‘I Was Here Before You’: Politics of Belonging in A1 Villagised Farms of Zimbabwe

Abstract

The Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) of 2000 redistributed land previously owned by White farmers to the majority Black Zimbabweans. In understanding the dynamics of land ownership, various studies have been conducted, and these highlight autochthonous claims to land based on attachment to graves and ancestral sites and contestations around them. However, non-ancestral claims to belonging have received limited attention. This article examines tensions between two groups of A1 villagised farms using empirical qualitative data from a case study in Bubi District. The article presents new forms of claims and contestations to autochthony and belonging in fast-track farms.

Introduction

The Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) in Zimbabwe is by far the most popular action of the state that attracted both academic and nonacademic research world over. The redistribution of land to the majority Black Zimbabweans sought to address the uneven bimodal agrarian structure inherited at independence in 1980 (Moyo, 2011a, 2011b; Scoones et al., 2010). The formalisation of the programme was a response to nationwide land occupations mostly led by war veterans in demand for land (Sadomba, 2013). The objectives of the programme broadly included the provision of land to the poor majority to reduce poverty and indigenisation of large-scale commercial farming (GoZ, 2001). Allocation of land was implemented mainly through the use of the A1 (small-scale) and A2 (medium to large scale) models (Moyo et al., 2009). The A1 model, also known as the A1 village/s, which is the focus of this study, settled beneficiaries in villages divided into three portions: residential plots, arable plots and communal grazing land (GoZ, 2001). Beneficiaries also shared social infrastructure and services (GoZ, 2001).

This article focuses on contestations between the FTLRP A1 model beneficiaries who were allocated land in 2000, and another group of beneficiaries who were officially added onto the farm on communal grazing land 14 years later in 2014. The addition of beneficiaries in 2014 was approved by the Provincial Land Committee (PLC) on behalf of the state. We draw insights from fieldwork undertaken on Rouxdale (R/E) farm, Bubi District, Matabeleland North Province. Beneficiaries that acquired land in 2000 consider themselves as original autochthonous inhabitants of Rouxdale (R/E) farm, claiming their belonging on the basis that ‘[they] were there before’ the other group (Vieten and Yuval-Davis, 2018: 10). The newcomers are seen as ‘strangers’ or ‘allochthones’ that ‘invaded’ a territory belonging to them to usurp land set aside for agricultural livelihoods. The newcomers’ autochthony is validated by their status as citizens of Zimbabwe. These outcomes present new forms of claims and contestations to autochthony and belonging in fast-track farms.

In exploring land reform and politics of belonging in Zimbabwe, there is a significant lacuna in the dynamics of intra-farm politics of belonging and autochthony where beneficiaries do not have ancestral claims to autochthony. There have been studies on Zimbabwe’s FTLRP focus on the politics of belonging in fast-track farms. The focus of these has been on contestations around ethnicity and citizenship as a claim to autochthony against farm workers of foreign descent (Chadambuka and Helliker, 2022; Sinclair-Bright, 2016). Others detail the politics between two groups claiming autonomy over a similar piece of land (Mkodzongi, 2019). Another dimension is that of traditional leaders making claims over similar pieces of land and jurisdiction over it (Fontein, 2011; Mujere, 2011). These studies discuss contestations around belonging and autochthony based on ancestral attachment and graves as the basis of autochthonous claims. However, non-ancestral claims to autochthony in FTLRP farms have received limited insights, hence the focus of our article.

The paper is structured as follows: the first section of the article is a theoretical framework of the politics of belonging. This is followed by a brief literature review on the politics of belonging in the FTLRP of Zimbabwe. The third section is the background of the case study. The methodology of the study is the fourth section. The fifth section discusses the various ways in which beneficiaries built their belonging on Rouxdale (R/E) farm. This is followed by a section discussing the manner in which beneficiaries made Rouxdale (R/E) farm a place of ‘home’. The seventh section details the addition of beneficiaries on Rouxdale (R/E) farm. The eighth section focuses on the contestations of belonging emanating from the addition of new beneficiaries. The last section is the conclusion of the article, which sums up the key points while also highlighting the theoretical contribution of the study.

Politics of belonging

In examining the contestations between the two groups of A1 beneficiaries of Rouxdale (R/E) farm allocated land at different periods (2000 and 2014), the article uses the framework of the politics of belonging. The politics of belonging as articulated by Yuval-Davis et al. (2006: 3) ‘comprises specific political projects aimed at constructing belonging to a group, the members of which are themselves being constructed in these projects in very specific ways’. Central to the politics of belonging is the making of citizenships and identities (Yuval-Davis et al., 2006). The politics of belonging involves contestations on discourses around which people construct and organise boundaries of a collectivity of where one belongs (Geschiere and Nyamnjoh, 1998, 2000; Lähdesmäki et al. 2016). It is ‘a discursive resource that constructs, claims, justifies, or resists forms of socio-spatial inclusion/exclusion’ (Antonsich, 2010: 645). Essentially, the politics of belonging contends and challenges the idea of who belongs where (Calhoun, 1999).

Central to the politics of belonging is the autochthon/allochthon dichotomy and how it is used to determine who belongs to a particular territory and who does not. Geschiere (2011) illustrates that autochthons depict ‘born from the soil’ which is a basis of primodal belonging. By autochthons, we imply people that belong, that have a claim to an area first before other groups as Vieten and Yuval-Davis (2018: 10) argue it is about ‘I was here before you’. This is echoed by Sinclair-Bright (2016: 54) who highlights that autochthonous belonging is attached to territory, that is, being the first owners of an area and having ‘prior and superior rights compared to other potential claimants’. This view is also echoed by the first group of beneficiaries in the cases study area in Rouxdale (R/E). Autochthony is largely grounded on land as it ‘gives it a strong territorialising capacity, outlining in a more or less symbolic way a clearly defined “home”’ (Geschiere, 2009: 29). Allochthone on the other hand implies those that do not belong, mostly from outside areas (Vieten and Yaval-Davis, 2018).

Studies have shown that autochthony is very fluid and that determining who an autochtone and allochtone is may not be easy and that the claim for autochthony is inevitably open to challenge by counterclaims (Mujere, 2011). This is confirmed by Geschiere and Nyamnjoh (1998, 2000) who highlight the constant redefinition of autochthony, showing that it is not cast and stone. However, the autochthon/alloctone dialect has been very critical in the analysis of outcomes of land reform. A study by Chadambuka and Helliker (2022) on the FTLRP argues that autochthone/allochthone is an important lens in understanding practices of inclusion or exclusion which are based on ethnic, national belonging, and concomitant practices prevalent in past and present Zimbabwe. In our article, the framework of the politics of belonging is relevant in understanding the preferences, differences and boundaries that are created by people. This framework becomes key in understanding the contestation between the ‘autochthones’ that is, those that arrived on Rouxdale (R/E) farm first and the ‘allochthon’, those that were added on the farm a decade and a half later.

Politics of belonging in the Fast Track Land Reform Programme

The politics of belonging in the FTLRP has taken different forms in different parts of Zimbabwe. Some studies discuss contestations around ethnicity and citizenship as a claim to autonomous ties to land those perceived to be ‘strangers’ because of foreign nationality and how these dynamics spill over the usage of resources (Chadambuka and Helliker, 2022). Some explore the dynamics of ethnic regionalism in the process of acquiring land during the FTLRP (Chambati and Mazwi, 2022). Others highlight contestations between various groups claiming original autochthony over the same piece of land (Mkodzongi, 2019). The interface between traditional authority, land and politics in resettlement areas of the FTLRP areas, with autchtonony claims based on graves, is the focus of other studies (Fontein, 2011; Mujere, 2011). However, in the context of A1 farms in Zimbabwe where in most cases there are no claims to autochthony based on graves and ancestral sites, there is a need to understand how the dialects of autochthony and allochthons play out.

Using data from two surveys covering six districts of Zimbabwe, Chambati and Mazwi (2022) argue that the ethno-regionalism in the FTLRP in most cases was a dominant force through which beneficiaries were either included or excluded in the land allocations. The role of ethnic mobilisation in Zimbabwe has also been explored by Moyo (2013). Chambati and Mazwi (2022: 14) argue that the ethnic claims to land were mostly driven by traditional leaders and spirit mediums who were at the centre of driving ‘ethno-regional bias’ by recovering ancestral land that was taken at the onset of colonisation. Chambati and Mazwi (2022: 20) state that the nature of the A1 model ‘allocated land to people near their communal areas of origin and thus inevitably infused ethno-regionalism’. However, it is important to state that other beneficiaries of the A1 model were from different provinces who over time have since become ‘insiders’ (Chambati and Mazwi, 2022). While Chambati and Mazwi (2022) provide key insights on the dialects of exclusion based on ethno-reginalism, there is need to explore the dynamic of exclusion and politics of belonging within the same ethnic groups.

Other studies on the politics of belonging in the context of FTLRP highlight contestations between former farm workers and beneficiaries of the FTLRP. A study in Shamva District details contestations of belonging between the A1 autochthonous farmers of Zimbabwean nationality and farmworkers of foreign descent also settled on the same farm (Chadambuka and Helliker, 2022). Their insights illustrate that autochtones claimed their belonging on the land based on being an ethnic group with Zimbabwean citizenship, while regarding former farm workers without Zimbabwean origin as allochthons (Chadambuka and Helliker, 2022). The former farm workers also asserted their belonging by arguing that although some migrated from Malawi and Mozambique, most of their children were born in Zimbabwe.

A significant bone of contention in Shamwa District was the view by A1 farmers that former farm workers did not belong to the land and that they were utilising land that could have been an extension of grazing land for their livestock (Chadambuka and Helliker, 2022). A1 farmers enforced their dominance by using former farm workers as agricultural labour in return for meagre wages as a condition for remaining on the land (Chadambuka and Helliker, 2022). Farmworkers also enforced their belonging on the land by hindering A1 farmers from participating in the gold mining activities of gold deposits concentrated on their side of the farm, showing the use of agency to challenge the autochthony of the A1 farmers (Chadambuka and Helliker, 2022). While this study provides important insights into dialects of the tensions between former farm workers and A1 beneficiaries we stretch these insights by focusing on the politics of belonging arising from the addition of newcomers on land previously allocated to a group of beneficiaries for grazing purposes.

A contestation between two groups of FTLRP beneficiaries in the Damvuri area, Mhondoro-Ngezi, highlights an interesting case of the politics of belonging. The first group includes people who resided close to the Mhondoro-Ngezi communal area (CA), while the second consists of people from locations such as Sanyati and Gokwe (Mkodzongi, 2019, 2013) before acquiring land through the FTLRP. Both groups targeted Damvuri area because of the claim that their ancestors were evicted from that land during the colonial period, although the FTLRP does not have an official clause for restitution (Mkodzongi, 2019). Both claimed that they belonged to the land, pointing to graves and historical monuments as the basis of belonging (Mkodzongi, 2019). The first group’s autochthony was questioned based on their continual linkage with the communal areas while the second group took some steps to authenticate their autochthony by means of identifying the graves of their ancestors and reburied bones of their ancestors (Mkodzongi, 2019). This contestation for belonging confirms the view by Mujere (2011: 1125) that autochthony is a fluid form of identity that is open to counter claims by other groups. Other scholars also argue that it is possible for people to belong in more than one place (Marewo, 2020), and this cannot be used solely as a means of labelling ‘strangers’ or ‘allochthons’ as is the case in Mhondoro-Ngezi. Another group contributing to contestations of belonging in Mhondoro-Ngezi consists of people who previously resided in urban areas, including former farm workers and mine workers, whose claim to belonging was based on their participation in the land occupations popularised by the ZANU PF as a revolutionary struggle (Mkodzongi, 2019: 272).

The politics of belonging in the FTLRP in Zimbabwe also involves chiefs and their contestations over regaining ancestral land lost during the colonial period (Mujere, 2011). This is despite the absence of a formal restitution clause in the FTLRP Policy Document. Chief Chikwanda of Masvingo District took control over land being claimed by Chief Makore at the onset of the land occupations. Chief Chikwanda’s claim to autochthonous belonging on the land is based on the claim that he lost his land to Makore during the colonial period, which he regained in the FTLRP period (Mujere, 2011). Chief Makore points to sacred places, burial sites and other physical features as a basis of autochthonous belonging to the land. Interestingly, the land in question lies administratively on the border of Masvingo District, where Chief Chikwanda resides, and not on Makore’s side in Gutu District (Mujere, 2011). This, together with the fact that Chief Chikwanda immediately encouraged his people at the onset of the FTLRP to occupy the land, and appointed traditional structures, while removing those with allegiance to Chief Makore, facilitated his takeover of the land (Mujere, 2011). This is the dynamic we grapple with in this paper.

Chiefs had strategic ways of claiming land belonging to their ancestors after occupation during the FTLRP. In the area around lake Mutirikwi, Chief Murinye was buried secretly in a cave which is a major ancestral monument in Boroma in December 2004. The monument sits on FTLRP land Chief Murinye claimed belonged to his forefathers whose graves remained during displacement by the colonial regime (Fontein, 2011). His burial, which is seen as a political move, was seen as a means of claiming autochthony and belonging in the face of opposition from counterclaims by other settlers (Fontein, 2011). It is argued that the strategic selection of his burial site ‘renegotiat[ed] regimes of rule and reconfigur[ed] structures of sovereignty over the territory and people’ (Fontein, 2011: 710). Since funerals have a deep spiritual connection to the soil, which itself has deep varied meanings to the people, then Chief Murinye’s funeral was not just a ‘festival of belonging but a [creation] of material landscape for belonging’ (Fontein, 2011: 714). While historical claims of belonging such as chieftaincy tend to be the dominant force in the politics of exclusion, in the absence of such claims, there is a need to review the autochthon-allochthon dialect.

Background of the case study

The article draws insights from a case study of Rouxdale R/E (Remaining Extent) Farm of the Bubi District, Matabeleland North Province. The Province forms part of Region 4 of the agro-ecological scale with fairly dry climatic conditions most favourable for livestock production and drought-resistant crops (Weiner, 1988: 66). Rouxdale (R/E) farm is 1, 437 hectares in size, located 30 kilometres north of the City of Bulawayo, the second largest city in Zimbabwe.

The land occupation of Rouxdale (R/E) farm, pioneered by war veterans previously residing in the City of Bulawayo, was non-violent and organised. At the onset of occupations, the District Office had already set up a team of officials responsible for overseeing the process to ensure that it was conducted in an orderly and peaceful manner. A leadership structure was also created with the role of coordinating the activities of the land occupation process. Land allocation was coordinated by the District Administrator (DA), District Development Fund (DDF) and representatives of the Ministry of Lands. Priority was given to land occupiers who had been squatting on the farm, following a register kept by the leadership of the group.

Twenty-one beneficiaries were allocated land on Rouxdale (R/E) farm in 2000, with one additional beneficiary in 2003 bringing the total to 22 beneficiaries. Beneficiaries were allocated residential plots with the size of 0.5 hectares each, which would be divided into two sections consisting of a homestead and garden. The size of arable plots was 3 hectares each, while they shared grazing land communally. In August 2014, twenty-two additional beneficiaries were added onto Rouxdale (R/E) farm through the authority of the District Land Committee, bringing the total to 44. Although additional beneficiaries were not part of the initial research, their addition to the farm resulted in a number of contestations of belonging based on access to resources such as grazing land and woodlots.

Methodology

This work is qualitative in nature. It relies on data conducted through semi-structured interviews of 18 beneficiaries in 2014. Informal conversations and interactions with participants were another important sources of rich data. Follow-ups with the participants were conducted in a brief visit in May 2015. Further follow-up interviews were made in January and March 2022 to enhance the narratives of the case study. Observations conducted in transact walks around the farm to gain an understanding of issues of land use, building structures of participants, arable plot activities, grazing land and associated activities and cattle dipping were useful in enhancing the data. Through the interviews, the research gathered detailed life histories of beneficiaries (Kvale, 1996).

Of the 18 beneficiaries who participated in this study, 16 originated from the city of Bulawayo, while the remaining two were from communal areas within the Bubi District. After the allocation of land, 11 beneficiaries resided on the farm and derived primary livelihoods from the land. Four beneficiaries lived in the city of Bulawayo and hired people to live in their residential plots, also providing labour and participating in various farm projects. The beneficiaries visited the farm regularly, given its proximity to the city of Bulawayo. This is evidence of dual belonging evident in other parts of the country. The last beneficiary had just acquired an A2 large-scale farm in the Midlands Province to accommodate his large herd of cattle that required a larger piece of land. He was included in the study because of his wealth of knowledge, having been part of the processes of land invasion and lived on Rouxdale (R/E) farm for approximately 13 years.

Nine land officials representing various governing structures at District and Provincial levels were also interviewed. The officials included representatives of the District land Committee (DLC) of the Bubi District, Ministry of Lands, Rural District Council, the District Development Fund (DDF) and the office of the District Administrator. The ZANU PF structures in Bubi District and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Extension (AREX) were also represented. Government officials provided insight on issues of land allocation, tenure and actions of the state, such as the addition of beneficiaries on Rouxdale (R/E) farm and its implications on belonging from the perspective of the state.

Claiming belonging on Rouxdale (R/E) farm

As indicated earlier, the occupation of Rouxdale (R/E) farm was steered by war veterans, most of whom resided in the City of Bulawayo. The war veteran group was composed of men and women, who had strong friendships created during the years of the liberation struggle. After the independence of Zimbabwe in 1980, these war veterans settled at Nkulumane suburb, District 7, in Bulawayo until the onset of the FTLRP in 2000. Constant social interaction among the war veterans strengthened the bonds of friendship while in Bulawayo, making a well-established social network. While in Bulawayo, the war veterans attended regular war veteran meetings held in Nkulumane suburb where the identification of large-scale White-owned farms in proximity of Bulawayo was made, targeting the farms such as Rouxdale (R/E) for invasion through the FTLRP. The social interaction and relations within the social network of war veterans constitute a strong sense of belonging. In fact, the group of war veterans had a sense of belonging to each other upon acquiring land on Rouxdale (R/E) farm. What remained was building belonging with other beneficiaries and attachment to the land.

For most beneficiaries, belonging to the land was based on their citizenship as Zimbabweans, having participated in the 3rd Chimurenga revolutionary movement of land occupations (Mkodzongi, 2019). Indeed the land occupations were popularised by ZANU as a movement that ensured that Zimbabweans acquired land. This was expressed by one beneficiary who stated that: ‘we belong to this land, given to us by the government of Zimbabwe. For us to settle here, we had to forgo difficult living conditions during farm occupations to enforce the eviction of white farmers’ (Field interview, June 2014).

Most of the war veterans interviewed highlighted participation in the liberation struggle as the basis for their claim of belonging on the land on Rouxdale (R/E) farm. This was expressed by one war veteran who said: ‘we wanted the land, and nothing else. That was our main motivation for joining the liberation struggle. Now that we have the land we have rested’ (Field interview, 3 June 2014). It is important to note here that not all beneficiaries were war veterans, but that the veterans were responsible for providing oversight of the land occupations. In Matabeleland, most veterans did not acquire land in the first phase of land reform between 1980 and 1999 because of the post-colonial political unrest in the region (Alexander, 1991). Thus, the FTLRP delivered to them the long awaited access to land.

Unlike the rest of the beneficiaries, one respondent had a historical claim to belonging to Rouxdale (R/E) farm. The respondent revealed that her late husband worked as a livestock foreman on Rouxdale (R/E) farm during the colonial period. She could not remember the exact years but narrated that most of her children were born while living there. Using money from the payment of the bride price of their daughters, she detailed that her husband managed to accrue livestock which he also kept on the farm with the agreement of his employer. However, when the farm was sold to another White farmer, the new White farmer was not comfortable with the arrangement of her husband keeping cattle on his land. The farmer chased him from the land, leading to their relocation to Silobela communal areas where he built a three-roomed house for his family. In narrating how they returned to Rouxdale (R/E) farm, the beneficiary said,

During the land occupations, the war veterans, upon hearing how we had been evicted by those who knew us, looked for my husband and ensured that he became one of the beneficiaries of this land. While my husband was still completing building our new home, he got very sick and died and was buried here in our communal grave area. Before he died, he instructed me to live here permanently where he would be buried. (Field interview, 21 May 2015)

The beneficiary, who had adult children living with her, points to the grave of her husband as another aspect of her belonging to the land. Part of the attachment to the land for this beneficiary are memories of living on the land earmarked by physical features such as the building of the store and her former fields, and also how the whole set-up of the land use was transformed after the conversion of the farm into an A1 village through the FTLRP.

Rouxdale (R/E) farm, a place called ‘home’

The establishment of a place of ‘home’ on Rouxdale (R/E) farm was a long journey full of complexities and challenges. At the onset, it was filled with uncertainty, particularly upon the acquisition of land and building of temporary structures. One beneficiary expressed: ‘we had fear that land would be taken away from us, so we needed to assess if the whole FTLRP was real before building solid structures’ (Field interview, 22 May 2015). Life in the temporary structures was filled with challenges such as drastic weather change which made living in temporary structures unbearable. One beneficiary narrated: ‘we built structures made out of plastic paper when we first arrived here. One day it rained heavily and the wind lifted the roof of the shack and the rain poured in. It was very hard’ (Field interview, 8 July 2014). Upon acquiring offer letters ¹ from the government, beneficiaries became more secure about their permanency on the land. This was evidenced by various solid structures. Various investments were made in the land, and these included livestock, crops, farming tools and implements, solar energy and again ownership was differentiated. Investments in the land were a clear indicator of attachment to the land.

The 99-year leases given by the state further solidified their sense of belonging. One beneficiary narrated: ‘there was a very big celebration at the house of the chief when we were given the 99 year leases by the government. So we belong here on this land’ (Interview, March 2022). Although the land still remains owned by the state, the 99-year lease gives beneficiaries the right to access and use of land for a long period (GoZ, 2018). It is important to understand that beneficiaries of the land reform when they arrived on Rouxdale, they managed to establish a sense of belonging by building permanent structures and burying their family members, this was strengthened by the 99-year lease which reinforced a sense of belonging. The 99-year leases do not transfer ownership but provide a right of landholding for a period of 99 years which is renewable, with the state being the owner of the land. However, in most cases, beneficiaries regard themselves as owners of the land by virtue of being resettled on the land. Thus, with the additional beneficiaries being added to the farm the first group of beneficiaries saw their sense of belonging on the farm being threatened.

Although most war veterans who previously resided in Bulawayo had strong relationships among each other, creating an attachment to the land and other beneficiaries was challenging. Most of the problems, which also weakened some of the friendships of war veterans, emanated from weaknesses of the structure of the A1 villagised model. These include proximity of residential plots that limited privacy and proximity of residential plots (where livestock kraals are situated) with arable plots that opened the way for livestock to feed on crops when unnoticed. Others were boundary conflicts between neighbours and tensions emanating from the usage of passages separating some residential plots. For a more detailed analysis of these challenges (see Ncube, 2018, 2019, 2021). However, within the struggles emerged various forms of collaboration, after the realisation that it was necessary in a model that has a communal component where beneficiaries shared resources. Networks of collaboration were also necessitated by limited post-settlement support from the state. Through these networks, beneficiaries overlooked their differences and formed various forms of connection with each other and the land, thus constituting a strong sense of belonging. Building belonging was not a straightforward process but one riddled with negotiation, compromise and constant social interaction.

Most of the beneficiaries indicated that Rouxdale (R/E) farm had become a place they called ‘home’. In expressing this, one beneficiary said: ‘things have changed. I no longer buy property and take it to my parents’ home for safekeeping. Now I have my own home where my property is. I have a place where I belong’ (Field interview 4, June 2014). Similar sentiments were expressed by those beneficiaries who resided in Bulawayo, who referred to Rouxdale (R/E) as ‘home’. A beneficiary emphasised this by stating that ‘nothing compares to the time I spend sitting under the shade of a tree in my residential plot to rest. It reminds me of growing up in the communal areas where we would relax after a day of hard work’ (Field interview, 2 June 2014). This sentiment of Rouxdale (R/E) farm being ‘home’ was also narrated by another beneficiary who said,

As for me I am settled here on this land. I am willing to face no matter how big a challenge that will come my way. I have invested all my strength here. Even if the government tried to move me they would fail because for me this is now my home. (Field interview, 20 May 2015)

The responses above portray the sense of attachment and belonging to Rouxdale (R/E) as a farm as a place of ‘home’, a place of peace and rest. For many, the farm became their final resting place, meaning that they intend to be buried there. This was explained by one beneficiary who said: ‘Now that I have spent most of my prime years working to educate my children in Bulawayo, this place, Rouxdale (R/E) farm, is where I am going to be laid to rest’ (Field interview, 2 August 2014). This sentiment was confirmed by the presence of a burial club, formed by women on behalf of their families as a source of support in cases of death. The membership of the club overlapped to involve beneficiaries from neighbouring villages in close proximity to Rouxdale (R/E) farm. In the event of a death of a club member or their immediate relative, a stipulated amount of money would be disbursed from the pool of funds to contribute towards the funeral. Members of the burial club would provide emotional support and assistance in the running of the day-to-day activities of the funeral. All these plans indicate beneficiaries’ permanency on the land to a point of seeing it as a final resting place. In fact, some beneficiaries had already buried their relatives in the communal grave on the farm.

Agricultural production was a significant indicator of beneficiaries’ attachment to the land. Having acquired land, most beneficiaries originating from Bulawayo could finally practice livestock production. One beneficiary expressed: ‘I did not have cattle when I acquired land, but now that I have a place I call home, I initially bought three beasts and now I have more cattle’ (Interview, 2 June 2014). This shows how people have the ability to create dual belonging after relocating to new areas. Beneficiaries also reared goats and chickens. On crop production, maize was the dominant crop, with other crops such as groundnuts, millet, sorghum and pumpkins grown in small quantities. Agricultural production was not a smooth process but one filled with challenges of limited state support. Beneficiaries therefore relied on structures of collaboration enforced by the state at village level and social networks created out of their own agency to combat challenges.

Although beneficiaries living in Bulawayo felt at ‘home’ on Rouxdale (R/E) farm, they were side-lined in the decision-making regarding the development of the village because for a large part, they did not attend regular meetings. An informal conversation with a leader in the village revealed that there was more input from people residing permanently on the farm than those living in Bulawayo. He expressed: ‘villagers are given space to contribute in meetings, but those in Bulawayo are often absent and out of touch with what is happening on a day-to-day basis’ (Interview, 22 May 2015). Beneficiaries living in Bulawayo, on the other hand, felt that even at times that they attended the meetings, their views were side-lined. This discouraged them from attending meetings regularly. However, they expressed that due to the investments they have made in the land and relations, they still belonged to Rouxdale (R/E) farm. This is a clear case of dual belonging, where individuals can belong to more than one place (Marewo, 2020).

Newcomers and contested belonging

The addition of 22 more beneficiaries on Rouxdale (R/E) farm in 2014 introduced new complexities of belonging for beneficiaries. The absorption of additional beneficiaries on Rouxdale (R/E) farm was a response to a request by beneficiaries for their adult children to be allocated land on existing communal grazing land. The application process involved providing identity documents to the village head who would submit them to the DLC for approval. Although some beneficiaries opposed the request, submissions were made, with some beneficiaries living in the city of Bulawayo nominating their employees as resident on the farm. Some beneficiaries residing in Bulawayo registered the names of their employees resident on the farm. Those opposed to the decision did not participate in the submissions. After the approval of the request, 22 extra beneficiaries were added onto the farm in August 2014. However, against the expectations of many, only a few children nominated by beneficiaries were allocated land, the rest being people from outside Rouxdale (R/E) farm.

The outcome of the land allocation was contentious. Parents of children who did not acquire land felt that new beneficiaries who were not drawn from the list did not belong to the farm. One beneficiary explained,

I went to complain to the village head about my son’s exclusion and he told me that the list of names was finalised at the District Administrator’s Office. These people who were added onto the list do not belong here but we are registered on this land. (Interview, 18 July 2014)

This beneficiary’s claim to belonging was based on being settled on the land in 2000, thus making their child eligible for acquiring land. A son of a beneficiary that was excluded from the land allocation expressed,

I did not understand when the village head told us that the final list of new beneficiaries was altered at the District Office. How can the District Office grade our names if they do not know us. My Identification Document indicates that I was born here in Bubi District so I do not understand why I did not acquire the land.

This son’s claim to this land was based on the fact that he belonged to the District in which Rouxdale (R/E) is geographically located. Full-time employees nominated by beneficiaries were also excluded. One employee expressed her anger for not acquiring land and justified her belonging on the basis that she lived on the farm and participated in communal projects (Field interview, 5 June 2014).

Beneficiaries whose children acquired land on the farm justified the selection, arguing that beneficiaries who acquired land who were not initially on the list belonged to the farm by reason of being bona fide citizens of Zimbabwe. One beneficiary said: ‘Those whose children were excluded from the allocation have no right to be angry because land was allocated on a first-come first-serve basis. Land belongs to all Zimbabweans so it was important to accommodate people from outside the farm’. (Interview, 12 June 2014). Beneficiaries opposed to the additional allocation of the land maintained that it was a bad decision. This was explained by one beneficiary who said,

I did not agree with this absorption of extra beneficiaries from the onset. When we acquired land in 2000, we were informed that it could only accommodate a small number of people and livestock, so there was no need for further allocation. (Field interview, 27 May 2015)

They felt that their belonging was challenged because their concerns were not recognised by local governance authorities.

There was a consensus among beneficiaries excluded from the land allocation that those who acquired land for their children bribed land officials at the District Office. This assertion was made based on the failure of local authorities to explain how people from the farm were sidelined to accommodate ‘strangers’. Land officials confirmed that land allocations of this nature were often mired with corruption. In explaining the processes followed in such allocations, one official explained that after the request for more beneficiaries is made by village heads, names are submitted to the DLC at the District Office. The DLC, upon obtaining approval from the PLC, takes control of the allocation of land to beneficiaries. This is where members of the DLC use corrupt means to allocate land to people who are not on the list of the village head (Field interview, 30 October 2014). Pressure for land and long waiting lists opened room for corrupt methods of allocation of land. As a result of desperation, people bribe land officials, making belonging a commodity that can be purchased with money.

ZANU-PF politicians have been taking advantage of pressure for land to enforce the addition of beneficiaries onto existing A1 villages to extend their support base through votes. This is another form of transactional belonging where people are allocated land in exchange of votes during elections. A land official emphasised that more approvals were being made for the addition of beneficiaries on A1 farms in preparation for the 2018 elections (Interview, 22 September 2014). This is what was also happening on Rouxdale (R/E) farm where the addition of beneficiaries happened a few years before the 2018 election period. Beneficiaries whose children were excluded could not successfully contest the decision because the procedure involves reporting to officials responsible for corruption. Furthermore, it is impossible to reverse decisions enforced by ZANU-PF regarding land allocation.

The dynamics arising from the addition of beneficiaries on Rouxdale (R/E) farm are varied. On one hand, land officials were themselves opposed to it. One official explained: ‘we cannot stop the addition of people to A1 villages. We do not have the power to tell politicians to find alternative ways of increasing votes. We just follow instructions so that we do not lose our jobs’ (interview, 22 September 2014). The official further expressed that ‘while our purpose is to empower people through provision of land, this has been surpassed by the use of land to secure votes by politicians’ (Field interview, 22 September 2014). On the other hand, beneficiaries excluded from the allocation of additional land felt excluded and reminded that although Rouxdale (R/E) farm had become their ‘home’, the land, after all, belonged to the state.

Politics of belonging at play in Rouxdale (R/E) farm

The addition of new beneficiaries on the farm were seen as ‘strangers’ that ‘invaded’ a territory belonging to the ‘indigenes’ to take possession of land set aside for agricultural livelihoods. The original beneficiaries’ autochthony was claimed on the basis that they were there before the ‘strangers’. The addition largely affected original beneficiaries whose children did not acquire land in a negative manner. Interviews conducted telephonically revealed that beneficiaries felt that the presence of new beneficiaries threatened their security on the land, thus affecting their sense of belonging. One beneficiary noted: ‘there has been an increase in illegal mining thus attracting more people to Rouxdale (R/E) farm, making us feel unsafe as women’ (Interview, 6 March 2022). Another beneficiary related: ‘we now have a lot of unknown people in the neighbourhood because previously, every visitor would announce themselves to the local village head but now it is not possible to trace everyone’ (Interview 17 March 2022). Another beneficiary expressed,

we could have preferred a scenario whereby our children were allocated land in that case we would have been certain that the people that have farms are people that we know. As of now if my goats go astray into the bush, I’m not certain of the person that I’m going to meet and I do not feel safe anymore as a result of these additional people. (Interview, 2 April 2022)

Another concern expressed by beneficiaries was that

The new beneficiaries were settled very close to our Primary School. We were never worried about our children falling into danger on their way to and from school. Now that there a lot of people there, I fear that our children are in danger of being harmed for example things like rape and disappearances can happen. I do not have peace about that. (Interview, 25 March 2022)

Insecurity resulting from the additional beneficiaries meant that the new beneficiaries were regarded as outsiders who brought instability to the farm. This was explained by one beneficiary in the statement below:

I can say that with people that received land in 2014 that we have some cordial relations not the best because we share common amenities like boreholes and deep tanks so that’s how far we are related but of course, the relations are not as close as the ones who initially started this farm. (Interview, 8 April 2022)

Another beneficiary highlighted acceptance of the additional beneficiaries for fear of challenging local governing authorities. They stated that

Those people are now permanent. They are now one of us. They are now documented by the Ministry of Lands. They are highly connected with top officials who gave them access to land, so if you stress yourself about them you will be in trouble. We have left it like that. (Interview, 16 April 2022)

The above narrative highlights beneficiaries’ lack of power to challenge the actions of the state, hence the need to just accept its decisions for the sake of peace.

Beneficiaries had expressed fear that additional beneficiaries would reduce livelihood production on the farm and create a strain on shared grazing land and social infrastructure. This was confirmed by one beneficiary who stated that

We signed the 99-year lease which clearly showed the maps of the geographical location of our farm and its boundaries. However, the additional people on the farms are now encroaching on our grazing field and are now a threat to our livestock. (Interview, 6 April 2022)

Another beneficiary related,

There is a big effect on the grazing area. They also have cattle. That area is communal grazing land, they live on grazing land, and also share grazing land with us, so the impact is great. It is hard. (Interview, 17 April 2022)

These views show that beneficiaries felt insecure in terms of their belonging since part of their land had been taken away, thus reducing livestock-related production. As noted earlier, agricultural production contributed to their attachment to the land, hence reduction in the size of grazing land caused insecurity.

Those beneficiaries whose children were added to the farm highlighted that they actually felt more secure that their children had settled on the land. One beneficiary noted that this has strengthened their family relations:

We are happy with the addition of people on the farm because it has given our children an opportunity to own land at the same time allowing us to see them more frequently. (Interview, 3 February 2022)

Another beneficiary highlighted emotional support received from a child who acquired land on the farm as an advantage:

My husband is bed ridden, the fact that my child was allocated land here on the farm means that he frequently visits us to give us emotional support. Sometimes he comes with his family to assist with anything around the homestead if I am not feeling well also. (Interview, 8 March 2022)

One beneficiary also explained that the acquisition of land by their child brought their relatives geographically closer:

We are happy that we were given this land here even though there were a lot of complaints at first but it had to happen. As you know most of our relatives are either in Bulawayo or Gwanda, however the fact that I can visit my children here on Rouxdale means that I have my relatives here close to me. (Interview, 24 February 2022)

The narratives above show how the addition of new beneficiaries on the farm has resulted in a number of contestations on belonging. Although some beneficiaries benefitted from the addition on the farm, this has largely been affected by contestations for resources such as grazing land and firewood among other resources.

Discussion

The insights collected for this study illustrate the importance of examining the contestations of autochthony in cases of non-ancestral claims to land. While in most cases autochthony is claimed based on graves and traditional authorities (Mujere, 2011 and Fontein, 2011), our case illustrates new forms of claiming autochthony through non-ancestral claims to land particularly in land reform setup. In cases where groups claim ‘i was here before you’, the politics of belonging contributes to autochthonous belonging which in most cases lead to the creation of territories and boundaries (Geschiere, 2009; Sinclair-Bright, 2016). In most cases this often leads to exclusion of groups of people that are often seen as not having adequate autochthonous claims to land (Chadambuka and Helliker, 2022).

Analysis of our data shows that autochthons create boundaries of secluding others mostly in the ownership and use of land. As shown in our case this often involves contesting through state institutions such as traditional authorities and state departments. This is also evident in Mujere (2011) and Fontein (2011) who concur that land plays an important role in the definition and contestations of belonging particularly in agrarian societies. The politics of belonging therefore helps unpack the preferences, differences and boundaries that are created by people (Lentz, 2007). Furthermore, the insights from this case study show that the politics of belonging as a framework is important in understanding the preferences, differences and boundaries that are created by people, particularly in the context of land reform (Antonsich, 2010; Page et al., 2010).

On the other hand, evidence from the case study also illustrates that amid tensions between autochthons and allochthons, the allochthons have found ways of reassuring their belonging by emphasising their citizenship as Zimbabweans which gives them the right to land and participating in mining activities for livelihoods. This has been captured by Chadambuka and Helliker (2022) who state that in their study farmworkers who were regarded as allochthons prohibited A1 farmers from accessing gold deposits on their side of the farm, refusing to be passive recipients of the dominance of A1 beneficiaries (Chadambuka and Helliker, 2022). This case shows that ‘strangers’ or allochthons are not always on the losing end, but that they can use their agency to reinforce their belonging on the land.

The narratives from this case study depict the dynamics of belonging through instances of the plurality of belonging, as people belonging in more than one place (Marewo and Ncube, 2022). As beneficiaries of the FTLRP straddle either between resettlement areas and urban areas or communal areas, physically, emotionally, socially and socio-culturally, this has been documented in other studies (Murisa, 2009, 2013; Marewo, 2020). These insights are also evident in migration studies which illustrate that people that migrate are able to create dual belonging, Gugler (2002: 21) shows by arguing that ‘most rural-urban migrants maintain significant ties with their communities of origin in Africa south of the Sahara’. This case study shows that while dual belonging can be established, in most cases it is often complex as there are dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in trying to ascertain belonging.

Our study also illustrates that in a number of cases the state is involved in enabling the contestations of belonging, in our case the addition of more beneficiaries enabled tensions. This has been emphasised by the fact that belonging to a location is more frequently informed by social, political [state institutions] and economic factors through which access to various resources such as land, are sought and contested (Geschiere and Nyamnjoh, 1998; Koot et al., 2019). Under normal circumstances, land policy should encourage the belonging of beneficiaries of land reform. However, the case study demonstrates the weakness of a top-down land governance system (Chigwata, 2016; Marewo et al., 2021), which, through the addition of people on the farm, is not sensitive to how its decisions affect people on the ground.

Conclusion

The article discussed the politics of belonging between two groups of A1 beneficiaries on Rouxdale (R/E) farm-allocated land at different periods (2000 and 2014). The addition of beneficiaries in 2014 on Rouxdale (R/E) farm where land is already a contested resource causes tensions that test the boundaries of autochthony. This dimension of the politics of belonging is unlike other cases of the FTLRP where contestations are mainly around attachments based on primordial forms of belonging such as ethnic claims, historical graves and ancestral cites (Chambati and Mazwi, 2022; Fontein, 2011; Mkodzongi, 2019; Mujere, 2011). Our study brings new insights, particularly that the state plays a role in creating the politics of belonging in land reform programmes in a twofold manner. First, through enforcing the addition of beneficiaries by politicians onto already allocated land to extend their political mileage which creates belonging that is transactional in nature. Second, that belonging has become a good that can be purchased with money. This is supported by the view that some beneficiaries bribed land officials to access land in the second allocation of 2014 on Rouxdale (R/E) farm. Thus, change must come from a deliberate effort from the state in ensuring that it does not make decisions that pit one group of beneficiaries against another.