Guro Lauvland Bjorknes.pdf - NMMU

In February 2000 a referendum was held to research support for a new constitution. The new
constitution consisted of a section that enabled the Zimbabwean government authorities to take
over any land without compensating the owners. The responsibility for payment for the land lay
with the British, the clause proclaimed. According to the new constitution Mugabe also secured
himself another ten years as head of state. The people voted against the new constitution, but
Mugabe made sure that the clauses on land invasions were approved by parliament (Hill,
2003:104 and 112).
Shortly after Mugabe unsuccessfully tried to change the constitution he started organising land
invasions. Hunzvi recruited people who were unemployed by promising money, food and land,
and they were to join forces with war veterans in occupying white-owned farms. The police
were ordered not to assist the land-owners when they called out for help, saying they could not
intervene since it was a political issue (Hill, 2003:108-9). The Zimbabwe Supreme Court tried
ending the land invasion as they saw it as illegal, but Mugabe and his government continued
their illegal actions. Richardson in his journal article The loss of property rights and the collapse
of Zimbabwe (2005) mentions that for the first time in 20 years property rights were worthless.
Hill (2003:110 and 112) writes about three areas that would collapse, about which Mugabe had
been warned by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, if the farm invasions were to be continued.
These were: the departure of foreign investment; the fact that the IMF would stop their financial
support; and thirdly, that a financial crisis would occur as farmers had mortgages on their
properties and relied on growing and selling crops to be able to pay them. It was said that the
agenda before the election was to invade and take over as many farms as possible as a means to
correct historical land imbalance (Hill, 2003:110 and 112). The consequence was a drop in the
Zimbabwean economy by 5 per cent in 2000 to approximately 18 per cent in 2003. Inflation in
the country was at 500 percent and the Zimbabwean dollar had lost 99 percent of its exchange
value. Less rainfall and the land reforms, Richardson argues, had a far-reaching influence during
this time, and hence can be seen as the main factors leading to the collapse of Zimbabwe.
Drought, AIDS, poor fiscal and monetary policies, food shortages and a problematic economy
also contributed to Zimbabwe‟s collapse (Richardson, 2005). Richardson stresses that the
disappearance of land equity which consequently forced investors to move their money and
16