|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Writes Engineer Jacob Kudzayi Mutisi
Forty-five (45) years on, in Zimbabwe, the issue of land remains an emotive and politically charged topic since the country gained independence in 1980. The dominant narrative pushed by many of our politicians is that white settlers arrived, violently dispossessed Africans of their land, and that all land must therefore be reclaimed and redistributed in the name of justice. While this narrative has elements of truth, it is selective and in most cases, deliberately misleading.
A more accurate and complete understanding of our history reveals that, when colonialism first took root in Africa, the territories were not ungoverned or lawless. They were administered by traditional authorities – our chiefs, headmen, and village elders.
In Shona, we know these figures as Sabhuku and Ishe, in Ndebele, their equivalents held similarly influential roles in governance and land administration. These leaders were the custodians of the land and wielded considerable power in determining how the land was distributed and who could settle where.
Before colonisation, African societies had well-established systems of land ownership and usage. The land was communal and held in trust by chiefs on behalf of their people.
When white settlers arrived during the late 19th century, particularly under the British South Africa Company led by Cecil John Rhodes, they did not simply take land by brute force in all cases. In many instances, they negotiated with, persuaded, or even bribed traditional leaders for access to land. These were not necessarily fair or balanced negotiations, but they were agreements nonetheless.
This inconvenient truth has been largely airbrushed out of Zimbabwe’s national story. Why? Because it does not fit the hero-versus-villain binary that has been used to rally political support and demonise certain groups, especially our Ndebele brothers and sister. It also forces us to confront the uncomfortable reality that our ancestors, particularly our traditional leaders, played a role in enabling colonial occupation. They allowed settlers to settle. They allowed mining rights to be granted. They facilitated whether knowingly or not, the very processes that would later be condemned as “land theft”.
Ironically, the behaviour of some of our post-independence leaders mirrors the very same actions they accuse the white settlers of. Consider the rampant allocation of land and mineral rights to foreign nationals, particularly Chinese investors.
Vast tracts of Zimbabwean land have been parcelled out to Chinese entities under opaque agreements, many of which bypass local consultation and ignore environmental concerns.
Communities have been displaced. Rivers have been polluted. Sacred sites have been desecrated. All of this is done with the endorsement of those in power, the very same people who claim to be protecting Zimbabwean sovereignty.
What is the difference between a traditional chief giving land to white settlers in the 1890s and a government minister signing away mineral rights to Chinese companies in 2025? Both actions compromise the sovereignty and future of the Zimbabwean people. Both are decisions made by elites without proper accountability to the people.
One of the most troubling aspects of the current discourse is the persistent scapegoating of the white man for all of Zimbabwe’s problems. Yes, colonisation was exploitative. Yes, colonial land ownership was unjust. But Zimbabwe has been under black majority rule for forty-five years. How long must we continue to blame colonialism for failures that are clearly the result of poor leadership, corruption, and mismanagement?
We cannot, in good conscience, continue to cry foul about land stolen by settlers while conveniently ignoring the actions of our own traditional and political leaders. They were part of the process. They made deals. Some of them even enriched themselves at the expense of their people. Until we are honest about this, we cannot heal as a nation.
Worse still, the government that seized white-owned farms under the fast-track land reform programme is now compensating those farmers for the land it forcibly acquired. This is not hearsay. According to reports, including this article from MSN, Zimbabwe has begun making payments to white farmers as part of a deal to resolve long-standing disputes over land seizures.
If the land was truly stolen, why pay compensation? The only logical conclusion is that there was some form of agreement or legal recognition of ownership, however flawed or controversial that may be. And if that is the case, then the oversimplified narrative of “land theft” begins to unravel.
It is time for Zimbabweans to demand a more honest and direct conversation about our past. Our history is not black and white, it is complex, painful, and sometimes contradictory.
We must recognise the role traditional leaders played, both in facilitating colonisation and in maintaining community structures. We must also scrutinise the current leadership that is repeating the same mistakes under a different banner.
True land justice must begin with truth. Not just the truth that is politically convenient, but the whole truth and nothing but the truth, even when it implicates our own leaders. Only then can we craft policies that are fair, sustainable, and rooted in accountability.
We should also take this opportunity to redefine what land ownership means in the 21st century. Land should not be a political weapon or a reward for loyalty. It should be a resource that benefits all citizens, regardless of race, background, or political affiliation. The moment we use the land as a tool of division, we betray the very spirit of liberation we claim to uphold.
The truth is that the white man did not walk into Zimbabwe and simply took land without resistance or negotiation. Our traditional leaders were part of the process sometimes willingly, sometimes under pressure.
Today, our political leaders are doing the same, handing over land and mineral wealth to foreign powers without consultation or accountability. Blaming colonialism for everything that is wrong in Zimbabwe is not only intellectually lazy, it is dangerous.
It absolves current leaders of responsibility and keeps the nation trapped in a cycle of victimhood. If we are to build a prosperous, just, and inclusive Zimbabwe, we must confront all aspects of our history even the uncomfortable ones.
The truth may hurt, but it also sets us free.
