulate Zimbabwe’s ‘fast-track’ land-reform programme, are probably not hugely at odds with Government’s present policy.

The ‘willing-seller, willing-buyer’ concept has of late been accompanied by an ‘expropriation where necessary’ clause, and this is in need of further definition and clarity in the interests of economic stability and social harmony. Land reform is essential in a country like ours, which has emerged from the inequalities of the colonial era with widespread acceptance of the fact that the scales need to be balanced in favour of the majority of the population who were discriminated against for decades.Even the most diehard elements surely accept this fact.The Namibia Agricultural Union (NAU) also speaks for what it terms ‘orderly transformation’ which in turn can lead to successful land reform.And so too does the Namibia Society for Human Rights (NSHR) support land reform, but condemns Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe’s ‘fast-track’ approach.It is widely agreed upon, most importantly in Africa itself, that what has happened in Zimbabwe has not taken the nation forward, but instead, contributed to the deteriorating circumstances of the Zimbabwean people.Namibia itself has formerly spoken against the Zimbabwean approach, recognising that stability and peace must be watchwords in the process of redressing the wrongs of the past.If there has been a shift towards expropriation, at the expense of the more conciliatory policy which preceded it, then Namibians surely need to be told, so that they can prepare for such eventuality, and Katali’s strong statements in Zimbabwe need to be contextualised by Government leaders, especially since they come from the Deputy Lands Minister.Katali was this week quoted in the government-owned Herald newspaper in Zimbabwe as saying that he was impressed by how that country had tackled what he termed their “successful land-reform programme”.”We feel the speed (at which) they took the land is commendable and we would like to see how they did it.Land reform is important to Namibia and we feel that (our) colonisers are the same people who colonised Zimbabwe.We also feel that if the people of Zimbabwe did this, we can do it in the same manner,” he is quoted as saying.What Katali should of course be looking at is not necessarily the speed at which land reform was conducted in Zimbabwe, but whether it has worked or not.And if not, to scrutinise the reasons why not, so that Namibia does not make the same mistakes.In order to conduct proper research, if that is the point of his visit, he should be speaking to those who were expropriated as well as those who have now got the land, and to put both of the above in the context of whether it benefited the economy and thereby the people of Zimbabwe or not.His statement, if quoted correctly, that “it’s good to keep your dignity rather than a full stomach” speaks volumes.Is that what we want for Namibia? To put people on the land where they are unable to eke out a living for themselves and their families? To what end? We need to revisit our own situation.We have to assess whether the land and farms that have already been taken to resettle Namibians are viable and productive and bringing positive development to the economy and money into the coffers of the State before we take more.If those who have been granted affirmative-action loans for the purpose of purchase are unable to pay back the State, then we need to take this into consideration too, for the logical result is that land, and the use thereof, could simply be lost to all.The pace of land reform, if properly done, will surely never be fast enough for those who want the land.But they may also want land because they do not have jobs.This too, needs to be taken into account.Let Namibians made such decisions themselves, and on a consultative basis, to maximise the benefits.We should, as the NSHR says, condemn the human rights abuses inherent in the expropriation-at-all-costs policy of the Zimbabwean government, which has propelled that country into economic chaos.We emulate them at our peril.Land reform is essential in a country like ours, which has emerged from the inequalities of the colonial era with widespread acceptance of the fact that the scales need to be balanced in favour of the majority of the population who were discriminated against for decades.Even the most diehard elements surely accept this fact.The Namibia Agricultural Union (NAU) also speaks for what it terms ‘orderly transformation’ which in turn can lead to successful land reform.And so too does the Namibia Society for Human Rights (NSHR) support land reform, but condemns Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe’s ‘fast-track’ approach.It is widely agreed upon, most importantly in Africa itself, that what has happened in Zimbabwe has not taken the nation forward, but instead, contributed to the deteriorating circumstances of the Zimbabwean people.Namibia itself has formerly spoken against the Zimbabwean approach, recognising that stability and peace must be watchwords in the process of redressing the wrongs of the past.If there has been a shift towards expropriation, at the expense of the more conciliatory policy which preceded it, then Namibians surely need to be told, so that they can prepare for such eventuality, and Katali’s strong statements in Zimbabwe need to be contextualised by Government leaders, especially since they come from the Deputy Lands Minister.Katali was this week quoted in the government-owned Herald newspaper in Zimbabwe as saying that he was impressed by how that country had tackled what he termed their “successful land-reform programme”.”We feel the speed (at which) they took the land is commendable and we would like to see how they did it.Land reform is important to Namibia and we feel that (our) colonisers are the same people who colonised Zimbabwe.We also feel that if the people of Zimbabwe did this, we can do it in the same manner,” he is quoted as saying.What Katali should of course be looking at is not necessarily the speed at which land reform was conducted in Zimbabwe, but whether it has worked or not.And if not, to scrutinise the reasons why not, so that Namibia does not make the same mistakes.In order to conduct proper research, if that is the point of his visit, he should be speaking to those who were expropriated as well as those who have now got the land, and to put both of the above in the context of whether it benefited the economy and thereby the people of Zimbabwe or not.His statement, if quoted correctly, that “it’s good to keep your dignity rather than a full stomach” speaks volumes.Is that what we want for Namibia? To put people on the land where they are unable to eke out a living for themselves and their families? To what end? We need to revisit our own situation.We have to assess whether the land and farms that have already been taken to resettle Namibians are viable and productive and bringing positive development to the economy and money into the coffers of the State before we take more.If those who have been granted affirmative-action loans for the purpose of purchase are unable to pay back the State, then we need to take this into consideration too, for the logical result is that land, and the use thereof, could simply be lost to all.The pace of land reform, if properly done, will surely never be fast enough for those who want the land.But they may also want land because they do not have jobs.This too, needs to be taken into account.Let Namibians made such decisions themselves, and on a consultative basis, to maximise the benefits.We should, as the NSHR says, condemn the human rights abuses inherent in the expropriation-at-all-costs policy of the Zimbabwean government, which has propelled that country into economic chaos.We emulate them at our peril.