Challenges in the Era of Globalization - iaabd

Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference © 2011 IAABD
there are different forms of colonization. The colonization that resulted in our Model I discussion is
organized by businessmen, not missionaries or fugitives. I our Model I the economic motive was the
overriding factor. As shown in Table 1 the objective of the colonial approach to land redistribution is to
get the most out of available resources. Colonization literature gives British and Dutch companies as
examples of advanced nations whose entrepreneurs set out to enrich themselves. According to Beach
(1988), Zimbabwe is described by the Portuguese as one of the richest parts of Africa. The approach
taken to utilize Zimbabwe’s resources included a careful study of the geography of the country. Given
their entrepreneurial and wealth creation intentions and conqueror status discussed earlier the settlers
realized that control over land was essential to their achieving economic and political dominance and used
forced migration and a series of legislation and other systemic strategies to pursue their purpose.
Table 1: Major characteristics of Zimbabwe's Models of Land Distribution
Model I Model II
Take off
position
Objective
Strategy
Implementation
Settler entry into a status quo of sustainable
settlements of locals making a living through land use
Maximization of output
Exploitation
Use country’s natural regions to designate land use
Create conditions that support designated land use
Forced migration and a series of legislation
Independent government
inheriting imbalances
Land repossession and
redistribution
Redressing inherited
imbalances
Target land in settler hands
Legislation and eviction
We describe Model II as an indigenous approach to land redistribution. The doctrine of indigenization
evolved first as a movement during the 1950s and the 1960s. It advocates development within historicultural
roots and encourages a return to authentic values and traditions which have shaped the sociocultural
life of a people. Indigenization constitutes a revolution for relevance (Williams, 1971, Alatas,
1993). Its guiding precept is indigenous solutions for indigenous problems, (Burns, 1993, Henderson,
2005). In discussing the indigenous model to land redistribution we concur with Mupepi (2010) who
argues that there are three major contending forces to Zimbabwe's land redistribution discourse. The first
force is the claim by the Zimbabwe government embedded in the discourse of “patriotic history” in which
the acquisition of land is seen as a necessary conclusion to decolonization. Model II characteristics in
Table 1 frame this discussion. At independence the Government of Zimbabwe inherited widely
documented imbalances. Although a detailed discussion of early attempts to redress the imbalances is
beyond the scope of this paper it is noteworthy that what we refer to as the indigenous approach to land
redistribution in Zimbabwe was preceded by other efforts to redress the imbalances.
The second is the assertion by the land-occupying European settlers who insist that the land acquisition
violated their constitutional and legal rights to land ownership. The third force is the land factor which has
drawn much international acclaim. Mupepi (2010) goes on to argue that the land factor has two
dimensions. The first is Euro-American and the second is Pan African perspective. The Euro-American
perspective actively advocates the position of the European farmers and democratic governances. The
354