I detest it when ZANU (PF) takes advantage of the ignorance of the masses to create the delusion that they are empowering them. The sad reality is that the masses believe them despite evidence over the last 34 years that ZANU (PF) is not only incompetent in planning and managing our economy but pervasively self-centred, selfish and arrogant.
I was on PowerTalk the other day with Oscar Pambuka and a ZANU (PF) praise singer trying to discuss the potential impact of land permits and whether it is really an empowering instrument as has been endorsed by President Mugabe. I was quite amused when some callers asked whether I was Zimbabwean given my contrarian view on the effectiveness of the permits to empower farmers and allow them to create wealth unhindered by ZANU (PF) political motives. I guess that claim by Mugabe that ZANU (PF) is a party of simple minds is true.
Land remains an emotional subject and it is easy to fall into the irrational rhetoric trap and use history to justify what has been essentially a disastrous policy that has decimated our economy. I continue to say that the principle of land ownership by the majority is correct; there is no argument about that. However what is the use of owning an unproductive asset?
The recently announced land permits achieve the objective of ensuring that those who occupy land can pass it on to their descendants and also to their spouses. That's about all it does. The permit is however very clear those farmers do not have title since the land belongs to the state and they cannot sell it. The permit only gives farmers occupation rights and therefore land is not an asset to the farmer has no market value and cannot be traded.
In addition to the above, the Minister of Lands may terminate this occupation and give the farmer 90 days to vacate. The farmer can then be compensated for his developments on the land within 180 days of being evicted. Of course the value of those developments will be subject to dispute and we all know that white farmers have not been compensated to this day, despite the constitution requiring that they be compensated. The bona fides of government to adhere to the constitution and compensate for loss therefore remains questionable.
Now I was at pains to try to explain that this land permit only gives use of land and cannot therefore be used as collateral by the framer since the farmer does not own the land. In addition I see no reason why the minister has the right to terminate the occupation except for political reasons. I further explained that it is difficult to trust this government on valuation and compensation of any developments done given its history of non-payment to white farmers who have been rendered destitute for political and racists reasons.