Maravi

(NEWZIMBABWE) Biti feeds white farmers false hope

Biti feeds white farmers false hope
23/01/2012 00:00:00
by Honai Chopera

IN SEPTEMBER last year, I read a seemingly innocuous article on New Zimbabwe.com about a constituency meeting held by Finance Minister Tendai Biti in the affluent Borrowdale suburb. Among his audience was a white commercial farmer who asked about progress towards the compensation of farmers who lost land during the government’s land reform programme.

After the obligatory disparaging remarks about his unity government partners, the well-fed and highly opinionated Biti informed his audience that the compensation estimates ran into US$3 billion (about R21 billion) and that when in power, his party would accept liability and proceed to compensate the farmers for the “violent” dispossession.

His response unsettled me, but having been raised on a diet of affording others space to air their opinions, I attempted to suppress any unease I felt. I tried to let it die in me. But die it would not.

His response laid bare the consequences of pursuing false doctrines, of failing to grasp the essence of the times we live in. It reflected a politician not well schooled in the art of obfuscation but ably instructed in expedient and short sighted responses. It led me to question, when our African leaders speak, are they really aware that the burden of history is on their shoulders and the expectation of future generations stands before them? Are they alive to the fact, that the present are in fact the minority, when compared to those in the past and those in the future, and so their responsibilities cascade into eternity?

In the absence of a responsible and honest answer from the minister, let me answer this dispossessed farmer who no doubt feels genuinely robbed.

The sins of the father have visited their descendents. The reality is, there must be no monetary compensation, at least not from the people of Zimbabwe. The institution responsible for the white farmer’s circumstance is the British Crown. It is there that Cecil John Rhodes got his royal charter that lay the ground for where the white farmers are today. We are all victims, with the British Crown being the only antagonist in this tragic trans-generational affair.

The adequate response to the farmer’s question is that Zimbabweans have already been paid in full. Here is why.

Like the Incas who sacrificed their children to their Gods to sate their false appetites, Zimbabwe sacrificed her sons and daughters to right an injustice that transcended generations. Our best and brightest were served up on the altar of freedom and restitution of property rights that were already theirs to begin with.

When young men and women, some as young as 15 years, turned their backs on disenfranchised, segregated but idyllically predictable lives and embraced a life that most often meant certain death, your account was credited. When mothers watched their sons and daughters leave for places unknown, suspending their hopes and dreams for these children, some of which were never to be resurrected, your account was credited. When fathers woke up to empty huts, rapidly aging the instant it dawned on them that their children had ‘crossed,’ your account was credited.

When a young Hebert Chitepo realised that he could never savour the achievement of being the first black barrister and a pioneer of his class while Zimbabwe and her children were not free, and he took a decision that violently and prematurely ended his life, your account was credited.

When a young man returned from the diaspora with wife in tow, he took a decision that meant eleven years in jail, during which he would be denied the opportunity to bury his departed son. Upon his release, he would endure incalculable risks to life and limb to ensure that a black man and indeed any man could be free in his own land. He today epitomises all that you hate about the land reform. Yes he needs no mention by name, except to say your account was credited.

But even for them, they were the lucky ones because at least history remembers them by name. What of the thousands whom we only remember as a mass body?

When thousands left the security and familiar surroundings of home, to distant lands not known to embrace a future pregnant with uncertainty, did that not constitute adequate compensation? When young men and women had their innocence ripped from them, stalked by the smell of death and the shadow of the grim ripper in forest skirmishes, surely that should have counted as enough?

Even those that returned, the brutality that characterised the war for our liberation left them forever scarred, haunted by the ghosts of war. Able bodied men and women left, only to return on crutches and in wheel burrows. My question is: did their sacrifice not reflect in your account, or was that not adequate a price to pay for what was already theirs?

Was the blood that nourished the soils of Zimbabwe and other foreign lands in such generous quantities too meager a payment? The dreams and hopes that these children had for their lives were exchanged for the horrors of war. Did that not meet your satisfaction?

It is not uncommon for politicians to pander to the whims of their audiences, in fact I fear it is too common a sight nowadays. I accept that politicians are usually expedient by nature. It is one thing for a man who has imbibed himself with poisoned waters to feel the urge to relieve himself and seek out the shadows of darkness to relieve himself. It is quite another for him to come across a man and his wife and nonchalantly whip out his forbidden apple in frontal view of the mortified wife. Surely any self respecting man would effect a citizen’s arrest (a less accommodating man will unleash a more instinctive response).

So when a minister arrogates himself the power to metaphorically whip out his unmentionables and casually piss away the sacrifices of those before him and make promises he is hopelessly unable to deliver, he not only debases himself but also cheats the erstwhile dispossessed farmer.

The tragedy is now the farmer holds out a false hope that the state shall compensate him. But it shall not. Not even for the “improvements” he allegedly made. Not as long as there are self respecting Zimbabweans who cherish the legacy bequeathed to them by the liberation struggle.

The inquisitor should have looked to the crucible that was the liberation struggle for the answer to his question, not a minister who recklessly tried to give his utterances the veneer of holiness and spirituality that the occasion afforded, when the wee hours of the morning in a cheap run-down beer hall would have been a more suitable setting.

For why should the state pay – remember the state is an institution of the people – when the state has already paid such a princely sum? Why should a people already debased by a war to reclaim what was theirs be further shackled by the resulting debt that follows compensating you? No, no politician of sound mind will attempt that and hope to prolong his life in politics.

The minister, had he been honest, would have told you to instead lobby the government to take your matter to the British Crown, while you organize yourselves and sue the same institution.

So for that farmer who asked the historically impoverished minister for reparations, the simple answer is compensation has been paid by Zimbabwe. Not only did she pay, but she paid dearly.

Labels: LAND REFORM, TENDAI BITI, WHITE FARMERS

posted by MrK @ 10:56 AM