The Native Land Husbandry Act of 1951 promised to address a variety of settler concerns (Thompson, 2004). According to Yudelman (1964), the scope of the NLHA involved the:
Drawing of regulations for the enforcement of conservation and good husbandry of soil and crops.
Granting of grazing rights to those eligible.
Granting of cultivation rights, based upon standard areas of arable. Establishment of rural villages and business centres.
Drawing up of regulations governing the compulsory employment of African labour for specific tasks, such as conservation and finally
Provision of penalties for non-compliance with the conditions of the Act, and for prosecution after due warning.
Emphasis was on individual responsibility for land conservation (Duggan, 1980). It can however be argued that the NLHA was designed more to stabilize labour than to create a rural middle class or even to resuscitate reserve agriculture as will manifested in the next section. 7.4.1 Origins of the Native Land Husbandry Act (1951)
The Native Land Husbandry Act (1951) was passed as a response to challenges brought about by the Second World War (Thompson, 2004). According to the Report of the Chief Native Commissioner (1947), Rhodesia had lost self-sufficiency in major foodstuffs during the war and was facing a serious food crisis. There were shortages of maize, beef and dairy products in the late 1940s while many farmers were reluctant to grow food crops or to invest capital or scarce labour in increasing production of foodstuffs, as tobacco was far more profitable (Phimister, 1986). Instead of coercing the farmers, the state developed a new interest in peasant agriculture as a key sector of the economy. According to the Annual Report of the Chief Native Commissioner, 1947-1954, African producers were growing low return grains and groundnuts to supply basic foodstuffs for the expanding workforce in towns, mines and commercial farms.
162 The Commissioner of Native Labour (1947) also reported serious labour shortages in the vital mining and white farming sectors where wages were lower and conditions harder than in manufacturing. Like the food shortage, this challenge raised serious concerns about its impact on the national economy. The Report by the Commissioner of Native Labour (1947) remarked, ‘Unless adequate steps are taken to meet the anticipated demand for labour, the colony will suffer a severe setback during the most important time of its history.’ It is important to note that at this point in time, Rhodesia faced intense pressure to increase the numbers of job seekers, especially as the labour shortage had pushed the wages up giving workers new leverage with employers. The tight labour market gave rise to a new assertiveness among black workers and this was reflected in the emergence of new worker organisations, successful strikes in Salisbury and Bulawayo and rural unrest (Phimister, 1995).
Much of the rural unrest associated with the activities of the new British African Voice Association (BAVA), was the result of the state’s efforts to forcibly relocate Africans living on designated white land, which was now wanted for farming by new immigrants (Phimister, 1995). According to Thompson (2004), resistance by rural peasants slowed down the pace of the relocations and this frustrated the new white landowners who preferred intensified racial segregation and wanted to see Africans moved off designated white land as quickly as possible in line with promises made in the Land Apportionment Act (1930). Peasants in such areas fought relocation through passive resistance and the courts and in some cases with BAVA’s assistance (Thompson, 2004). It is important to note that new white landowners who wanted speedy relocations may not have been aware of the magnitude of the problems associated with relocations of Africans.
Thompson (2004) points out that moving thousands of peasants presented a massive logistical problem because many of the reserves were already overpopulated, especially in Matabeleland and this would threaten the viability of the family farming that underwrote low wages. Although the government was under intense pressure not to assign more land to the designated African area, the government added 4.1 million acres of Special Native Areas in 1950 because it wanted the natives to perform labour for conserving natural resources and promoting good husbandry (Duggan, 1980). Another way to alleviate future pressure in the reserves was to fix the number of people dependent upon the land by denying urban workers access to reserves, solving both the labour problems of secondary industry and decreasing the
163 pressure in the reserves (Duggan, 1980). Against this background, the Native Land Husbandry Act was passed, with World Bank support in 1951 (Alexander, 2006).
7.4.2 Objectives of the NLHA (1951)
Brown (1959), Duggan (1980), Yudelman (1964) and Thompson (2004) agree that the NLHA had five main objectives namely:
to provide for a reasonable standard of good husbandry and for the protection of natural resources by all Africans using the land.
to limit the number of stock in any area to its carrying capacity and, as far as is practicable, to relate stock holding to arable land holding as a means of improving farming practice.
to allocate individual rights in the arable land and in the communal grazing areas as far as possible in terms of economic units; to prevent further fragmentation and to provide for the aggregation of fragmentary holdings into economic units.
to provide individual security of tenure of arable land and individual security of grazing rights in the communal grazing areas.
to provide for setting aside of land for towns and business centres in the Reserves. Loney (1975) argues that the Native Land Husbandry Act (1951) was directed at transforming the pattern of African farming by ending the distribution of land, currently at the discretion of the Chief, among all those living in the Reserves. According to Yudelman (1964), under customary system of tenure, land in the African areas of Zimbabwe was viewed as a rationed but free good as in the ‘tragedy of the commons.’ Land was rationed because of its limited supply and the rationing was the tribal allocation process. Agricultural economists in Southern Rhodesia argued in favour of the NLHA because they believed that as long as land remained a free good there would be no cost factor to encourage greater productivity (Yudelman, 1964). They elaborated that if land had a price and was not a free good, the rate of depletion of soil might be diminished and that converting land into a negotiable asset would encourage the emergence of entrepreneurial and managerial ability among African people; hence the British settlers supported the passing of the NLHA. The Act intended to create a class of independent small farmers with mixed farming plots which could not be subdivided among their heirs but which could be sold (Loney, 1975). It was also believed the division of the land under the Act would terminate land rights of urban Africans, and the prevention of sub-divisions would ensure that the increasing African population would be compelled to leave the reserves for work in urban areas (Yudelman, 1964).
Yudelman (1964) describes the NLHA as one of the most far-reaching land reform measures in Africa aimed at improving African land use in Southern Rhodesia. According to Yudelman
164 (1964), the objective of the Act was to provide for the control of the utilization and allocation of land occupied by the natives and to insure its efficient use for agricultural purposes; [and] to natives to perform labour for conserving natural resources and for promoting good husbandry. Thompson (2004) posits that the Native Land Husbandry Act would offer a solution to the rural crisis by protecting the physical environment at minimal cost to the state, while simultaneously allowing the Native Affairs Department to cram more people into the African Areas.
Another view of the NLHA was that it was designed to create a loyal urban and rural African middle class, satisfying at the same time the needs of the country’s rapid expansion of secondary industry by denying urban workers access to farmland (Duggan, 1980). In the Reserves, land redistribution would thus create a stable landowning upper peasantry to complement elite in the townships, where security of tenure was being offered to industrial workers (Duggan, 1980). This however would come with a cost namely £300 and a Master Farmer certificate. It can be argued that the proponents of the above view of the NLHA might have forgotten the native attachment to land and cattle thus the NLHA directly repudiated customary and communal rights to land in favour of individual right holders and secular state power (Alexander, 2006).
Johnson (1964) points out that the NLHA was framed in the belief that population growth in the rural areas was slower than that in the territory as a whole, and also in the belief that permanent urban migration was desirable and to be encouraged. These beliefs were proved wrong when rural people embraced medical innovation which reduced infant mortality. In short, the motives behind the Native Land Husbandry Act (NLHA) were diverse and complex and in Thompson (2004)’s view the diversity of the motives behind the NLHA reflects the government’s efforts to placate competing political interests. Private property rights, rights to common goods and rights to public involvement in environmental decisions had become a fundamental concern for the Government of Southern Rhodesia in its endeavour to promote sustainable development. The next section analyses the implementation of the Native Land Husbandry Act which was aimed at restraining the overuse of property and the exhaustion of natural resources.
7.5 Conclusion
This chapter examined land tenure and land management in colonial Zimbabwe. The chapter noted that there were 3 tenure systems in colonial Zimbabwe. These tenure systems
165 determined how land was allocated and managed. The settler government used land segregation policies that created resentment among the natives. The Land Apportionment Act (1930) remained the cornerstone of colonial land policy. The Act unfairly distributed land between whites and natives. As a result there was serious land shortage among the natives leading to overcrowding and land degradation. Using ‘weapons of the weak’ the natives were able to bring their discontent to the attention of the government. The government amended the Land Apportionment Act several times but land shortage remained a grievance among natives. The land grievance worsened with passing of the NLHA in 1951 which reduced the number of cattle owned and the area of land farmed by each family. Shortage of land forced rural peasants to move to towns in search of employment. Those in urban areas faced hardships just like their counterparts in the rural areas. The implementation of the Native Land Husbandry Act (1951) examined in Chapter Eight helps to show how the land grievance translated into nationalism in Zimbabwe.
166 CHAPTER EIGHT
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIVE LAND HUSBANDRY ACT, 1951 8.1 Introduction
This chapter explores the implementation of the Native Land Husbandry Act (1951). It examines methods used in the implementation and how the new land policy was viewed by the indigenous Africans. The chapter analyses the success of the implementation, taking note of the constraints and how the implementers dealt with the constraints. The chapter also illustrates how ‘weapons of the weak’ were used to a great extent by the indigenous. It is in the same chapter that African grievances about land and cattle and the rise of nationalism among all ethnic groups are portrayed. The chapter highlights strategies that would be used in the implementation of the NLHA as shown below.