i LIBRARY

Michigan State
L University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

AUG 0 2 2005

 

£215 05

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

 

THE THIRD CHIMURENGA? STATE TERROR AND STATE ORGANIZED
VIOLENCE IN ZIMBABWE’S COMMERCIAL FARMING COMMUNITIES

By

Heather Nicole Holtzclaw

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Sociology

2004

ABSTRACT

THE THIRD CHIMURENGA? STATE TERROR AND STATE ORGANIZED
VIOLENCE IN ZIMBABWE’S COMMERCIAL FARMING COMMUNITIES

By
Heather Nicole Holtzclaw

The purpose of this dissertation is to examine state terror and state organized
violence associated with the land invasions prior to the parliamentary elections of 2000 in
Zimbabwe. My primary research question is “under what conditions are different people
exposed to different kinds of state terror and violence?” To that end, the dissertation
focuses on commercial farming communities, the first targets of violence in Zimbabwe,
as they represented a critical logistical and ideological lens with which to frame the
violence as the Third Chimurenga or a popular uprising for land. Using a combination of
qualitative and quantitative methods, I ask four questions about this violence: (1) How
does the state perpetuate its own interests through the use of state terror? (2) How does
“the routinization of terror” function? (3) How do people in different social locations
experience violence and terror differently? and (4) How do people in different social
locations strategize under conditions of fear and insecurity?

Following the defeat of the Government of Zimbabwe supported drafi
constitutional referendum in February of 2000, veterans of Zimbabwe’s liberation war
began invading white-owned commercial farms. I argue that these invasions were part of
an electoral strategy of the ruling party, ZANU-PF, who feared the emergent MDC in the
coming parliamentary elections due to the declining popularity of ZANU-PF and
President Mugabe. The Commercial Farmers Union, in an attempt to protect its members

and ensure its own organizational survival, responded to the violence in ways which both

alienated its members and increased the vulnerability of farm workers. Ultimately, both
farmers’ and farm workers’ experiences with state terror and violence, survival strategies,
and the conditions implicated in their exposure to violence were all mediated by the race
and gender hierarchy in Zimbabwe. Exposure to violence was mediated by conditions
such as (l) the ecology of the farm, (2) normative social structures, (3) employment
hierarchies, (4) proportional representation within the electorate, (5) political affiliation,

(6) organizational access to resources and (7) geography.

Copyright by
HEATHER NICOLE HOLTZCLAW
2004

This dissertation is dedicated to the memories of Christopher Vanderpool 0943-2001)
and Ruth Sims Hamilton (1937-2003).

ACKNOWLEDEMENTS

The completion of my dissertation would not have been possible without the
support of numerous friends, family members, colleagues, field informants and
organizations. I would like to thank the Commercial F armers’ Union (CPU) and the
General Agricultural and Plantation Workers Union for their assistance during my
fieldwork. In particular, the CPU and many of its members allowed me access to their
lives in a time of duress, to which I owe much gratitude. Thank you to the CPU national
and regional leaders who generously invited me into meetings, facilitated my research,
and introduced me to their members.

Stateside, my advisor and mentor Dr. Rita S. Gallin provided immeasurable
assistance both during my fieldwork and particularly while writing the dissertation. Dr.
Gallin has been a tremendous source of support, guidance and a true mentor who has
cultivated my intellectual growth throughout my graduate career at Michigan State
University (MSU). I can not thank Rita enough for her efforts and dedication to me as a
student.

I am also indebted to my committee members who have assisted me in various
ways, Dr. William Derman, Dr. Craig Harris, Dr. Marilyn Aronoff, Dr. John Metzler, and
in memoriam Drs. Christopher Vanderpool and Ruth Sims Hamilton. Dr. Derman
provided me with guidance in Zimbabwe during my fieldwork. Throughout my graduate
career, Dr. Derman has been an intellectual ally in the study of Zimbabwe. I would like
to thank Dr. Derman for his continuous support and assistance over the years. Through
many conversations about my research over lunch, Dr. Harris challenged me to think

differently about my conclusions and asked interesting questions that forced me to look

vi

deeper in my analysis. I am thankful for his insights. I am very grateful to Dr. Aronoff
who joined my committee late in my dissertation process. Dr. Aronoff provided critical
feedback and suggestions for future publications. I am eternally in debt to Dr. Metzler,
whose knowledge as a Zimbabwe scholar brought (additional rigor and fine-tuning to my
dissertation. Dr. Metzler has been a source of support throughout my years at MSU and
it was a pleasure to work with him.

Dr. Christopher Vanderpool (1943-2001) joined my committee during my first
year as a graduate student after I took a course from him in Classical Theory. From that
point on, Dr. Vanderpool was a champion in my comer, providing critical feedback on
grant proposals, and letters of recommendation whenever needed. He was never too busy
to give advice, review something I had written, despite all the pressures on his time as
Department Chair for most of the years I knew him. Dr. Vanderpool had a strong
academic interest in political violence and had researched and written on the topic for
many years. This dissertation is dedicated in part to him. Dr. Vanderpool’s passing was
and is a great loss to the Department of Sociology at MSU.

My dissertation is also dedicated to Dr. Ruth Sims Hamilton (1937-2003), who
joined my committee following the death of Dr. Vanderpool in 2001. I first became
academically engaged with Dr. Hamilton several years earlier through a course on Race
and Politics. Later, I worked for Dr. Hamilton as a teaching assistant. Dr. Hamilton
treated her students with respect and demanded the best from them. In her course, I
worked hard, but learned immensely. Dr. Hamilton was an incredible teacher, offered

intensive feedback, and had critical insight into thinking about race and ethnicity. 1

vii

looked forward to her insights in my dissertation and they are missed. Dr. Hamilton’s
death is a great loss to academia.

Dr. Anne Ferguson shared her insights in the field, as well as offering me a place
to write on my return to East Lansing for which I am thankful. I would also like to
acknowledge Dr. Robert Cancel of University of California at San Diego who first
inspired me to study Africa and specifically to pursue my first overseas experience in
Zimbabwe.

Additionally, fi'iends and family played an invaluable role in allowing me to reach
this goal. Thank you to my parents and siblings for their love and support over the years.
Thanks to my MSU friends who have been sources of support: Elizabeth Ransom, Kristy
Wallmo, Jerry Hovis, Karen Wayland, Lexine Hansen, Brad Carl, Merideth Trahan,
Michelle Worosz (“goddess of power point”), Brooke Kelly, Michael Walker, Megan
Plyler and all my comrades at the Graduate Employees’ Union! Special thanks to
Michelle Worthley for the emotional support throughout this project and to Ricky Chang,
my technical guru who has saved everything on my computer more than once during
graduate school.

Funding to support this research was made possible by a Fulbright-Hays Doctoral
Dissertation Abroad Research Fellowship (1999-2000) and Social Science Research
Council International Pre-dissertation Fellowship Program (1997-1998). Any opinions,
findings, conclusions or recommendations included here are those of the author alone as

are any mistakes.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter One: Introduction 1
Problem Statement 1
Socio-historical Context — Zimbabwean Politics and Society 2
Fieldwork Crisis or Sociological Serendipity 10
The State 17
State Organized Violence —- State Terror and Torture Techniques 19
Survival Strategies 29
Research Questions 33
Outline of the Dissertation 33

Chapter Two: Colonial and Post-colonial Imaginations — Land, Race,

Chimurenga and the State in Zimbabwe 37
“White Man’s Country” — the Colonial Period (1888-1980) 37
The Establishment of “Responsible Self-Rule” and
Segregation (1923-45) 40
The Development of White Agriculture 42
Farmers and Farm Workers in Farming Communities 47
Chimurenga — Rebellion (1971-1979) 48
From African Resistance to Chimurenga 48
White Perceptions of Chimurenga 52
Independent Zimbabwe (1980-2000) 55
Post War: Land and Resettlement 56
Economic Decline, ESAP & the Return of Land as a Political Issue 61
The 1998 Donors Conference 64
The ZANU-PF Regime - Understanding the State in Zimbabwe 65
Violence as Political Tool 70
Decline in ZANU-PF Regime Popularity 72
The Rise in Civil Society 72
Weakening Support for ZANU-PF 74
The Draft Constitution and Clause 57 76
Chapter Three: Methods 83
Introduction 83
Sociological Serendipity 84
Violence and Vulnerability 84
Power and Identity in Fieldwork 88
Methodology 94
Sources of Data 95

Methods 1 01

ix

Analysis 1 04

Conclusion 105
Chapter Four: Enemies of the State: Elections, Invasions, Crisis 106
Introduction 106
The Constitutional Referendum and Political Crisis 107
ZANU-PF, ZNLWVA and the Election Campaign 110
Intensification over Time 1 19
Extensive Spread over Space and Regional Variation 138
Strategies of State Terror and State Organized Violence 144
Parliamentary Elections and State Terror and State Organized
Violence as an Electoral Strategy 150
Conclusion 154

Chapter Five: Managing State Terror and State Organized Violence:
The Commercial Farmers’ Union (CFU), The General Agricultural
and Plantation Workers of Zimbabwe (GAPWUZ) and Commercial

Farming Communities 155
Introduction 1 55
Historical Relationships Between CFU/ GAPWUZ and Farmers/

Farm Workers 156
F armers/ Farm Workers Strategies 156
CF U Strategies to Manage State Terror 163
GAPWUZ 174
Community Responses 176
Conclusion 179

Chapter Six: The Intersection of Race, Gender, and Violence — Experiences

With and Survival Strategies for Farm Invasions 182
Introduction 1 82
The Experience of Violence 183
Farm Workers and Invasion Violence 184
White Farming Communities and Invasion Experience 193
State Terror, Organized Violence, and Social Location 203
Farm Worker Survival Strategies/ Resistance 206
Farmer Survival Strategies 209
Conclusion 221
Chapter Seven: Summary and Conclusion ’ 224
Introduction 224
Major Findings 225
Implications for Theory 231

Policy Implications
Future Research
Conclusion

List of Tables

List of Figures

List of Acronyms

Map One

Bibliography

Appendices

xi

233
234
235
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
237

249

Table 1.1:

Table 1.2:

Table 1.3:

Table 2.1:

Table 2.2:

Table 4.1:

Table 4.2:

Table 4.3:

Table 4.4:

Table 4.5:

Table 4.6:

Table 4.7:

Table 4.8:

Table 6.1:

LIST OF TABLES

Ethnicity, Zimbabwe 1992 Census

Distribution of population by Ethnicity and Urban/Rural
Zimbabwe Land Classifications 1980 and 1997

Zimbabwe: History of Land Policy, 1891-2000

Gukurahundi Human Rights Violations, 1982-85
Constitutional Referendum Results by Province, February 2000
Progression of Farm Invasions, Zimbabwe, 2000

Election Invasion Timeline, Zimbabwe 2000

F arm Invasions by Region and Violence, Zimbabwe
2/2000 — 6/2000

Number of Violent Incidents by Region Zimbabwe,
2/2000 — 6/2000

Farm Invasion Human Rights Violations, Zimbabwe February —
June 2000

Pre-election Human Rights Violations
Referendum and Election Results by Region, Zimbabwe 2000

Human Rights Violations Reports by Gender and Race

xii

79

73

109

120

124

140

141

146

149

152

184

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Alternative Techniques Available to the State as Terrorist 21
Figure 1.2: Type of Torture 22
Figure 4.1: Number and Type of Primary Invasion Activities by Month,

Zimbabwe 123
Figure 4.2: Photo One 125
Figure 4.3: Violence Associated with Invasions, March — June, 2000 128

Figure 4.4: Photo Two 129

xiii

ACHPR
BSAC
CA
CAT

CC
CFU
CIO
GAPWUZ
GOZ
LAA
LOMA
LSCF
LTA
MDC
NCA
NLHA

LIST OF ACRONYMS

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights

British South Africa Company

Communal Area

Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment

Constitutional Commission

Commercial Farmers Union

Central Intelligence Agency

General Agricultural and Plantation Workers Union of Zimbabwe
Government of Zimbabwe

Land Apportionment Act

Law and Order Maintenance Act

Large Scale Commercial Farming

Land Tenure Act

Movement for Democratic Change

National Constitutional Assembly

Native Land Husbandry Act

OAU ACHPR Organization of Afi‘ican Unity African Commission on Human and

RA

SSCF
'ITL
UDHR
ZANLA
ZANU
ZANU-PF
ZAPU
ZIPRA
ZN LWVA
ZRP

Peoples’ Rights

Resettlement Area

Small Scale Commercial Farming

Tribal Trust Lands

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Zimbabwe Afi’ican National Liberation Army
Zimbabwe African National Union

Zimbabwe African National Union — Patriotic Front
Zimbabwe African People’s Union

Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army
Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veteran Association
Zimbabwe Republic Police

xiv

Map One: Administrative Provinces of Zimbabwe

| ©errcrews
2000

   
   
   
   
   

 

"7':

Mashonaland Central
Mashonaland West

Masvingo

mscdcztomsmkm
Source: SADC Regional Rum. Sashafi'ojoct

Source: http://wwacrglgiews/ergiish/basedocs/zirn/zimadm1e.stm

XV

INTRODUCTION

Problem Statement

This dissertation is not the one I expected to write when I set out for Zimbabwe in
2000 to begin my fieldwork. My arrival to the field in 2000 preceded the start of the land
invasions and concurrent state terror and violence by only a few weeks. The immediacy
of the violence in the context of commercial farms, the site of my originally planned
research, along with my previous relationships with many of the major actors/ primary
targets of violence, uniquely positioned me for the research reported in this dissertation.

The dissertation’s purpose is to examine state terror and state organized violence
associated with the land invasions prior to the parliamentary elections of 2000 in
Zimbabwe. In this pursuit, I ask, under what conditions are different people exposed to
different kinds of state terror and violence? The study focuses on commercial farming
communities, the first targets of violence in Zimbabwe, as they represented a critical
logistical and ideological lens with which to frame the violence as the Third Chimerenga
or a popular uprising for land. I ask four questions about this violence: (1) How does the
state perpetuate its own interests through the use of state terror? (2) How does “the
routinization of terror” function? (3) How do people in different social locations
experience violence and terror differently? and (4) How do people in different social
locations strategize under conditions of chronic fear and insecurity? This dissertation
thus explores meanings of state organized violence, state organized terror, and survival.

To answer my four questions, I draw on a variety of qualitative and quantitative

methods. I analyze the data to trace the development of the violence over time and space,

and to explore organizational and individual responses to state terror and violence using
data from key informant interviews, questionnaires, participant-observations, daily
invasion violence reports, human rights violation reports, and newspaper accounts (see
Chapter Three). Throughout, I attempt to show how the construction of difference — the
creation of the other — provided a justification for the violence against certain members of
Zimbabwean society.

I begin this chapter with a brief introduction to Zimbabwe and the role of
commercial agriculture in society and the economy. Second, I discuss the process by
which I defined and redefined my research questions in the field as the crisis emerged in
2000. Third, I briefly discuss the immediate research context and the events that led to
the land invasions. Next, I discuss my conceptualization of violence and terror. Finally,

I lay out where the remaining chapters will go.

Socio-bistorical Context - Zimbabwean Politics and Society

To contextualize the study, I begin by presenting basic demographic and
economic information about Zimbabwe before highlighting briefly the significance of
land and race historically and the politics of the 19908. I include this socio-historical
context in the introductory chapter because it provides critical information to
understanding the background to the research scenario. While some issues raised here
will be addressed in more detail in later analytical chapters, it is important to briefly trace
recent historical trends as they relate to the crisis under study. These historical and social

factors are not merely background, however, they also shape the context of doing

research in Zimbabwe due to the social import of land, the state’s use of violence, and the

climate of political intolerance.

Basic Information. Zimbabwe is a semi-arid land-locked country in Southern Africa.
The country is divided into eight administrative provinces — Mashonaland West,
Mashonaland Central, Mashonaland East, Matebeleland North, Matebeleland South,
Masvingo, Midlands, and Manicaland — with a total land area of 390,757 square
kilometers (see Map 1) (Ministry of Agriculture 1999).

In 2000, Zimbabwe’s population was estimated at 13.5 millionl (CSO 1997).
Roughly 98.8 percent of the population is African, 0.8 percent is European, 0.13 percent
is Asiatic, and 0.29 percent is of mixed ethnicity according to the Central Statistical

Office (CSO) (1992:19) [see Table 1.1].2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1.1
ETHNICITY, ZIMBABWE 1992 CENSUS
Ethnicity N Percent
African 10,284,345 98.77

European 82,797 0.80

Asiatic 13,386 0.13

Mixed 30,063 0.29

No response 1,957 0.02

Total 10,412,548 100.00

 

 

 

 

 

Source: CSO 1992:19

 

' Population data are estimates based on a 1992 Census (Central Statistics Office 1997).

2 The racial categories given here are based on the categories used by the Zimbabwean census. Although
these categories are obviously racial rather than ethnic categories, the Government of Zimbabwe (whose
table 1 am reproducing here) uses the term ‘ethnicity,’ 1 have left the term as such. In addition, use of
categories such as “African” are problematic given the history of differing ethnic groups in Zimbabwe.
However, I employ the categories used by the census itself.

Although the majority of Zimbabweans live in rural areas, the distribution of people by
ethnicity differs significantly. Whereas 70 percent of Africans live in rural areas, 78
percent of Europeans reside in the country’s urban areas (see Table 1.2). Asiatic and
mixed Zimbabweans also predominately reside in cities and towns, 92 percent and 85
percent, respectively.

Table 1.2

DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION
BY ETHNICITY AND URBAN/RURAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ethnicity Urban Percent Rural Percent Total
A rican 3,083,825 30 7,200,520 70 100%
European 64,889 78 1 7,908 22 100%
Asiatic 12,373 92 1,013 8 100%
Mixed 25,408 85 4,655 l 5 l 00%
Total 3,187,720 7,224,828

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: CSO 1992: 19-20.

Zimbabwe’s economy relies heavily on the agricultural sector. Agriculture
dominates Zimbabwe’s export earnings (approximately 40 percent annually), contributes
roughly 15 percent to the country’s GDP (on average from 1975 — 1993), provides the
leading source of formal employment (around 20 percent annually), and supplies the raw
materials on which an estimated 50 percent of manufacturing is dependent (Rukuni
1994b). By 1996, agriculture’s proportion of the GDP had risen to 18 percent (Bond
1998) and its share of export earnings had risen to 44.5 percent of Zimbabwe’s total
(Ministry of Agriculture 1999).

Agricultural production in Zimbabwe is not uniform, however, with significant
differences in holding size and tenure separating agricultural sub-sectors. It is important
to distinguish between two critical sub-sectors within Zimbabwean agriculture: the Large

Scale Commercial Farm (LSCF) sector, and the small holder (SH) sector, which includes

Small Scale Commercial Farms (SSCFs), Communal Area (CA) farms, and Resettlement
Area (RA) farms. The agricultural sectors reflect the persistence of colonial race-based
land policies. LSCFs are historically white-owned farms with freehold title. CAs and
RAs are peasant farming areas without freehold title. While the LSCF sub-sector has
declined since independence -— from approximately 15 million hectares (HA) and 6,000
farmers in 1980 to approximately 11 million HA and 4,600 farmers in 1988 (Rukuni
1994b) — the agricultural sector remains geographically unequally distributed. Whereas
34.6 percent of LSCFs lie in the higher rainfall and better soil agro-climatic Natural
Areas I and 11, only 0.8 percent of CA and 0.9 percent of RA farms occupy these regions.
CA and RA farms predominate in the less hospitable Regions IV and V, accounting for
74.2 percent of CA farms and 43.4 percent of RA farms as opposed to 43.9 percent of
LSCFs (Roth 1990 cited in Rukurri 1994b).

The unevenness of access to prime agricultural land as well as restrictions in
access to inputs and infrastructure for SH farmers translates into uneven contributions to
national agricultural output. In 1993, for example, while the SH sector’s total gross
output (including production for own consumption) totaled Z$1358 million, the LSCF
sector total output reached Z$5700 million (Government of Zimbabwe 1997). LSCFs
constitute the majority of Zimbabwean agriculture’s contribution to the GDP, export
earnings, employment, and materials for manufacturing. Thus, the white-dominated

commercial farming sector remains a significant force in Zimbabwe’s economy.

Land and Race in Zimbabwe. Intimately related to the existence of a strong white-

dominated commercial farming sector, is the braided history of land and race in

Zimbabwe. I will not give a complete account of this here (see Chapter 2). Rather, I
would like to acknowledge the history of forceful appropriation of land from blacks for
the purpose of the establishment of white large-scale agriculture. Through a series of
legal measures, the colonial state systematically appropriated prime agricultural land for
whites, placed constraints on black agricultural production to inhibit black/white
competition, and compelled blacks to enter the labor force on farms and mines (Rubert
1998, Palmer 1977, Werbner 1990). Colonial legislation created dual land-tenure
systems in Zimbabwe that entitled whites to fi'eehold tenure or private ownership and
relegated blacks to communal ownership. Although land played a critical role in
mobilizing support for the liberation struggle (Lan 1985), following independence in
1980, little changed in terms of the structure of land ownership in Zimbabwe. At
independence in 1980, roughly 6,500 white-owned farms3 accounted for 39 percent of
Zimbabwe’s total land whereas 8,000 black small-scale producers owned or leased four
percent, and 700,000 peasant households farmed on 42 percent of Zimbabwe’s land
(Tshurna 1997; Bowyer-Bower 2000). Despite efforts by the Government of Zimbabwe
to enact land reform throughout the 19808 and 19908, these racially based land inequities

have largely persisted since independence (see Table 1.3).

 

3 For White-owned farms/ Large Scale Commercial Farms, it is important to remember that one farm does
not equate to one family, as multiple farm ownership is not uncommon. 1 do not have access to exact
numbers on multiple ownership, however.

Table 1.3:
Zimbabwe Land Classifications 1980 and 1997

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Land Classification 1980 % 1997 % % Difference
Large Scale Commercial Farms 39% 28% - 11%
Communal Areas 42% 43% + 1%
Small Scale Commercial Farms 4% 3% - 1%
National Parks / Urban Areas 15% 15% 0
Resettlement Areas -- 9% + 9%
State Farms -- 1% +1%

 

 

 

 

Source: Bowyer-Bower and Stoneman 2000:51 (citing Takavarasha 1998).

In 1997, 4000 primarily white-owned Large Scale Commercial Farms (LSCFs) accounted

for 28 percent of Zimbabwe’s total land area, 10,000 black-owned Small Scale

Commercial Farms (SSCAs) accounted for three percent; over one million families in

Communal Areas (CA8) accounted for 43 percent; 70,000 families in Resettlement Areas

(Ras) accounted for 9 percent; National Parks and urban areas accounted for 15 percent;

and state owned farms accounted for 1 percent (Bowyer-Bower 2000). Between 1980

and 1997, there was a decrease in land under LSCF control by 11 percent, an increase of

nine percent in RAs and one percent for CA8, respectively. While this did indicate some

improvement for those calling for land reform, population increases (700,000 households

in CA8 to 1,000,000 households in CA8 from 1980 to 1997) also called attention to the

insufficient nature of the reforms as CA8 continued to become crowded.

Historical Background. A former British colony, Zimbabwe attained independence in

1980 after a prolonged guerilla war and nearly 100 years of colonial rule. The guerilla

war waged to bring about Zimbabwe’s independence involved two guerilla forces. The

 

Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA) and its constituent political party
Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) operated primarily in the Shona-speaking
North while the Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) and its political party
Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) operated primarily in the Ndebele-speaking
South. Zimbabweans voted the self-proclaimed Marxist ZANU, led by Robert Mugabe,
into power in the first multi-ethnic elections in Zimbabwe in 1980. Mugabe became
Zimbabwe’s first post-independence Prime Minister, a position he held until 1987.
Constitutional reforms at that time created an Executive Presidency which Mugabe then
took, an office he holds until this day.4 Of the 80 seats up for grab in the 1980 election,
ZANU took 57, ZAPU 20, and a third party, the United African National Congress
(UANC), claimed three (Sylvester 1991 :69). The Lancaster House constitution reserved
the remaining 20 seats for whites until 1987 (Sylvester 1991). Therefore, in early post-
independence years, Mugabe and ZANU held a strong majority of seats (71.25 percent),
although ZAPU was still believed to represent potential political competition. In 1987,
following five years of “anti-dissident” army and police actions against alleged ZIPRA
dissidents in Matebeleland and Midlands, the ZANU and ZAPU parties merged into the
present-day ZANU-PF. The anti-dissident campaign involved considerable violence and
is considered by some (CCJPZ 1997) to have been genocidal (see Chapter Two).

In understanding 2000’s events in Zimbabwe, one must look at several shifts in
Zimbabwe’s political terrain throughout the 19908. The 19908 presented Zimbabwe with

a series of crises. The end of Cold War politics required shifting ZANU-PF’s former

 

’ In this section, I wish to contextualize contemporary Zimbabwe with brief historical, demographic, and
economic information. In Chapter Two, I address the history of land and racial policy in more depth.
Therefore, this section discusses primarily post-independence Zimbabwe in order to provide background to
the study.

socialist programming to new neo-liberal realities. In 1990, Zimbabwe launched the
Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP — largely referred to by local Blacks
as Extreme Suffering for Afiican People). As Patrick Bond wrote (1999), the regime
largely implemented ESAP, despite criticisms to the contrary. The civil service wage bill
was reduced from 15.3 percent of the GDP to 11.3 percent from 1990 to 1994, foreign
exchange was deregulated, tariffs and investment regulations were liberalized, price
controls lifted, and labor markets were deregulated (Bond 1999:414). Declines in real
incomes, combined with the reintroduction of school and clinic fees and an increased cost
of living due to the lifting of price controls, resulted in economic hardship for rural as
well as urban households.

In addition to ESAP, Zimbabwe confronted crises on multiple fronts in the 19908.
Severe drought struck Southern Africa in 1992, intensifying economic hardship. The
seriousness of the AIDS crisis emerged during this period as well, with estimates of up to
25 percent of sexually active adults suspected to be infected with HIV in Zimbabwe. By
early 2000, Zimbabwe also faced fuel shortages due to a corruption scandal in the
govemment-run oil company, a cyclone which devastated many eastern communities,
and foreign exchange shortages.

At the time of the constitutional referendrun in February 2000, Zimbabweans
were reeling from corruption allegations, long fuel lines, and a struggling economy. The
defeat of the ZANU-PF backed referendum reflected a rejection of ZANU-PF leadership
and the status quo. The defeat also energized opposition parties for the coming
parliamentary elections and signified a possible change in government. These signs were

not lost on ZANU-PF or its opponents. The campaign for parliament began in full swing

i’}

Fl!

P

‘1‘

with ZANU-PF focusing on land and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)5
highlighting the need for change.

Land became the battle cry for ZANU-PF and its supporters during the
parliamentary elections of 2000 for several reasons. Farm invasions served the party both
logistically as well as ideologically as “war vets” and party cadres evoked colonial
struggles over land as justification for invasions while denying that violence was
occurring on commercial farms and in the CA8 surrounding them. Farm invasions were
labeled the “third chimurenga” referencing what is commonly referred to as the first
chimurenga, an uprising in 1893, and the liberation war that brought independence, or the

second chimurenga.

Fieldwork Crisis or Sociological Serendipity

My proposed and accepted dissertation topic explored the relationship between
globalization and changing social dynamics on Zimbabwe’s commercial farms. Building
on fieldwork in 1997-98,6 I planned to compare the social relations of work in tobacco
and horticulture production on farms, paying particular attention to shifting race and
gender relations. Following the introduction of structural adjustment and pressure from
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to liberalize the economy,
the commercial farm sector in Zimbabwe offered a unique opportunity to explore the
interplay between global relations of agricultural production, their national and local

manifestations, and racialized and gendered experience. Originally, I proposed to

 

5 MDC is the opposition political party that emerged in 2000 to challenge ZANU-PF in the parliamentary
elections.

6 During 1997-98 I conducted pre-dissertation research on Zimbabwe’s commercial farming sector with the
support of the Social Science Research Council International Pre-dissertation Fellowship Program. In
addition to language studies, I interviewed 75 commercial farmers, farm women, and farm workers.

10

'H

(““4

examine how farmers and farm workers adapted in response to changes in agricultural
production brought about by globalizing forces in Zimbabwe as well as to examine
commercial farms as sites of changing social relations.

I arrived in Zimbabwe in January 2000 prepared to spend twelve months in the
field. Initially, I spent three months in Harare interviewing officials from the
Commercial Farmers Union (CFU), the General Agricultural and Plantation Workers
Union of Zimbabwe (GAPWUZ), and non-govemmental organizations concerned with
farm workers. During this time, I also planned to locate field sites in a commercial
farming community, where I would spend nine months conducting in-depth case studies
of two farms. However, by mid-February, the landscape of Zimbabwe’s commercial
farming sector began to shift. Immediately following the rejection of the regime
supported draft constitution (February 14),7 veterans of Zimbabwe’s liberation war began
invading white-owned commercial farms.8 Although initially I, as well as my informants
within CFU and GAPWUZ, hoped the issue would resolve quickly, within a matter of
weeks it became clear that the invasions were part of an electoral strategy of the ruling
Zimbabwe African National Union — Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) who feared the
emergent Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) in the 2000 parliamentary elections

(Fieldnotes 2-26-00, 2-28-00, 3-13-00). By early March, the numbers of invasions were

 

7 As I discuss in more detail in later chapters, the draft constitution was supported by the regime, but many
civil society groups campaigned against it. Late in the game, Mugabe pressured the Constitutional
Commission (CC) to pass Clause 57, which would allow the regime to arbitrarily acquire any Large Scale
Commercial Farm (LSCF) without compensation for the land. Clause 57 stated that white farmers wanting
compensation should demand it from Great Britain. The commercial farming community and the larger
community in Zimbabwe reacted negatively to Mugabe’s strong arm tactics with the CC. “War vets”
claimed that since white farmers manipulated voters to defeat the constitution, they were going to take
“their” land through invasions (Fieldnotes 3-10-00)

' The war veterans targeted white-owned commercial farms for this exercise. While there were instances
of invasions of black-owned commercial farms in 2000, these were brief and extremely rare. The invasions
primarily represented a move against white farmers and black farm workers.

11

rapidly increasing (see Chapter Four) and turning violent, with assaults on farm workers
the most common form of violence. The emergence of a viable opposition party, the
MDC, which mounted the first serious nation-wide threat to the ruling ZANU-PF since
independence, reflected Zimbabweans’ general dissatisfaction with President Robert
Mugabe and his party’s rule. Despite the growing uncertainty, I attempted to proceed as
planned, while also researching the effects of the crisis on commercial farming, farmers,
and farm workers. I was uniquely positioned as an “outsider within” of sorts within the
white commercial farming community due to my previous research and my resurfacing
immediately prior to the crisis (see Chapter Three).

I began to observe the CF U to explore how the organization and its members
responded to violence as a community. As I gained access to data gathered by the CFU
on a daily basis about violence and invasion activity nation-wide, I began to shift my
attention to questions regarding violence and the emerging crisis: how do organizations
(such as the CFU and GAPWUZ) attempt to negotiate land reform under conditions of
violence/ conflict? What are the strategies of survival that these organizations employ
under conditions of violence to advocate for their clientele as well as to ensure for
organizational survival? In early April, I relocated from the capital city of Harare to the
commercial farming community where I planned to conduct my dissertation study. I had
conducted fieldwork in the community in 1998, and thus had previous ties with local
farmers and farm workers. On moving to the community, however, farmers, who had
been key informants during my pre-dissertation research, advised against my settling in
until the instability had resolved. Despite having rented a spare cottage to me in the past,

one particular farm family refused to rent me accommodations due to their concern for

12

’1

L4!

w.

 

 

F
f

‘5

.I
I

my safety as a lone white woman and their unwillingness to assume responsibility for
another person should a crisis emerge on their farm. Therefore, I arranged to rent a room
in a local guest lodge. Although the election date was unknown, I still hoped that once
the elections passed, disruptions to farming would cease.

The end of March and early April, however, saw a rapid increase in the number of
invasions and the intensity of violence on invaded farms and against the opposition
political party, the MDC. For example, one farmer survived two severe assaults
including an attempt on his life. During a peace march organized by the National
Constitutional Assembly (N CA) on April 1, 2000, “war vets” 9 and ZANU-PF supporters
descended on the march and beat anyone suspected of participating. Whites in particular
appeared to be the targets as newspapers reported severe assaults against several white
bystanders (Fieldnotes 4-3-00; BBC 4-2-00). Half-way through my third month of
research (mid-April 2000), the first two white farmers were killed, making “war vets”
threats of violence more ominous. In both cases, the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP)
made it clear to farmers and the CFU that they were under orders not to interfere in
“political” matters. Farm invasions, and any subsequent violence against farmers or farm
workers, were deemed “political” matters by the police. ZRP refused to intervene (Daily
Mail & Guardian 3/1/00).

Despite this policy, in the cases of the first two murders of white farmers, the ZRP
ignored its policy of non-intervention and actively intervened against Zimbabwean

citizens and facilitated the violence. In the first case, neighboring farmers followed the

 

9 This is not to imply that all persons involved in land invasions were legitimate “war vets.” Rather, this
term was commonly used throughout the crisis to refer to those involved, despite the fact that many felt it
inaccurately described the invaders. War vets rejected the term squatters, so the CF U and the press used
the term war vets. I place it in quotations to highlight the contested nature of the term in this context.

13

 

 

 

 

.‘\

‘.
L ._
3.-
if I
Lu
- '4
»
~-§

“war vets” who had abducted Dave Stevens, the first farmer killed. The “war vets” fired
upon and then chased the farmers who sought refuge in a local police station. They
entered the police station and abducted the farmers in the presence of ZRP officers. The
five abducted farmers were severely assaulted and required hospitalization (CFU 2000b).

In the case of Martin Olds, the second farmer killed, the police again intervened
on behalf of “war vets.” The ZRP established a roadblock near Olds’ farm. Although the
ZRP allowed a truck filled with over 100 “war vets” to pass en route to Olds’ farm, when
neighboring farmers attempted to respond to Olds’ distress radio calls, ZRP refused to let
them pass until after Olds’ had been killed. Nevertheless, ZRP allowed “war vets” to
remove their wounded from the gun fight that lasted for several hours, even though they
had denied an ambulance access to the fatally injured Olds. The assailants burned Olds’
farm house, shot him, and eventually bludgeoned him to death (CFU 2000a).

Shortly after the deaths of Stevens and Olds, two white farm women were brutally
gang-raped on a farm outside of Harare. The women involved sought assistance in the
nearest ZRP station. Although the police (and the CFU) classified the act as apolitical,
the women’s attackers shouted accusations of MDC affiliation at the women during the
assaults. The women are relatives of one of the CFU’s national leaders and, therefore, it
is possible that the rapes of these two women were intended not only to terrorize the
women, but also to communicate a message to their male relative (see Chapter Six).

The violence and insecurity on farms both was, and was not, racial. On the one
hand, President Mugabe branded white farmers “enemies of the state” (Daily News
4/19/00), and white farmers felt targeted and unprotected due to their whiteness and the

lack of response by the ZRP to incidents on farms. On the other hand, black farm workers

14

 

3‘!
5‘

and communal area (CA) residents experienced much more violence in sheer numbers
than did whites (see Chapter Four). The number of whites killed during this spate of
violence is highly disproportionate, however, relative to their population within
Zimbabwe. As of the elections in June 2000, white farmers represented seven of the 32
deaths related to farm and election violence or roughly 22 percent of farm and election
violence deaths, yet whites constitute only 0.8 percent of the Zimbabwean population as a
whole (CSO 1992:19). As the weeks passed, hope waned among farmers that the regime
would be able to halt the invasions after the elections, assuming the regime desired to do
so. In other words, some farmers and observers began to suspect that Mugabe and
ZANU-PF had unleashed a wave of violence that they could no longer control.

I discuss these events in detail because of the critical role they played in my
decision to return to Harare in mid-April and continue my research while based there.
The general decline of the rule of law and racial violence, combined with a growing
contempt among “war vets” and ZANU-PF for foreign journalists who were accused of
misrepresenting the situation in Zimbabwe, led me to feel increasingly insecure in a
permanent domicile in a rural area. Stevens farmed in the farming community adjacent
to that in which I worked, approximately 30 km from my field site. I decided to conduct
my research from a base in Harare and focus my research efforts on documenting the
farm crisis as it unfolded. At this point, in addition to my questions concerning managing
violence and organizations such as the CFU and GAPWUZ, I also became interested in
exploring issues such as: how are individuals affected by violence? How does their

reaction vary by hierarchical social markers such as race and gender? How does the CFU

15

“1—

p..—

.L

.l

strategize to protect the interests of its members while maintaining unity in a time of
extreme crisis?

The decision to focus my research on the emerging crisis presented a difficult
research scenario. Zimbabwe’s economy is firmly linked to global systems of production
and consumption. It is a leading producer of tobacco for the world market, and in the
past decade has been an increasingly important producer of horticulture and flowers for
European and Asian markets (Cole 1994, Rukturi 1994). International tourism (prior to
the crises of 2000) also accounted for a significant proportion of export earnings. In
many ways, the crisis in Zimbabwe reflected the discourse of globalization as farmers
engaged in a human rights discourse and appealed to international sympathy over the
attacks on their property rights and racially motivated discrimination. As the invasions
intensified, international donors and foreign governments withdrew aid pending the
return of the rule of law. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) attempted
to negotiate a land reform package that accommodated the ZANU-PF regime’s need for
land for resettlement purposes, white farmers’ need for compensation, and organized
firnding for the project of land reform (ultimately it was rejected by Mugabe’s regime).
Therefore, it is not difficult to study the crisis through the lens of globalization.

Nevertheless, my lens became attuned to the overlapping issues of the state, state
organized violence, and survival strategies as the crisis unfolded. In particular, how did
the state-evoked crisis unfold differently in different regions? What survival strategies
did farmers and their representatives in the CFU employ in the face of state organized
violence and insecurity? In what ways did farmers, as individuals or as members of

collectivities, negotiate with the state or other actors over land in the context of crisis?

16

How did social location shape an individual’s experience with invasions/ violence? And,
how did farmers and farm workers unite or divide in the face of this crisis?

The insecurity in rural areas (and research questions), however, required a shift in
research methods. Rather than live in a farming community as I had planned, I based
myself in the capital city of Harare making frequent short trips to various farming
communities throughout the country. I began to follow the lead of many of my
informants who lived nowhere and everywhere, relying on their cars and cell phones to
shift their domiciles as needed due to death threats. Though obviously less dramatic in
my case, I felt movement in and out of different communities and regions would provide
me with more security than residence in one particular place.

As might be expected, the shift in my research design forced me to rethink my
conceptual frame when I began writing my dissertation upon my return to the US. In the
following section, I discuss the conceptual foundation of my dissertation. I discuss
concepts such as the state, state terror and organized violence, political violence, the
spatial dynamics of violence, gender and violence, and survival strategies as they relate to

my research.

The State

In my discussion of the state, rather than offer a detailed overview of the concept,
I draw on ideas from various thinkers that best inform this research and aid me in making
sense of the state in this context. Weber argued that the state referred to “an institutional
enterprise of a political character, when and insofar as its executive staff successfully

claims a monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in order to impose its

17

E17

regulations” (Runciman 1978: 39). Weber further offers three modes of “pure”
legitimacy of state power and rule: (1) rational; (2) traditional; and (3) charismatic
(Weber 1970). Rational authority relies on a bureaucratic administration and legal
authority. The second mode, traditional, rests on long-held belief systems and power is
handed down historically. Charismatic authority relies on devotion to a leader due to the
exemplary character or heroism he possesses (Weber 1970: 36). I highlight Weber’s
three modes of legitimate power and rule to note that Robert Mugabe, President of
Zimbabwe in 2000 and leader since independence, garnered his authority and power
through his role as a heroic figure during the revolution that ended colonialism in 1980.
Drawing on Alfred Stephan and Theda Skocopol’s conceptions of the state, Kohli
(1987: 23) defines the state in the following way:
The state to my mind then is best thought of as a set of administrative and
coercive institutions headed by an executive authority, defining, at
minimum, the territorial boundaries within which societies conceiving of
themselves as a nation or competing nations exist. This view does not
insist that control over coercion is either complete — centralized — or
necessarily legitimate. There is no reason to assume that the state
normally acts as a collectivity. Reification of the state is therefore
minimized by keeping in mind that the concept of the state refers to
identifiable institutions, and that state actors do not always work as a
cohesive force vis-a-vis civil society.
The lack of cohesion noted in the quote from Kohli above can be seen in discontinuities
in the state, particularly the courts and, at times, Vice President Msika. Kohli’s approach
contradicts the perspective of Eric Nordlinger who argues that states are merely
collections of individual actors. Kohli (1987: 22) acknowledges the importance of
focusing on leaders, but also stresses the need to look at organizations and institutions

within government, such as the army or civil bureaucracy. Hi8 conceptualization of the

state raises the question, what does the contemporary state look like in Zimbabwe?

18

Further, Adrendt (1970: 427), writing on totalitarianism, notes the dual structures
of the party and the state that contribute to a “peculiar ‘shapelessness’ of the old
totalitarian government.” She notes the difficulty in distinguishing who holds real power
— government or the party. “Power, as conceived by totalitarianism, lies exclusively in
the force produced through organization...” (Adrendt 1970: 432). The question arises,

then, how does the state in Zimbabwe perpetuate its interest through violence?

State Organized Violence — State Terror and Torture Techniques

Just as changes in the research design required changes in my research methods, it
also required changes in my conceptual approach. As such, I am exploring here a
literature new to me, that on terror, violence and torture. An important theoretical
question I ask is, under what conditions are different people exposed to diflerent kinds of
state terror and violence? I return to this question in my concluding chapter.

The meanings of state terror, state organized violence and torture have troubled
scholars for some time. This dissertation wades into these muddy waters by exploring
these concepts in what is, for some, the complicated terrain of Zimbabwe’s current
political crisis. In this section I review conceptualizations of state terror, state organized
violence and torture that make the most sense in understanding state organized violence
in Zimbabwe’s unique context. I also review varied understandings of political violence

that I use to analyze various forms of violence throughout the dissertation.

State Terror, State Organized Violence, and Torture: Searching for Meanings. My

goal in this section is to relate literature on state terror, dimensions of control/ techniques

19

of state terror available, and the relationship between state terror and violence to my
research questions. According to Pion-Berlin and Lopez (1991: 63 -64), “State terror is a
premeditated, patterned, and instrumental form of government violence. It is planned,
inflicted regularly, and intended to induce fear through ‘coercive and life threatening
action’ [Gurr, 1986:46].” Included in the concept of state terror are acts committed by
“death squads” (Mason and Krane 1989) and other state sanctioned paramilitary groups
(Sloan 1984). Mason and Krane (1989:178) note that

The term “death squad” denotes those military, paramilitary, and irregular

units that engage in violent acts against a population in order to deter them

from lending support to opposition groups. “Death squad violence”'0 is

repressive violence intended to induce compliance through fear. It may be

employed reactively or proactively. Its most critical distinguishing feature

is that it is violence sanctioned by the regime, either explicitly through

policy pronouncements or implicitly through lack of effort to curtail such

acts.
There are several characteristics of state terror that can be teased out of this definition
which are critical in thinking about the Zimbabwean case: (1) premeditation, (2)
patterned state violence, (3) fear induced through coercion and life threatening behaviors,
and (4) agents of state terror, i.e., para-state organizations such as the “war vets.” These
characteristics will be discussed in more detail in chapters to come as 1 demonstrate how
state terror shapes forms of violence used by the state.

In a recent update to his 1969 classic work on terror, Walter (2001: 4) notes,

“Violence may occur without terror, but not terror without violence.” Terror should,
therefore, be seen as a subset of violence. Walter (2001) notes that terror is often

ambiguously defined as the psychic state of extreme fear as well as the terrifying item

itself. He attempts to avoid confusion by referring only to organized terror, narrowing

 

'0 I consider Mason and Krane’s concept of “death squad violence” interchangeable with state organized
violence.

20

this definition to systems of terror that involve various elements in the terror process.
First, either a political group in power or without power (a state or opposition party or
guerilla group) is willing to use terror to achieve/ sustain power. Second, a specific act of
violence is enacted to invoke fear. Building on Walter’s concept, Lopez (1984: 70)
outlines state terror tactics as the following:

Figure 1.1
Alternative Techniques Available to the State as Terroristll

Information Control

Surveillance of personal activity via wiretapping, “bodyguarding,” and so
on

Attachments/falsification of personal documents and records

Press censorship

“Thought reform”

Law Enforcement

Legislation of a discriminatory bent

Expulsions/exile

No protection against the crimes and terrors of other citizens
Direct and arbitrary arrest

Economic Coercion

Economic discrimination

Extortion/bribery

“Guilt” due to one’s economic associations or activities

Life Threatening

Direct attacks-beat! bombing of home or business/ letter bomb
Kidnapping/disappearance

Threats on one’s family

Torture and interrogation when under government control
Source: Lopez (1984: 70)

The range of behaviors included as state terror tactics emerged throughout the invasions.
The question becomes, then, in what ways did the Zimbabwean regime utilize such

methods of state terror tactics - and which ones -- during the invasions? On which

 

" Terrorist here refers to one who commits an act of terror.

21

populations did the Zimbabwean regime attempt techniques of “thought control” versus
“expulsions” versus “threats on one’s family” and why?

Embedded within the many systems of state terror are state sanctioned forms of
torture (Rejali 1994). In The Logic of Torture, Tindale (1996) categorizes types of torture

by the goals motivating the torturer (see Figure 1.2):

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1.2
Type of Torture
Type of Torture Goals

Interrogational torture To extract information; victims limited to those who hold
information

Deterrent torture To discourage or encourage specific behavior of victim or
others; victim chosen at random, randomization increases
efficacyl

Dehumanizing torture To change self perception of victim; to demonstrate
torturer’s superiority or to change victims’ understanding
in eyes of community

 

 

 

Source: Tindale (1996)
Asad (1996) criticizes the Western bias in modern definitions of torture and cruelty
inherent in international human rights law and is particularly interested in including
psychological suffering in contemporary definitions. Torture enables the state to
accomplish limited goals, according to Tindale (1996), but, as Asad (1996) warns, the
state must consider international regulations to maintain in “good standing” in the global
community. The question arises, then, what is the relationship between these
conceptualizations of torture and state terror in contemporary Zimbabwe?

State terror includes a variety of intimidation tactics, as outlined in Figure 1.1
(information control, law enforcement, economic coercion, and life threatening). In
addition, terror tactics include inducing a psychic state of fear and the routinization of

fear through various forms of violence. In the following section, I discuss the overlap

22

between state terror and violence and demonstrate how different forms of political
violence serve as instruments of state terror. As noted above, “Violence may occur
without terror, but not terror without violence” (Walter 2001: 4). Therefore, violence is

often an instrument of terror.

Political Violence. In everyday language, the three words ‘aggression,’ ‘war’ and
‘violence’ embody the harmful behavior that violence signifies (Riches 1991). The
language associated with ‘aggression’ suggests that those who become aggressive cannot
control their behavior and thus, according to Riches (1991:285), are both perpetrators and
victims. A8 with ‘aggression,’ soldiers, the perpetrators of harm in ‘war,’ also cannot
control their behavior, though for other reasons (following military orders) (ibid.) In both
cases, the linguistic connotation does not carry negative imagery that require perpetrators
to deny their association with their actions (typically), in contrast to in the case of
‘violence’ (Riches 1991:285-6):

And in everyday usage, the perpetrators of harm rarely speak of
“violence”: it is rather a term enunciated by victims and witnesses (Riches
1986:3-5). Thus, the interpretive study of harming behaviour [sic] should,
on the face of it, be reluctant to appropriate the notion. In victims’ and
witnesses’ usage, what “violence” denotes is plain enough. “Violence”
has strong pejorative connotations. Through it, the unacceptability and
illegitimacy of harming behaviour [sic] is conveyed. “Violence,” in this
usage, clearly connotes a double distance from the harm-giving moment:
not only is it invoked as commentary on the act, the perspective on this act
is unequivocally twisted — from performer to observer. For their part,
perpetrators — distancing themselves from the act — are reluctant to
concede that what they have done is violence: their representation of what
happened will be that it was self defense, unavoidable force, freedom-
fighting, social control, and so on.

23

I quote Riches at length because he raises several critical points that I address
below: violence as harmful behavior, the issue of violence and legitimacy, and the
representation of violence survivors and perpetrators.

Violence as harmful behavior. In this section, I evaluate the various ways in
which violence is defined by different scholars. In doing so, I follow Riches’ (1991)
outline which encompasses the views of many other scholars in his broad definition of
violence. According to Riches (1991:293-4), violence is primarily a “contested physical
hurt ” [emphasis in original] but also includes (1) witchcraft and sorcery, (2) mental
violence, (3) symbolic violence, (4) structural/ institutional violence, (5) ritual violence,

' and (6) violence where the victim is not fully human. These six (but primarily two, three
and four) categories of violence present a framework for analyzing the forms of political
violence employed by the regime.

According to Riches (1991: 293), the violence associated with magic and
witchcraft “need not be doubted.” In “Ways of Death: Accounts of Terror from Angolan
Refugees in Namibia,” Inge Brinkman (2000) recounts informants’ tales of torture at the
hands of Movement for the People’s Liberation of Angola (MPLA) and Union for Total
Liberation of Angola (UN ITA) soldiers. According to Brinkman’s informants, in cases
where the torture involved severance of a body part, perpetrators often engaged in
ritualistic behaviors to enhance their power (such as drinking their victim’s blood).
Witchcraft also was used as an accusation that resulted in executions by MPLA soldiers
and burning at the stake by UNITA (Brinkman 2000). Further, one of the war’s most
infamous fighters claimed to have magical powers (Brinkman 2000). Additionally, K.B.

Wilson’s “Cults of Violence and Counter-Violence in Mozambique” also demonstrates

24

the role of symbolic/ spiritual power in the organization of Mozambique National
Resistance (RENAMO) forces. Wilson (1992) reveals how violence becomes a cultic
mode of operation for RENAMO. Therefore, in the African context, witchcraft and
magic as potential sources of violence are taken seriously throughout Southern Africa. I
ask, then, are accusations of witchcraft used as a form of violence/ terror in Zimbabwe?
Mental violence, according to Riches (1991:293) refers to the infliction of
“deleterious psychological impact.” Mental violence is usually referred to as
psychological violence by other scholars. In “The Concept of Violence,” Degenaar
(1990) notes that psychological violence represents a violation of a person’s dignity.
Judith Zur (1994:13) writes clearly of the psychological effects of mental violence in
reference to her experience in the period of La Violencia in Guatemala: “Fear, suspicion
and paranoia not only result from impunity but are the psychological mechanisms which
help to maintain it.” Zur goes on to describe the silencing, suppression and intimidation
as well as anonymous symbolic measures designed to control the population in
Guatemala.
Sense organs were a common target of both symbolic and literal assault:
ears and tongues were cutout, eyes gouged or burnt out. This was a
potent meta-message: all sense is attacked, leaving the population without
a “sense,” without a means to perceive, reason, criticize or, most crucially,
name the guilty (Zur 1994:14).
This is an example of ‘deterrent’ torture, a mechanism of torture designed not only to
punish those involved in a particular act but more significantly to deter others from

engaging in specific behaviors (Tindale 1996). As a form of political violence and

torture, psychological violence usually leaves no physical scars on its intended victims.

25

 

Ill A“
...\.."

;\,-.’_
ugl'l‘m
-\

This leads one to ask, in what ways did the Zimbabwean State use psychological violence
to dehumanize its population into submission?

Symbolic violence refers to what Bourdieu calls everyday “socially recognized
violence” (1977:191, cited in Nagengast 1994:111). Galtung (1990:291) also defines
cultural violence as “those aspects of culture, the symbolic sphere of our existence —
exemplified by religion and ideology, language and art, empirical science and formal
science (logic, mathematics) — that can be used to justify or legitimize direct or structural
violence.”

The concept of structural or institutional violence represents the viewpoint that
“violence inheres in social structures, especially ones with marked hierarchy” (Riches
1990:294). In Violence and Memory: One Hundred Years in the ‘Dark Forests’ of
Matabeleland, Alexander, McGregor and Ranger (2000) demonstrate the structural (as
well as physical) violence experienced by communities caused by forced migrations and
a colonial system that degraded local communities and individual rights. The
expropriation of land and forced migration out of the Shangani Reserves created
competition for resources between ‘evictees’ and local residents and resulted in a malaria
epidemic (ibid.) Degenaar (1990:78) acknowledges that the concept of structural
violence started with Galtung’s 1969 work, but he narrows his definition of violence here
in the following way:

Violence in the normative sense means extreme force carried out against
X which violates X because it does not show respect for the value of X.
This violence is structural when the force is not exerted willfully by a
person but, for example, by custom or by law in a political context.

The final two forms of violence Riches considers include ritual violence in the

form of festivals and games (think here of violent sports such as professional wrestling or

26

bull-fighting), and violence when the victim is not fully human, such as violence against

very young infants, fetuses, animals and inanimate objects (Riches 19912294).

Violence and Legitimacy/ Representation of Violence Survivors/
Perpetrators. According to Max Weber, the state monopolizes the legitimacy over
violence (Runciman 1978). Riches (1991: 286) argues that “‘Violence’ has strong
pejorative connotations. Through it, the unacceptability and illegitimacy of harming
behaviour [sic] is conveyed.” Thus, the very term, as Tilly (2002: l 7) writes, “almost
always arrives with baggage of disapproval.” Degenaar (1990), however, reminds us that
the issue of justification, particularly for states, is always, problematic for social
scientists. It is a question for which there remain gaps in the literature (see Tilly 1991,
Nagengast 1994).

According to Riches, it is important for the perpetrators of violence to represent
their actions as defensible (1991:285-6): “For their part, perpetrators - distancing
themselves from the act — are reluctant to concede that what they have done is violence:
their representation of what happened will be that it was self defense, unavoidable force,
freedom-fighting, social control, and so on.” Alternatively, Hayner’s (2001) work on
Truth Commissions speaks to the need for violence survivors to tell their stories as a form
of catharsis. This forces social scientists to recognize an additional aspect of state terror
tactics: the extraordinary use of state controlled media to dominate images and
information in the attempt to alter individuals’ sense of self in the world around them
(rountinization of fear). The question arises then, how do war vets attempt to legitimate

their actions and the violence surrounding Zimbabwe’s commercial farms?

27

l“ .1 .,-i

‘ .‘AIJ

.
9.2% 1

' ,;
9%“.

-——o
f—J
u
1
4.

EA.

In addition to noting the ways in which the above categories of violence are used
to further the agenda of state terror in Zimbabwe, there are two final areas within the
violence literature which may be useful for analysis of the Zimbabwean case: the spatial

dynamics of violence, and the way gender intersects with violence.

Spatial dynamics of violence. While Riches work on violence provides a very
usefirl framework for conceptualizing political violence, there are some gaps in his
discussion. The first is the way in which violence alters a person’s relationship to public
spaces. Using violence in Colombia, Chilie, and Argentina as case studies, Schneider
(2000) analyzed how the spatial dynamics of repression and resistance affect forms of
contentious politics. In her conclusions, Schneider (2000:9) argues that “The spaces in
which struggles were concentrated also shaped the identities and agendas of resistors.”
While Schneider’s work looks at violence and space at the community level, Bonnin
(2000) analyzes how political violence reconstructs space by examining they dynamics of
gender and age. For example, Bonnin found that as political violence increased in Kwa-
Zulu Natal, young girls increasingly became the targets of sexual assault as they walked
to and from school, thereby requiring the escort of their older brothers for protection. At
the same time, “the street became reconstructed as a site of masculine power” whether
controlled by either political party (Bonnin: 2000: 6) Thus, I ask, how is geography
reconstructed by violence and implicated in how people strategize in conditions of

chronic fear?

28

“RNA" ‘1‘

{.irlcu ‘-

1~,-nn w
lac“;

"FIJI I
burn" \t,
5

I'\ I

~-\
.
‘i A {‘11
LIN lull

in...

....;
i- u.
c. .26 inc

Earl—1

“.1

Misti (

‘11"-§H.,_
“4““:

t.’ l

I

Gender and Violence. Linked to Bonnin’s (2000) findings that demonstrate the
role age and gender play in experience with political violence in South Africa, additional
researchers have found a second gap in the literature that suggest differing experiences of
women and men with political violence (Moser and Clark 2001; Jacobs, Jacobson, and
Marchka 2000; Trushen and Twagiramariya). As Cockbum (2001 :22) writes,

Men and women often die different deaths and are tortured and abused
in different ways, both because of physical differences between the
sexes and because of the different meanings culturally ascribed to the
male and female bodies.
She goes on to cite Ruth Seifert’s three explanations for the widespread use of rape
during war and political violence. First, women are seen as the spoils of war and included
amongst the conquered territory included with the conquered land for a short period of
time following victory (Cockbum 2001 :22). Second, Seifert argues that rape humiliates
the woman, while sending a more important message from one man to another man, that
is, the men in the community are unable to ‘protect’ ‘their’ women. Thus, a challenge to
masculinity has also been accomplished through the act; power and dominance have been
asserted over the men, according to Seifert, (cited in Cockbum, 2001:22). Third, rape
(particularly gang rape or systematic rape) promotes solidarity among soldiers through

bonding (Cockbum 2001). Thus, this leads one to ask, how do people in different social

locations experience violence and terror differently?

Survival Strategies

Das (1990: 29) refers to Lifton’s (1968) classic work on the survivors of
Hiroshima for a definition of survivor as “someone who has been touched by annihilating

violence and death.” Nevertheless, Das maintains (1990: 29), that Litton portrays

29

survivors as individualistic, classless, genderless people, untouched by social structures.
More recent studies suggest the need to unpack the individual survivor. Kanapathipillai
(1990), for example, emphasizes three issues in her work with survivors of violence in Sri
Lanka. First, social class is an important intervening factor in dealing with the aftermath
of violence. Second, women play an important role in reorganizing family life under
times of extreme pressure. Third, narratives by different women are organized around
different themes and symbols. Smivasan (1990) studied the riots in Delhi following the
assassination of Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984 in which thousands (mostly Sikh
males 20-50 years old) were killed or injured. Smivasan (1990: 310) found that the
violence crystallized the “survivor’s past as distinctive time and space. as a ‘minority’
within the secular Indian nation.” In other words, Sikhs began to feel like a “marked
community” (Smivasan 1990: 311); they became the other. Kanapathipillai (1990) and
Smivasan (1990) speak to the need to examine the social context of violence survivors
and to allow violence narratives to emerge from informants in different ways. I ask, then,
how did farmers and farm workers become “marked” communities as the violence
began?

Several authors have continued to explore the impact of terror on the psychic state
of individuals, analyzing in various ways how people cope with extreme fear (i.e.,
Brinkman 2000, Nordstrom 1997, Zur 1994, Wilson 1991, Skurski 1991). A primary
issue I explore in this dissertation is the use of terror tactics by the regime against its
populace, but I also consider how people respond to these terror tactics. According to
Green (1995:105-6), “Fear is the arbiter of power -- invisible, indeterminate, and silent.

...Fear is the reality in which people live, the hidden ‘state of (individual and social)

30

lgmgtaafif A

emergency’ that is factored into the choices women and men make.” Writing about her

experience conducting fieldwork in Guatemala, Green (1995: 108-9) reports:
Gradually, I came to realize that terror’s power was, its matter-of-factness,
its exactly about doubting one’s perceptions of reality. The routinization
of terror is what fuels its power. Routinization allows people to live in a
chronic state of fear with a facade of normalcy at the same time that terror
permeates and shreds the social fabric. A sensitive and experienced
Guatemalan economist noted that a major problem for social scientists
working in Guatemala is that to survive they have become inured to the
violence, training themselves at first not to react, then later not to feel
(see) it (emphasis added).

Therefore, as Green (1995:106) writes, “The ‘routinization of fear’ undermines one’s

confidence in interpreting the world.”

The issue of domination and resistance (Scott 1990) or agency in the context of
surviving violence is also a complex and contested issue. According to Mertz
(2002:355), in the context of instability and fear, victims/ survivors search for the basic
humanity in their oppressors: “. . .if we cannot impute some core regularities or structures,
some fundamental humanity, some measure of certainty to the external indicia we are
given, then how is any kind of social connection or understanding possible?” Victims/
survivors of violence lack an accurate view of themselves and their situation. They
refuse to accept that they are in imminent danger and may lack power; to continue
functioning “...they must imagine themselves inhabiting a world in which there is some
hope, in which there is some possibility of reaching, reasoning, or connecting with the
people who hold the power of life and dea ” (Mertz 2002: 357). Therefore, I ask, in
what ways does the routinization of fear/ terror function in Zimbabwe?

The instability caused by the routinization of fear or terror, the inaccurate

perception of connecting with oppressors (Stockholm syndrome), leads to an ethnography

31

of instability that forces us to reconceptualize agency. “What sort of agency is this, then,
that refuses to acknowledge its own powerlessness--that insists on finding a ‘normal
order’ where none exists, a ‘human’ response where inhumanity is prevailing, safety
where there is danger?” (Mertz 2002: 357). This leads me to ask, how do people
strategize under conditions of chronic fear and insecurity? In particular, how do people
in differing social locations strategize?
Nordstrom (1997: 204) emphasizes the creative ways people defy violence
through circulating “knowledge about surviving and resistance, about world-making and
self-affirmation” which she terms “symbologues: dialogue though symbols.”
“Symbologues” include poems, songs, sculptures and jokes that transmitted information
about the war drama in Mozambique where Nordstrom conducted fieldwork. Nordstrom
(1997: 198) concludes that in the midst of war and chaos, most people/ communities
work to find creative solutions to rebuild:
Yet this spark of creativity is not a light in an otherwise darkened horizon.
It 8 attended by the minutia of daily acts that take place within a field of
cultural possibilities; it works amid processes of cultural selection and
recombination that bone the day-to-day manifestations of the creative
process.

For Nordstrom, survivors of violence are agents reclaiming their world through creative

voice. The question becomes, then, what “symbologues” do farmers develop to enable

them to survive under conditions of chronic fear and insecurity?

32

Research Questions
In my focus on state terror and survival, I refer to Nordstorm’s (1997) concept of
warscapes’2 to indicate cultures of war referring to the landscape of goods, services, and
people required to sustain the cultural and material flows of war. This dissertation focuses
on the first targets of violence in Zimbabwe, commercial farming communities, as they
represented key sites of conflict both logistically and ideologically in the regime’s
attempt to frame the violence as a popular movement for land, as the Third Chimurenga.
My research questions are:
0 How does the regime perpetuate its own interests through the use of state
terror?
0 How does “the routinization of terror” function?
0 How do people in different social locations experience violence and terror
differently?
o How do people in different social locations strategize under conditions of

chronic fear and insecurity?

Outline of the Dissertation

In Chapter Two, “Colonial and Postcolonial Imaginations - Land, Race,
Chimurenga and the State in Zimbabwe,” I explore Zimbabwe’s history as a tapestry into
which land, race and violence are interwoven. From the outset of the colonial period, the
state in its various manifestations over time has “imagined” the Zimbabwean nation

according to various definitions of racial groups and their links to land. In this chapter, I

 

'2 Warscapes draws on Appadurai’s landscapes of globalization.

33

explore the interlinked histories of land, race and violence in Zimbabwe. Specifically, in
addition to looking at the violence wrought by colonialism, I reeXamine the literature on
the second Chimurenga and discuss the role of coercion used by liberation fighters to
elicit peasant support. I also trace the post-independence government’s use of violence.
Additionally, I explore the intersection of these histories with the development of the
commercial farming sector in Zimbabwe. Drawing on written histories of Zimbabwe as
well as previous interviews with farmers and farm workers, I conclude by discussing the
historical role of farmers and farm workers in Zimbabwean society as well as their
contemporary position.

Chapter Three addresses the fieldwork context in more depth than in the
introduction and describes the methodology used. Specifically, I discuss the challenges
of confronting violence in the field in terms of researcher and informant safety. I
highlight the importance of reflexivity in qualitative research and stress the importance of
interrogating power and identity in the field. Finally, I discuss the methods employed in
this study as a combination of quantitative secondary data analysis, participant
observation and semi-structured interviews. I also discuss the development of my coding
scheme and the limitations of the data. In this chapter I also introduce the groups under
study including the predominately white Commercial Farmers Union (CFU), the General
and Plantation Workers Union of Zimbabwe (GAPWUZ), and the Zimbabwe National
Liberation War Veterans Association (ZN LWVA).

Following the defeat of the constitutional referendum in February of 2000,
ZANU-PF awakened to the reality of potential defeat in the coming parliamentary

elections. Chapter Four, “‘Enemies of the State’ - Elections, Invasions, and Crisis,”

34

analyzes the beginning of the farm invasions and argues that they represent not a war
veteran led movement to take back the land but rather the desperate attempt of an
unpopular party to remain in power. Through an analysis of daily invasion reports
gathered by the CFU, I trace the development of the invasions over time and space while
situating this deployment within the context of broader electoral violence. Based on
interviews as well as secondary data, I highlight the regional differences particularly in
reference to the levels of violence associated with invasions. I compare these data to an
analysis of the statements of ZANU-PF and the war veterans association. Through these
statements, ZANU-PF and ZN LWVA leaders seek to define whites and political
opponents as the “neo-colonial” other in an attempt to justify their actions.

While Chapter Four analyses what happened and how different regions were
affected by invasions and violence, in Chapter Five, “Managing State Terror and State
Organized Violence — Strategies of the CFU, GAPWUZ and Farming Communities,” I
focus on how these communities survived the violence and insecurity on farms. The
invasions brought farmers and workers into new kinds of relationships as they sought to
defend their livelihoods, but CFU strategies conflicted with these proactive solutions. I
explore the strategies of both the CFU and GAPWUZ to work together at the national and
international levels to manage the violence. The varied strength and capacity of the CFU
and GAPWUZ significantly impacted their abilities to advocate on behalf of their
members and shaped their ability to employ strategies such as negotiation with
government, lawsuits and engaging the press. I examine the fractures in the temporary

alliance between GAPWUZ and the CFU, unions that typically stand against each other

35

HEELJJ‘ 3}. I. .

in wage negotiations and labor disputes. In addition to the strategies of the unions at the
national level, I also examine local farming community responses.

In Chapter Six, “Intersection of Race, Gender and Violence -— Experiences with
and Strategies for Farm Invasions,” I explore how individuals experienced and survived
the invasions, and concurrent terror and violence. Based on interviews and human rights
violation reports, I analyze the intersection of race and gender in individuals’ experience
with invasion violence and their response to it.

In my concluding chapter, I return to my major research question: “Under what
conditions are dijfirent people exposed to different kinds of state terror and violence? "
In doing so, I organize my findings around this question rather than summarizing the
major points of my previous chapters. I then discuss the implications of my research for
theory, policy implications for the crisis in Zimbabwe, and point to potential areas of
research that have emerged from the dissertation. To end, I address the position of

fieldworkers in the context of violence.

36

CHAPTER TWO:
COLONIAL AND POST-COLONIAL IMAGINATIONS - LAND, RACE,

CHIMURENGA AND THE STATE IN ZIMBABWE

Zimbabwe’s history is a tapestry into which land, race and violence are
interwoven. From the outset of the colonial period, the state in its various manifestations
over time has “imagined” the Zimbabwean nation according to various definitions of
racial groups and their links to land. In this chapter, I explore the interlinked histories of
land, race and violence in Zimbabwe. Specifically, in addition to looking at the violence
wrought by colonialism, I reexamine the literature on the second Chimurenga and discuss
the role of coercion used by liberation fighters to elicit peasant support. I also trace the
post-independence government’s use of violence. Additionally, I explore the intersection
of these histories with the development of the commercial farming sector in Zimbabwe.
Drawing on written histories of Zimbabwe as well as previous interviews with farmers
and farm workers, I conclude by discussing the historical role of farmers and farm

workers in Zimbabwean society as well as their contemporary position.

“White Man’s Country” - the Colonial Period (1888-1980)

The history of contemporary Zimbabwe is one of racial domination primarily
achieved through the alienation of black controlled land and restrictive legislation of
racial preference. In 1888, the relationship between indigenous blacks and whites in
contemporary Zimbabwe changed significantly. Throughout the 19‘h century, contact

between blacks and whites centered on relations of trade, limited confrontations with

37

Portuguese and/or Afrikaners and contact with scattered missionaries (Sylvester 1991).
In 1888, Ndebele leader and Mzilkazi’s successor Lobengula signed the Rudd
Concession granting Rhodes mining and mineral rights which Rhodes used to procure a
royal charter for his British South Afiica Company (BASC) in 1889. The royal charter
empowered BSAC to rule the colony and enabled the company to oversee mining
activities as well as create and enforce laws and treaties (Sylvester 1991, Phimister I988).
The following year, Rhodes returned with a contingent of 700 settlers (200 young men
and 500 company soldiers) that became known as the “Pioneer Column” and holds
special significance in white Zimbabwean lore. As Weiss (1994:18) wrote, “The Pioneer
Column was the Rhodesians’ Mayflower, their descendants the planter aristocracy of the
territories of Northern and Southern Rhodesia.” Believing the area to be home to a
“Second Rand” rich in mining potential, the settlers headed into Mashonaland and
dispersed in search of mineral wealth (Sylvester 1991, Phimister 1988). In 1891, Britain
declared Mashonaland a British protectorate administered by BSAC, a status that
remained until 1923.

Although Rhodes and Great Britain considered the Rudd Concession an
agreement that also transferred all land under Lobengula’s control to BSAC, Tshuma
(1997) has noted that the idea that Lobengula held sovereign leadership over the entirety
of Mashonaland and Matabeleland is problematic. Lobengula’s sovereignty at the time
was more tenuous (Ranger in Tshuma 1997:14). Furthermore, Tshuma (1997) argues
that in pre-colonial Zimbabwe, land was not a commodity that could be owned. In 1891
Lobengula signed the Lippert Concession, granting land rights to a German financier in

what Tshuma (1997) described as an attempt to play the Europeans against each other.

38

Therefore, the notion that Lobengula was entitled to or willingly signed over title to
Southern Rhodesian land is a contested fact in Zimbabwean history (Tshuma 1997).

However, land concessions and agriculture soon came to play a critical role in the
colony’s economic prospects. After then-Southem Rhodesia’s failure to provide another
mineral-rich colony like that in neighboring South Africa, in the late 18908, BSAC
slowly turned its attention to the agricultural potential of the landlocked colony. Though
still promoting the colony with claims of discoveries of new gold fields daily and as
containing “‘an uninterrupted gold belt’” (Phimister 19889), in the early 18908,
extensive land concessions in Mashonaland were granted to companies and individuals to
stabilize the nearly bankrupt BSAC (Rubert, I998, Sylvester 1991, Phimister 1988).
Following a small Ndebele uprising on Fort Victoria in 1893, additional land concessions
were granted to settlers, this time in the Matabeleland region. By 1896, concessionary
companies controlled one-sixth of the country (Sylvester 1991).

Violence marked the early colonial period of Southern Rhodesia. Throughout the
early 18908, BSAC and local black chiefs engaged in small armed skirmishes as the
BSAC sought to establish it’s sovereignty and demonstrate “the sacredness of white lives
and property” (Phimister 1988:12). According to Phimister (1988:12), “Murder, theft
and what the whites perceived as insolence and insubordination were promptly countered
by murder and theft on an intimidating scale, most spectacularly by the para-military
police expeditions of 1892.” Schmidt (1992) found that complaints against the brutality
of the native police at this time and the raping of African women and girls by the native
police were common. Additionally, blacks were caught and forced into labor (referred to

as chibaro) as needed by the nascent mining and agricultural sectors.

39

Alienation from land, violence at the hands of whites, raiding of African livestock
and the imposition of taxes compelled the 1886-87 uprising referred to as the first
Chimurenga' (Schmidt 1992, Sylvester 1991, Phimister 1988). The uprising caught
BSAC and the settlers off-guard and unprepared. Initially, the combined Mashona and
Amandebele uprising was successful. The insurgents had control of the major towns and
roads, held white prisoners and killed over 100 settlers in Mashonaland alone (Phimister
1988). Ultimately, BSAC army forces joined with British Imperial Army forces to defeat
the uprising. Following the uprising, white settlers pushed for increased representation in
the colony’s governance, blaming BSAC for inadequate protection during the rebellion.

The Establishment of “Responsible Self-Rule” and Segregation (1923-45).
The early 19008 marked a shift in Southern Rhodesia’s economic interests from mining
to farming, though the transition was slow. Farmers began lobbying the government hard
for protections from competition from black producers and the need for labor (discussed
below). In 1923, the settlers (and blacks who met the “Jim Crow”-like voting
requirements) voted to either join with neighboring South Afiica, or establish
“responsible self government.” The ”settlers voted to transfer administrative rule from
BSAC to responsible self government (Sylvester 1991). Though whites held control over
most issues of government in Southern Rhodesia from 1923-1945, Britain retained veto
power over legislation concerning “Natives”. Great Britain did not, however, use this

power to enforce racial equality in Southern Rhodesia, nor did it do much to protect the
interests of blacks. For example, Britain allowed literacy testing and other discriminatory

means to keep the majority of blacks disenfranchised (Sylvester 1991).

 

' Chimurenga literally means rebellion.

40

The establishment of self rule was also the beginning of the institutionalization of
racial segregation in Southern Rhodesia under the rubric of racial non-competition. With
the emergence of competing class interests among whites in the early 19208, racial
discrimination became increasingly important. For example, in the mining sector, white
workers placed high value on the informal system of racial segregation in which blacks
were excluded from higher paying positions. Mining owners (sometimes multinational
corporations), however, recognized the potential advantage of racial competition in lower
wages overall (Phimister 1988, Sylvester 1991). White mine workers therefore
established the Rhodesian Mining and General Workers’ Association in the 19208 and
effectively struck against racial job competition (Sylvester 1991). The implicit racial
solidarity of conceding to white union demands while simultaneously resisting black
union demands became explicit in the 1934 Industrial Conciliation Act (ICA) which
formalized racial job categories and ended white-black job competition (a primary
concern for white mining workers) in exchange for whites forfeiture of the right to strike
(Phimister 1988, Sylvester 1991). This legislation demarking white and black
employment possibilities contributed to segregationist policies of the time. Whereas the
Land Apportionment Act of 1930 which demarcated white and black land (discussed in
detail below) racially defined space, the ICA racially distinguished employment and
limited the potential of socio-economic gains for many blacks. Though white workers
and employers ultimately closed ranks around race, class (among other) divisions did
exist among whites at this early time and remained throughout the colonial and post-

colonial history.

41

The Development of White Agriculture

Contrary to beliefs of many white farmers that white agriculture in Zimbabwe
developed through their predessors’ hard work, tenacity and capitalist savy, a review of
land and agricultural policy reveals a different picture. White agricultural development
relied heavily on state intervention in land policy and agricultural research, subsidies, and
protection from black competition.

Begining in 1888 with the Rudd Concession, the colonial powers began
appropriating land from black Zimbabweans for white settlers. Through a series of land
policy measures, the BSAC and later Southern Rhodesia implemented policies that
divided the country into “black” and “white” agricultural lands (see Table 2.1 at end of
this chapter for a history of land policy). By 1898, the British government evoked the
Native Reserves Order to protect native land rights in the face of increased alienation of
land for whites in the colony through the creation of Native Reserves. The order created
dual agrarian and tenure structure in which blacks are crowded into the more ecologically
marginal areas of the country (Rukuni 1994a). Native Commissioners in charge of
creating the Native Reserves (now known as Communal Areas) “basically allocated those
remaining areas which were felt unsuited for white settlement” (Rukuni 1994a:9).

In the early 19008, the BSAC had only begun to realize that the development of
the colony depended on the development of white agriculture. Given the company’s
initial hopes of finding a “Second Rand” in the country, early legislation subordinated
‘ agricultural to mining interest (Phimister 1988). The mining industry had preferential
access to water, wood and grazing, and rights to enter privately owned land for mining

purposes. Black small-holder producers had responded to the new markets that the

42

colony’s mining towns had created — in 1904, blacks accounted for over 90 per cent of
the country’s total marketed output (Phimister 1988:68). Additionally, white farmers
needed increased access to black labor. Phimister (1988:64-65) notes,
Peasant competition had to be curbed, distinguished visitors were told,
because ‘if he[“the native”] can work for himself to a great profit he is not
likely to work for the white settler for wages. For farmers and their
allies, the solution was simple: ‘put ...the native cultivator...in reserves...so
far away from railways and markets that the white trader will not be able
to buy from him and compete with the white farmer.’
White farmers responded to these unfavorable conditions by creating the Rhodesian
Agricultural Union (RAU) in 1904 to lobby for farmer interests. Over the ensuing years,
the RAU would successfully lobby for a variety of supports for white agriculture.
Though the Native Reserves Order separated land racially, many blacks continued
to live on land designated as white or Royal Crown land through the early 20th century.
The actual process of removing blacks from white lands was slow. However, by the
early 19208, white farmers had achieved one of their primary goals -- eliminating black
competition through restricting blacks’ access to markets:
Only 30 per cent ‘of the land assigned to Africans, as against 75 per cent
of that alienated to Europeans was within 25 miles of a railway’, and as
contemporaries usually agreed that ‘grain crops would not bear more than
about 15 miles of ox-wagon transport when railway transport was to be
added’, African competitiveness on produce markets was significantly
reduced. By 1922, 63.5 per cent of all blacks lived in reserves (Phimister
1988:67).
Combined with the doubling of the hut tax in 1904 and the introduction of a series of
additional taxes over the next ten years, the state simultaneously increased pressure on

Afiican families for cash income and reduced their ability to earn income outside of

waged labor (Phimister 1988).

43

 

Despite these early efforts to facilitate white agriculture, white farmers struggled
throughout the 19208 and 19308. A small minority of large scale white producers
employed modern farming techniques and produced the bulk of agricultural output. For
example in 1933, 1.4 per cent (4 ranchers) of the Stockowners Association owned 54 per
cent of the cattle, while in 1923 17 farmers or 8 per cent of the Maize Association
members produced 45.4 per cent of the total white produced crop (Phimister 1988: 126).
The majority of white farmers, in contrast, were short of both capital and agricultural
training and skills. Many white farmers lived hand to mouth throughout the 19208
(Phimister 1988).

In 1930, the Land Apportionment Act (LAA) formalized the dual agrarian
structure established in the Native Reserves Order. Areas in Southern Rhodesia with
high rainfall and better soils became white farm areas and black land in poorer ecological
areas became held in trust by the state. The racial division of land also contributed to the
evolving transformation of pre-colonial land use and rights patterns (Tshuma 1997).
Native Commissioners became responsible for the administration of the Reserves and
were “required to control natives ‘through their tribal chiefs and headmen’” (Tshuma
1997 :21). As Tshuma (1997:21) writes,

The policy sought to replace the traditional system of rule by
chiefs with the direct rule of central government (Palley 19662497).
Chiefs became minor state functionaries appointed by, and
answerable to the administration with their tenure contingent upon

good behavior as defined by the colonial state.

The Native Commissioner now, not the chief, held the power to assign land for

settlement, cultivation and grazing, and grant access to water (Tshuma 1997).

White agriculture at the beginning of the 19308 suffered from successive crises in
the industries of cotton, tobacco, maize and cattle (Phimister 1988). As the Great
Depression worsened, by 1934 white farmers constituted the largest proportion of white
unemployed (Phimister 1988:174). During the decade of the 19308, therefore, state
intervention to assist farmers intensified. Starting with the Maize Control Act of 1931,
the state introduced a series of acts to protect white settler agriculture so that by 1937 “‘of
the principle agricultural products from European farms only poultry and eggs remained
outside the system of control’” (Phimister 1988:174). The state tripled the capital of the
Land Bank between 1924 and 1930, implemented subsidies and relieved farmers’ debt,
and expanded rural roads to facilitate marketing (Phimister 1988).

By the end of the 19308, the state intervention paid off, particularly among
tobacco producers whose fortunes “were soaring” (Phimister 1988:225). Tobacco
cultivation and production rose steadily and British markets for Southern Rhodesian
tobacco secured. The shift fiom foodstuffs to tobacco cultivation is reflected in the fact
that the colony had to ration both meat and mealie-meal during 1947-48 (Phimister
1988:233). The loss of self-sufficiency in food production during this period led the state
to convert the existing producer control boards to marketing boards aimed at overseeing
the supply and distribution of agricultural produce (Phimister 1988:231). During this
period, environmental concerns arose over soil degradation. Therefore, further state
intervention developed in the form of subsidies for white maize producers engaged in
ecologically sound farming practices (Phimister 1988:230). At the end of World War II,
the state also continued to promote white agriculture through offering land and other

enticements to British soldiers (Mlambo forthcoming).

45

By the time of the introduction of the Native Land Husbandry Act (N LHA) in
1951, the Southern Rhodesian state had clearly established an interventionist policy
towards protecting white agricultural interests. With NLHA, the state sought to limit the
size of black land under cultivation and the number of cattle owned. NLHA enforced de-
stocking as well as conservation practices and led to considerable resistance among
blacks. During this same time‘period, the government shifted land policy from settling
more whites to removing blacks from white areas. The law was eventually repealed in
1961 when the then liberal leaders sought to amend the LAA to create a nonracial
category of land — unreserved. The move mobilized white conservatives, particularly
farmers and contributed to the election of the conservative Rhodesian Front (RF) party in
1962.

Under the conservative leadership of the RF in the 19608, black access to land
further diminished. The Native Reserves were renamed Tribal Trust Lands (TTL) under
the Act of 1965 and the land came to be vested in a board of trustees (Rukuni 1994a). In
1969, the government instituted the Land Tenure Act (LTA) which created “parity”
among blacks and whites and divided the land 50-50 according to race. During the UDI
period, the RF further consolidated their support among white farmers through a new
series of measures designed to keep farmers afloat and on their farms despite the
economic sanctions of the time (Rukuni 1994b). The government financed a tobacco
stockpile, established a short term loan facility, and established an agricultural
diversification scheme (Rukuni 1994b:27). Interventions under UDI advanced

Rhodesia’s production in soya beans and wheat resulting in the self-sufficiency in the

46

latter by 1976 (as opposed to producing 2 per cent of its requirements in 1965) (Rukuni
1994b:29).

Farmers and farm workers in farming communities. Commercial farms in
Zimbabwe represent a unique position in Zimbabwean society. While farms (and
society) remain largely segregated, in farming communities, blacks and whites live and
work together in ways different than in other parts of Zimbabwean society.

Historically, in addition to accessing cheap land, white farmers relied on the state
to curb competition from black producers, compel the populace into farm labor, and
when necessary source labor from outside the colony’s borders (Sylvester 1991; Rubert
1998). For black laborers, farm work meant long hours, difficult work, and low pay
compared with work in mines or in the developing urban areas. In the early 19008, white
farmers had difficulty recruiting and keeping local black laborers. Labor from nearby
countries such as Zambia, Malawi and Mozambique were recruited and brought to
Zimbabwe for farm work. According to Amanor-Wilkes (1996), approximately 40
percent of contemporary black farm workers (or their parents or grandparents) hail from
countries other than Zimbabwe.

Relations between whites and blacks on farms during the colonial period mirrored
those of other sectors in Zimbabwe and reflected the racial politics of the times.
Zimbabwe institutionalized segregation through policy, and restricted black workers’
rights through the Masters and Servants Act. The Act prohibited any workers from
leaving a place of employment if they had not completed the duration of their service

contract.

47

Further, segregation has been, and continues to be racially defined through the
organization of space in farm life. White families live in homesteads, typically behind
security fences, whereas black workers live in open farm villages on the farm. Some
farmers, but not all, provide beer halls, schools, or clinics on their properties for their
workers. In many farming communities, the center of social life for farmers revolves
around the farmers’ club. The clubs are locales for sport, drinking, potlucks and
meetings of various natures. While blacks are not officially prohibited from the clubs,
informal mechanisms maintain racial segregation patterns. The psychological role of

these clubs will be discussed below.

Chimurenga — Rebellion (1971-79)

From African Resistance to Chimurenga. In the early 19208, rising inequalities
in Rhodesian society lead to the establishment of black unions and political
organizations. One such union, the Industrial and Common Workers Union (ICWU),
struck in 1925 over declining wages and shut down several mines. However, the mine
owners united and refused to acquiesce to African demands (Sylvester 1991). Early
African nationalism focused on redressing social and economic inequalities and power
sharing rather than a total transfer of power (N yangoni 1978).

The post WWII era saw a dramatic rise in African nationalism. Sylvester (1991)
notes that prior to the 19508, acts of resistance were individual and incremental.
However, the decades following WWII marked the emergence of coordinated and
sustained political organization and struggle with numerous political organizations and

parties emerging among Africans. In 1957, the Bulawayo African National Conference

48

0.... J ell... ’. .

 

(BANC) and Harare based City Youth League merged to create the Southern Rhodesian
Afiican National Conference (SRANC), led by Joshua Nkomo. SRANC called for land
use and distribution according to farming ability, the full participation of Africans in
Rhodesian government, universal suffrage (now), and social integration (Sylvester

1991 :42). Predictably, in 1959 the Rhodesian government banned SRANC. The
National Democratic Party replaced SRANC, and was soon also banned. In 1962, the
Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) was established, also headed by Nkomo; and
in 1963, the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) split from ZAPU due to the
dissatisfaction of some members who desired armed confrontation.

The African nationalist movements prior to the 19608 relied on a liberal agenda
which sought to utilize European institutions and logic to achieve its goals. Although by
1961 the African nationalists’ goal was majority rule, the methods employed still
reflected a liberal mind-set, calling for Britain to pressure Rhodesia to change. This
liberal influence predominantly disappeared in the late 19608 and the 19708 druing
Zimbabwe’s armed struggle for independence.

Cliffe (1982:23) argues that the Zimbabwean nationalist movement followed the
pattern of many African nationalist movements to date: “The pattern was to build up a
formal and visible network of branches, to enlist a wide membership, to hold rallies,
demonstrations, protests and boycotts - even some civil disobedience or sabotage, a few
riots.” However, Cliffe (1982:24) notes, the Unilateral Declaration of Independence

(UDI)2 period and Rhodesian stubbornness required re-thinking of “both the methods of

 

2 In 1965, Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith announced Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence
(UDI) fi'om Great Britain as a result of increasing pressrue from Britain to establish majority rule in
Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia). Almost immediately, Rhodesia faced international trade sanctions which forced
the country into an import substitution policy and further development of Rhodesia's manufacturing sector.

49

"Jalignh'lo‘ (.3 In

struggle (guerrilla war) and the form of organization (a clandestine but popularly based
movement)” Initial efforts at armed resistance failed tactically, and by the end of the
19608 political fighting between ZANU and ZAPU became submerged under ethnic
tensions as ZANU solidified its membership of predominately Shona and ZAPU of
predominantly Ndebele (Cliffe 1982). Cliffe (1982) argues that the introduction of
‘tribal’ difference in the nationalist movements reflects opportunistic leadership rather
than historical intra-movement conflict: “...the history of the movements suggest there is
nothing natural or inevitable about such distinctions becoming the basis for political
division” (Cliffe 1982:26). The ‘tribal’ split in African nationalism, however, coincided
with the intensification of the struggle and eventual victory. In this period, ZAPU
received military training and aid from the Soviet Union, while ZANU received its
military aid from China. The ethnic identifications developed during this period around
political organization remain significant to this day.

Cliffe accurately described a critical shift in late 19608 to early 19708 to guerrilla
tactics and mass mobilization. The peasantry was mobilized through guerilla forces
entering villages, offering political education (including the promise of access to land),
involving local spiritual leadership, holding political rallies at night (pungwes), and
recruiting young boys and girls to assist in the movement (Lan 1989). Rhodesian
military efforts also contributed to solidifying guerilla support at this time. When the
liberation movement threatened to control rural areas, the Rhodesian government forcibly
placed villagers in “Protected Villages” commonly called “keeps” which greatly

increased mass resentment to the Rhodesian government. Several women highlighted in

50

Staunton’s (1990) collection of war experiences demonstrate the importance of this shift
in solidifying rural support. Seri Jeni recalls her initial exposure to ZIPRA3 combatants:

The comrades talked to us a bit. They said that they were our
children and that they were fighting for our country. They said
they were not fighting for their own freedom, but for the freedom
of everyone in the country. Then they said, “Please make us some
food; we, your children, are very hungry,” and they left and went
into the bush (Jeni, in Staunton 1990:5).

Sosana Marange recalls a similar scenario: “Then, in 1974, a group of eight comrades
came into our area. They said they had come to free parents from oppression. They
said that we were very oppressed...” (Marange, in Staunton 1990:13). Some, however,
experienced the result of the tensions between the two forces. Elina Ndlouv describes the
entrance of first ZAPU, then later ZANU into her community. The two parties both
requested food and assistance, but also inquired into villagers’ cooperation with the other
party, taking names and punishing villagers who associated with the “wrong” freedom
fighters.

The UDI and war period saw the consolidation of African nationalism behind a
common goal of freedom, but a movement fractured by politics. The fractured
movement maintained its unity through its mobilization of the peasantry behind socialist
ideals. By 1964, Rhodesia had detained both ZANU and ZAPU leaders. Although
armed struggle began in 1966, it remained disorganized until 1972. Throughout the
19708, the guerilla movement attacked white farmers and mobilized increased support
among the peasants. Allan Savory, a liberal Rhodesian in parliament accurately warned
that the side (Rhodesian or Afiican) which won the hearts and minds of the black
majority would win the war (Godwin and Hancock 1994: 100).

Although African nationalism professed Marxist-Leninist goals and achieved the

support of the majority of Africans, some of its internal practices suggest the need for

 

3 ZIPRA was the military wing of ZAPU: ZAN LA was the military wing of ZANU.

51

critical analysis of who comprised “nationals” in the war years. In Mothers of the
Revolution: The War Experiences of Thirty Zimbabwean Women,4 many women describe
their dual feelings of support for and fear of the guerilla fighters. One woman described
her experience as a chimbwido, in which guerilla forces recruited, often by force,
adolescent girls to run errands, cook, and provide sex for the liberation fighters. Juliet
Makande told of how she tried to leave, but remained under threat to her family’s safety

and farm:

It was unfortunate that we had to sleep with the comrades because
sometimes we had sex with them. You couldn't even tell a fiiend
about it because it might be said you were a prostitute or because
the story would reach the fi'eedom fighters and you would be in
trouble. They always told us that we should never tell anyone.
“We don’t want sell-outs,” they said. So if a group came today,
you might have to ‘go to the poshito ’5 with one of them - that
meant you had to sleep with him; and then if another group came
the next day you might have to ‘go to the poshito’ with someone
else. Some of the girls fell pregnant. The unfortunate thing was
that we didn't know the real names of the freedom fighters
(Makande in Staunton 1990:49).

Although Makande does not denounce the behavior of the freedom fighters, she reports

her desire and continued efforts to be freed from her duties as a chimbwido.

White Perceptions of Chimurenga. Rhodesian nationalism following World
War II had become quite a nebulous coalition. Post WWII immigration decreased the
African to European racial ratio from 19.6:1 in the 19408, to 13.4:1 in the 19508.
However, by the 19608 the ratio had risen to 17.2:1 (Kinloch 1978). The census of 1969
revealed that 59.3 per cent of Rhodesians were not born in Rhodesia (Godwin and

Hancock 1993:16). Therefore, Rhodesian nationalism rested on an illusion of a united

 

’ Mothers of the Revolution: The Waflixperiences of Thirty Zimbabwean Women edited by Irene Staunton
consists of edited oral narratives of the 30 women included. Therefore, these are the words of the women
themselves.

5 Poshito means but or tent.

52

001'» I

iflflfil}

  
 

PURE "
0015'“ l‘,
i :V-‘end.
3 title:
Dials l
iii->-

,.
r1,“
'5.

*MIL

Ciii‘

.LLfi

 

and harmonious racial group that in reality did not share much of a history. While
Godwin and Hancock (1994:19) note that racial solidarity did exist in Rhodesia, they
emphasize its tenuous nature:
the alliance was always an uneasy one. Conflict within the support
base... helps explain the ultimate failure of a race-based nationalism to
preserve the unity of White Rhodesia during the war years. The shared
experience of race increasingly had to compete with the specific
experience of occupational groupings trying to protect their own interests.
Although Godwin and Hancock argue that Rhodesian nationalism was maintained
by fear of majority rule rather than racism, it is precisely racism which
engendered the fear of majority rule. During the war years, Rhodesia clung to its
myth of the true Rhodesian as the tough, Rhodesian-bom Christian fighting to
preserve civilization in the face of communist terrorists (Moore-King 1989,
Godwin and Hancock 1994 and Weiss 1994). This imaginary Pioneer Column
descendant actually reflected only a small portion of the population, but presented
a unified image of Rhodesian resistance to “terrorism.” Moore-King (1989)
reveals his “tribe’s” stated mission for going to war: “We must know what we are
defending. This is nothing less than the survival of what is left of Christian
Civilization and its values and standards, the belief in right and wrong, which
Communism exists to destroy” (1977 Rhodesian Christian Pamphlet quoted in
Moore-King, 1989:51).
The heightened white nationalism of the war years also gave rise to increasing
Rhodesian intolerance and a process of internal exclusion in defining its true nationals.

Conscientious objection and draft dodging were considered un-Rhodesian and were not

accepted: “It was also un-Rhodesian to accuse the Security Forces of brutality, to oppose

53

the arrest of Africans without a warrant, and to pronounce an intention to emigrate”

(Godwin and Hancock 1993:114). Moore-King (1989:129) confirms the social pressure

to conform to the myth of Rhodesia:

Looking back with eyes that seek reality, not masturbatory myth, it seems
to me that those of my tribe who showed the greatest courage were the
very few who said, not that they were right, but that we were wrong. For
it is much easier to rim with the herd, much easier to pick up a rifle and
shoot someone, than it is to endure the isolation, the ostracism, the ridicule
of your own people.

Rhodesian nationalism also demonstrated the potential unifying force of language,
particularly concerning the usage of the term “terrorist” to refer to the freedom fighters:
“opposition to ‘terrorism’ could unite all except a handful of Rhodesians whereas their
racial policies divided them into opposed camps” (Godwin and Hancock 1993:] 1).
Farmers, however, lived the war on the front line. While all males between the
ages of 17-50 could potentially be conscripted at one point (Godwin and Hancock 1993),
whites farming communities experienced daily attacks. According to Godwin and

Hancock (1993:289),

.. .the farmers themselves were convinced that Salisbury never really
understood what it was like living in the war zone. The Vice Chairman of
the Grain Producers’ Association. accused the planners in the Ministry
of Agriculture of not knowing “what it is like to be constantly armed, to be
always prepared to be under attack. . .to wake up in the middle of the night
to the sound of gunfire and rockets and the smell of burning. . .to see one’s
fields alight. . .to face the tired and frightened labour force in the morning
when all their possessions have been burnt, and to see the dead being
carried away.”

Several “normal” activities associated with farm life became dangerous. Farmers were at
risk traveling on rural roads which were often laced with landmines. Visiting the
workers’ village for any reason could prove hazardous. Those who lived alone and the
elderly were at particular risk, though no one was safe (Godwin and Hancock 1993).
Farming communities responded by changing work patterns, curtailing entertainment

activities, developing area response team, and a variety of other measures.

54

Godwin and Hancock (1993) describe how farmers’ homesteads converted into
military-like fortresses. Farm homes were often surrounded by alarm systems, security
fences, attack dogs, external lighting, blast walls, grenade and rocket launchers (some
operational by remote control). Inside, houses contained “safe areas,” bullet screens,
emergency rations and emergency power. The Rhodesian National Farmers Union (the
predecessor to the Commercial Farmers Union) advised farmers in a variety of strategies
to safeguard their homes, farms, equipment and workers if they came under assault. In
this new era of farm life, farm women’s lives were transformed from running the
household to participating in staffing the Agric-Alert radio operations rooms and wearing
guns around their waists. The war took its toll on farming communities, many of which

were ready for the war to end after roughly 14 years of being'on the front lines.

Independent Zimbabwe (1980-2000)

In 1979, the British government invited the various political party leaders to
London for the Lancaster House Conference which would settle the conflict in Rhodesia
and establish the Lancaster House Constitution that remains in effect (though amended)
to this day. The constitution provided for majority rule through general elections, yet
provided significant guarantees against radical changes to white interests. White were
reserved 20 seats (out of 100) in the House of Assembly, and the constitution required
that land reform must proceed on a “willing-buyer, willing-seller” basis. Under
Lancaster House, farmers had the right to payment in foreign currency and the British
and the US. agreed to finance land reform (Sylvester 1992, Sithole 1987).

In March 1980, Zimbabweans elected Robert Mugabe as their first Prime Minister
and his party ZANU-PF captured 57 of the 80 seats in the House eligible to black voters
(Sithole 1987:83). Nkomo’s PF -ZAPU won 20 seats, while the Rhodesian Front (RF)

swept all 20 seats in the white constituencies (Sithole 1987:83). The election of Mugabe

55

into office shocked most whites who were terrified of his radical Marxist perspective
(Goodwin and Hancock 1993). Allegations of violence and intimidation by all parties
were reported, however, election observers pronounced the elections fair.

In his Address to the Nation on March 4, 1980, Mugabe (1980) projected a

commitment to peace, stability and racial reconciliation:

...I wish to assure you that there can never be any return to the state
of armed conflict which existed before our commitment to peace
and the democratic process of election under the Lancaster House
Agreement. Surely this is now time to beat our swords into
ploughshares so we can attend to the problems of developing our
economy and our society. 4

In addition to stressing the importance of a government that upholds the rule of law and

fundamental civil rights, Mugabe declared,

...it is not the intention of our government to drive anybody out
of this country; nor do we intend to interfere unconstitutionally
with the property rights of individuals. I urge you, whether you are
black or white, to join me in a new pledge to forget our grim past,
forgive others and forget, join hands in a new arnity, and together,
as Zimbabweans trample upon racialism, tribalism and
regionalism, and work hard to reconstruct and rehabilitate our
society as we reinvigorate our economic machinery. Let us truly
become Zimbabweans with a single loyalty.

Mugabe soon after appointed two whites to his cabinet in the positions of ministers of
commerce and agriculture as well as appointing the former head of the Rhodesia Forces

to oversee the integration of the three armies (Sylvester 1991).

Post War: Land and Resettlement. Following independence in 1980, changes
in the structure of land ownership in Zimbabwe have not met the expectations of many.
While Zimbabwe has undertaken considerable reforms and research reveals that
resettlement households compare favorably to their communal counterparts (Kinsey

2000), the racially based land imbalances have remained (see Table 1.3). The regime’s

56

early stated goals of resettling 162,000 families (as stated in 1982) proved tremendously
overly ambitious. By 1996, roughly 71,000 families had been resettled on 3.5 million
hectares of land, 93 per cent in family-based holdings (Kinsey 1999).

While the initial goals of the resettlement program focused on poverty alleviation,
welfare enhancement and national stability, by 1990 redistributive justice no longer
dominated land policy (Kinsey 1999). Selection criteria shifted to emphasize farmer
experience and capital and the “state appears happy to preserve a dualistic structure
through transferring title in large holdings from white to black owners” (Kinsey 1999).
The Zimbabwean state preferred state run resettlement and quashed any attempts by
peasants to resettle themselves on white farms (Herbst 1990, Tshuma 1997).

Following independence, significant changes occurred that impacted farmer —
farm worker relations. Legal changes required that farmers shift compensation from a
combination of foodstuffs and a small salary to wages only by monetizing the rations
system. During the 19808, GAPWUZ formed, slowly increasing its membership and
representing permanent black farm workers in contract negotiations and labor disputes.6
Despite such changes, as Blair Rutherford (1996) notes, the system of domestic
government on farms remained and “development” for black farrrr workers lay outside
modern bureaucratic state-led development efforts. In other words, during the period of
extensive expansion of social infrastructure such as rural health clinics and schools, the
regime considered commercial farm areas and black farm workers as outside of the
boundaries of state development and the responsibility of private landowners. Therefore,
while independence has increased access to clinics and schools in CA8 and RAs, for

black farm workers, access to such facilities remains marginal in many areas.

 

" GAPWUZ does not represent seasonal contract farm workers, overwhelmingly women.

57

Black farm workers have long been perceived by the ZANU-PF state as second-
class citizens. Commercial farms were the sites of much of the struggle during the war
for liberation. During the liberation struggle, Zimbabwe African National Liberation
Army (ZANLA)7'forces were often frustrated by their attempts to compel black farm
workers to abandon farms or join in arms against farmers. Farm workers have been
perceived to have aligned themselves with farmers rather than with liberation forces and
therefore have not been seen as an important political constituency following
independence.

Additionally, despite the fact that many contemporary farm workers were born in
Zimbabwe, there remains a perception in Zimbabwe, by citizens as well as the state, that
farm workers are “foreigners.” This perception fuelled the regime to state in 1997 that
farm workers displaced by the then proposed acquisition of nearly a third of commercial
farms could simply return home to Malawi, Zambia, or Mozambique. The statements
prompted the recently formed (1997) Farm Worker Advocacy Group (FWAG) to mount a
public awareness campaign on behalf of farm workers to combat this and other
stereotypes about farm workers.

Requirements to prove citizenship often disadvantage farm workers, an issue that
F WAG, GAPWUZ and the Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe (F CTZ) have attempted
to reconcile with the regime. The final factor which deems farm workers as unreliable in
the eyes of the regime is the assumption that by the nature of their affiliation with
GAPWUZ, a trade union, farm workers en mass support the trade union backed
opposition party MDC. MDC emerged in late 1999/ early 2000 out of the political

activism of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) which had become

 

7 ZANLA was the liberation army wing of ZANU-PF’s then ZANU political wing.

58

increasing vocal in its criticism of the regime in recent years. Farm workers thus elicit
mistrust from the regime due to the combination of a perceived historical lack of unity as
well as contemporary stereotypes about foreignness and allegiance to MDC. The
marginal position of farm workers translates to a vulnerable population easily targeted by
a state aiming to attack non-supporters in a campaign focusing on “indigenous” rights.

Similar to farm workers, white farmers’ credentials as “true” Zimbabweans have
also inspired distrust in the ZANU-PF state. Whites in general and farmers in particular
are not seen as Zimbabweans by the regime, despite the fact that many were born in the
country. In the years following independence, farmers were allowed to prosper, given
they did not endorse opposition politics. White farmers continued to lobby government
through their farmer union on agricultural issues, which changed its name from the
Rhodesian Farmers’ Union to the Commercial F arrners’ Union (CFU) following
independence. Although the CFU does not prohibit black farmers from joining, the union
remains overwhelmingly white.

The numbers of white farmers in Zimbabwe decreased throughout the war. White
farmers, as well as Black farmers, lived on the front lines of the liberation struggle.
During the war, communities instituted various security measures such as daily roll calls,
and armed patrols. Farmers leaving Zimbabwe often sold their farms to neighbors for
whatever they could get in order to keep their farm from falling into the “terrorists’”
hands, as whites referred to liberation fighters. Several farmers who remained, thus, were
able to consolidate their land holdings and wealth after surviving the war.

Farmers’ clubs, a tradition in farming communities, flourished after

independence. Farmers relied on farmers’ clubs for sports, drinking, and social events in

59

a setting that resisted post-independence desegregation. Though blacks are not prohibited
from joining the clubs or visiting a club’s bar, farmers’ clubs remain farmers’ escape into
a world of whiteness. In one community I studied in 1998, a wealthy farmer donated
land and built a new farmers’ club for the community following independence. The
farmer explained to me that after 1980, local blacks began frequenting the previous club
which was located in a small town. White farmers did not feel comfortable in this new
interracial social setting, according to my informant. The farmers needed a place of their
own, a place where white culture dominated, the farmer explained. The new club
location deterred black patronage. Located roughly ten kilometers from the township, the
new farmers’ club was not serviced by public transport and a distance that few would
walk simply to have a beer or a game of tennis. White farmers have therefore, preserved
separate communities within Zimbabwe, a factor that contributes to their outsider status
within the country. My research in three farming communities in different regions of the
country in 1998 revealed that few white farmers socialized with black Zimbabweans
citing “cultural differences” as the primary factor. They believe, however, that their
children’s attendance in desegregated schools holds much hope for a more racially
integrated future for the country.

Farmers and farm workers share commonalities in their identities that make them
easy targets for a state aiming to cast political opponents as the Other. Their position as
“perpetual foreigners” facilitates the ZANU-PF regime’s branding of white farmers as
“enemies of the state” as it did on April 18, 2000. Farm workers’ association with the
labor movement, their questionable nationality, and perceptions about their role during

the liberation war similarly contribute to the ZANU-PF regime’s ideological project of

60

casting opposition as “sell outs” to the cause of liberation. Couching the liberation of
the land from non-nationals such as whites, enables the ZANU-PF regime to label the
farm invasions the final phase of the liberation war, the third Chimurenga. “Sell outs” or
those suspected of not supporting liberation now or in the past become victims of the
ZANU-PF regime’s attempt at political hegemony. Thus, the ZANU-PF regime

legitimizes its employment of violence through processes of delegitimizing the other.

Economic Decline, ESAP & Return of Land as Political Issue. During the
19808, many countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America experienced macro-economic
problems such as growing balance of payment deficits and rising inflation combined with
low or stagnant growth rates. The causes of these problems include global trends such as
rising oil prices and declining prices for primary products, as well as internal policies
which may have been inappropriate. These external and internal forces joined to create
the debt crisis. In response to the increased pressures on limited foreign exchange that
these and other factors created, many governments agreed to World Bank and IMF
sponsored stabilization and structural adjustment programs as conditions to additional
loans. SAPS seek to increase exports, rationalize or decrease government expenditures,
and facilitate loan repayment (Elson, 1995).

According to PG Kadenge, H. Ndoro and BM. Zwizwai (1992), at
independence, Zimbabwe inherited a troublesome economy marked by government
control of critical sectors such as interest rates, wage rates, exchange rates, and the
repatriation of profits. The colonial economy was highly regulated, particularly as it
emerged from the Ian Smith UDI years and its policies of import substitution. The
economy was also highly dependant on agriculture and primary product exports.

The colonial period also developed a political economy which was characterized
by great inequality in which the majority of Africans remained poor small-holder farmers

and the majority of whites achieved high standards of living. This basic structure

61

persisted throughout the 19808 as the Zimbabwean government attempted to redress
social inequities through (1) placing price controls on food to ensure the majority’s ability
to purchase basic commodities and (2) increasing state expenditures on education and
health care. The early years of independence benefited from good rains and removals of
trade sanctions which resulted in high rates of economic growth. For example, between
1980 and 1982, real GDP grew by 26 per cent. However, the 1982 fiscal year reported no
growth in real GDP and in 1983 the economy contracted (Stoneman 1988:47). After
1982, Zimbabwe embarked on an IMF advised stabilization plan. The plan had little
success in improving the country’s economy due to the continuation of falling commodity
prices and an unexpected drought. The agreement collapsed in 1984 (Kadenge, Ndoro,
and Zwizwai 1992). By the end of its first decade of independence, Zimbabwe faced an
economic crisis involving a “shortage of foreign exchange; growing unemployment; low
levels of investment; high levels of inflation; escalating debt and infastructural decay”
(Kadenge, Ndoro and Zwizwai l992:l).

This declining economic reality led to the introduction of the Economic Structural
Adjustment Program (ESAP) in 1990, although some (Bijlmakers, Basset and Sanders
1995) argue ESAP was not firlly in effect until March 1991. ESAP primarily involves
trade liberalization, but also cutting backs in civil service, reducing income taxes, making
parastatals more efficient, and removing price controls (Kadenge, Ndoro and Zwizwai
1992:10). Bijlmakers, Basset and Sanders (1995:215) summarize ESAP’s features in the

following clear and concise manner:

The ESAP package...contains the standard features of IMF/World Bank
economic reform strategies, including, inter alia (Zimbabwe Government,
1991 a): reduction of the budget deficit, through a combination of
reduction of public enterprise deficits and rationalisation of public sector
employment; trade liberalisation, including price decontrol, and
deregulation of foreign trade, investment and production; phased removal
of subsidies; devaluation of the local currency; and
enforcement/introduction of cost recovery in the health and education
sectors.

62

While Zimbabwe’s structural adjustment program in many ways reflected typical
World Bank economic strategies, Peter Gibbon (1995b:1 1-12) argues that ESAP
contained two elements which distinguished it from previous adjustments: (1) ESAP was
not accompanied by an agreement with the IMF for funding;8 (2) ESAP was accompanied
by a report on the Social Dimensions of Adjustment. According to Gibbon, the absence
of an IMF agreement probably resulted in Zimbabwe’s ability to set the adjustment
period for five rather than the usual three years as well as allowing the privatization of
parastatals to proceed with goals of semi-commercialization rather than complete
privatization. The Social Dimensions of Adjustment (SDA) report frankly addressed
many of the hardships to be expected and discussed a compensatory program for
retrenched government employers and a reserve fund to ensure food for the poor. SDA
also included a broad yet vague commitment to preserving expenditures on health and
education, although it did mention the introduction of cost-sharing mechanisms (Gibbon
1995a and 1995b).

Critiques of SAPs in general and ESAP in particular demonstrate the unequal
share of burdens and benefits of adjustment programs in both international and domestic
dimensions. Najmi Kanji, Nazneen Kanji and Firoze Manji (1991) argue that SAPs
maintain the international status quo of the North exploiting the South. Elson (1995) and
others note the disproportionate burden that women share under adjustment as the
policies focus on macro economic factors and exhibit gender blindness. Lucia Hanmer

(1994:4) notes varied reactions of scholars to the impacts of SAPs on social services:

On the one hand stabilisation programmes [sic] invariably require
reductions of government budget deficits which have led to concern about
the vulnerability of social sectors to ensuing cut backs. ...On the other
hand it is argued that by over combating the long term barriers to growth
SAPs will allow higher social spending as government revenues will
increase with improved economic performance.

 

8 The IMF loan would come later.

63

Furthermore, the inclusion of SDA and its claims of protecting the poor in Zimbabwe
under ESAP reflects an implicit knowledge of the potentially harmful effects of SAPs on
the poor, as noted by Gibbon et al. (1995a).

In addition to the above criticisms of ESAP, the seriousness with which the
government pursued its SDA program came under scrutiny. The Zimbabwean
government claimed those hit hardest would be protected through its SDA program which
was designed in 1991. Protection from ESAP would come through targeting employment
and training, food subsidies, cost recovery in social services, and monitoring and
evaluation of its programs while also emphasizing the increased involvement of third
parties (non-governmental organizations, employee organizations, employer
organizations, and local authorities) to decrease government involvement (Bijlmakers,
Basset and Sanders 1995). UNICEF (1994) reports that although ESAP included SDA at
its origination, SDA was not announced until a year after ESAP. Another 16 months
passed before a full-time SDA officer was appointed to administer the small budget
accorded to SDA (UNICEF 1994). According to Bijlmakers, Basset and Sanders (1995)
SDA did not work, and by 1993, the government had instituted a new program to handle
Zimbabwe’s poor, the Poverty Alleviation Action Plan. The inability of the Zimbabwean
government to alleviate the hardships of ESAP contributed to a growing sense of
disillusionment of the populace with ZANU-PF and contributed to the heightened
political tensions of the 19908.

The 1998 Donors Conference. Following the publication of preliminary notices of
acquisition of roughly 1,400 farms in November 1997, which were later de-listed through

appeals in court, in 1998, the Zimbabwean government, the CFU and donors laid out a

64

plan to address the land issue in Zimbabwe. The donors required accountability and
transparency in land reform in exchange for the provision of financial support to pay for
the improvements to land and resettlement programs. A major point of contention for the
regime remained the issue of donor funding to pay for the land itself, a condition that
donors would not accept, yet the ZANU-PF regime desired. At the donor conference, the
parties agreed to a phased plan of land acquisition and resettlement that aimed to acquire
and resettle 5 million ha over 5 years (GoZ Inception Phase Framework Plan). Under the
agreement, during the Inception phase of two years, 118 farms, approximately 200,000 ha
would be offered initially, with a target of 1 million ha throughout the Inception Phase
beginning in 1999 (Bowyer-Bower and Stoneman 2000). However, little progress was
made with regard to the donor conference plans between 1998 and 2000. The need for
land reform is widely accepted in Zimbabwe among both Blacks and Whites. The
persistence of racial inequities in land distribution remains divisive and symbolic of the
country’s colonial history. However, despite the agreement reached at the conference
and the willingness of international donors to fund the project, Mugabe ignored this
route, knowing that if the land question was finally resolved in Zimbabwe, he would have

no political cards left to play.

The ZANU-PF Regime — Understanding the State in Zimbabwe.

Perspectives on intrastate conflict tend to locate causal factors either internally or
externally. Internal causes of conflict include political process and transition, regime
strength, economic grievance or greed, elite instability and identity. Alternatively,

external causes center on global structural inequality, dependency, and the world system

65

(see Jenkins and Schock 1992 for discussion of these perspectives). However, binary

approaches often limit our understanding of the issue at hand. In terms of the causes of

intrastate conflict, global structures operate through, but not entirely determining,

intrastate dynamics (Jenkins and Schock 1992). Therefore, a synthesis of several

approaches follows in an attempt to deepen our understanding of causes of conflict

relating these to the case of Zimbabwe’s land invasions and shedding light on the nature
of the Zimbabwean state.

The transformation of the global political sphere post-1989 resulted in a “global
crisis of authoritarianism” (Pye cited in Joseph 1999260). Largely authoritarian regimes
throughout Africa have undergone shifts to what Richard Joseph (1999) termed “virtual
democracies.” Virtual democracies are characterized by (Joseph 1999:61):

o A formal basis in citizen rule, but with key decisiomnaking [sic]
(especially economic) insulated from popular involvement ‘

o Manipulation of democratic transitions by political incumbents, including
the use of violence and electoral fraud, to relegitimize their power

0 Wider popular participation, but narrow policy choices and outcomes

External encouragement of multiparty elections on the premise that they

will not threaten vested domestic and foreign interests if incumbents act
adroitly.

Joseph’s (1999) virtual democracies reflect the limited opening of political space that
democratization has brought to African states, while highlighting incumbents’ proclivity
to authoritarian governance and the vulnerability of semidemocracies to intrastate
conflict. Hegre et al. (2001) recently duplicated previous findings that semidemocratic
regimes are more likely than either democracies or autocracies to experience civil

conflict. Hegre et al. (2001 :33) wrote,

66

Semidemocracies are partly open yet somewhat repressive, a combination
that invites protest, rebellion, and other forms of civil violence.
Repression leads to grievances that induce groups to take action, and
openness allows for them to organize and engage in activities against the
regrme.

In their quest to answer “does democratization also lead to civil peace,” Hegre et
al. (2001:33) related their former findings to other research indicating that
semidemocracies also experience more regime change. Regime consolidation, whether
democratic or autocratic, “is less destabilizing and therefore less likely to generate
political violence” (Hegre et al. 2001: 34).9 Ultimately, Hegre et al. (2001) argued that
semidemocratic states are more likely to experience domestic political violence even
when stabilized following a regime transition, such as regime consolidation in post-
independence Zimbabwe.

In addition to the vulnerability of semidemocratic stated above, Ted Gurr (1991)
and Karen Barkey and Sunita Parikh (1991) have cited the role of elite instability and
“weak” states in undermining civil peace. Referring to states born often out of
revolutionary or anti-colonial struggles, such societies “entered the postcolonial era as
highly differentiated entities where traditional categories such as ethnicity, tribe, and
various cross-cutting clientelistic networks predominated” (Barkey and Parikh 1991 :53 7-
8). The inability of weak states to promote economic growth results in states which are
usually most concerned with keeping ruling elites in power. It is in this arena of
maintaining elite power that Gurr (1991:173) stresses the need to understand “why some

regimes and rulers rely mainly on coercion and violence as instruments of rule.” In

 

9 Hegre et al. (2001) noted, however, that autocratic states are inherently contradictory and most
likely will not consolidate.

67

Zimbabwe, the state is the ZANU-PF regime, and ZANU-PF is Mugabe. Party members
who challenge Mugabe’s views are simply thrown out of the party.

The ZANU-PF/ Mugabe regime’s record since independence easily fits the
combined picture presented here as a semidemocratic, weak state concerned with the
maintenance of elite power. While independence brought about majority rule and voting
rights to all Zimbabweans, Zimbabwe has effectively been a defacto one-party state.
Early in Zimbabwe’s independence, ruling ZANU-PF filled key administrative and
governmental positions with ex-combatants and kin of top officials (like Robert Mugabe).
Technocrats only began filling such positions in the late 19808. Furthermore, the many
repressive mechanisms put in place by the colonial regime remained, such as the state-
controlled media and the Law and Order Maintenance Act. As International Financial
Institutions (IF Is) in the 19908 pushed for economic reforms, increasingly political
reforms and transparency have been mandated as well. As will be discussed below,
increased activism within civil society developed in this period as well. Therefore,
independence increased the political space within Zimbabwe for blacks, but it has not
brought about an entirely open society. Post-independence violence within Zimbabwe,
such as the Gukurahundi or dissident violence in the mid-19808 (discussed below) or the
current political conflict should not be surprising.

Neither should it be surprising to find that in both these cases, the targets of state
violence represent groups that the state can cast as the other. Nagengast (1994: 122)
reminds us that state violence also serves a critical role in defining legitimate members of

a society as well as ensuring compliance of citizens to state goals:

68

...the goal of state violence is not to inflict pain; it is the social project of
creating punishable categories of people, forging and maintaining
boundaries among them, and building the consensus around those
categories that specifies and enforces behavioral norms and legitimates
and de-legitimates specific groups. Torture has another, only partially
successful firnction — to terrorize people into conformity.
Nagengast (1994) further argues that perpetrators of torture categorize their victims as
Others, who represent an evil, a threat to the existing order. She writes (1994:122),
It is largely underclass status that makes certain people(8)
susceptible to violent abuses and it is their ambiguity — as both
Iess-than-human brutes and super-humans capable of undermining
the accepted order of society — that allows elites to crystallize the
myths about the evil they represent, hence, justifying the violence
perpetrated against them.
For Nagengast, identities and appropriate images of the nation are significant in
understanding states’ use and justification of violence and torture against its own
populace. As Stephan (1999) found in her research on indigenous “suspects” in southern
Mexico, existing cultural understandings of indigenous groups shape perceptions of
human rights abuses. In contrast to scholars who challenge the universalist discourse of
human rights as Western biased, Stephan (1999) argues that it is more important to
analyze “... how dominant representations of the dangerous, the subversive, the
worthless, the marginal, and the unimportant become linked to making particular groups
of people susceptible to violent abuses that allow them to be treated with less than human
respect and dignity.” Identity and otherness become key factors in states’ attempts to
justify their actions. In Zimbabwe, white farmers and black farm workers epitomize the

Other to the ZANU-PF state. White farmers and black farm workers are perpetual

foreigners in their country of birth; they were on the wrong side of the liberation struggle;

69

and, they have allegedly aligned themselves with opposition politics. As Stephans (1999)

notes,

In each situation of human rights abuses, the key to what actually happens

lies not do much in a deliberate neglect of universal human rights

declarations but in particular ideological interpretations that permit and

justify the use of violence for particular ends, often political.
Defining the intrastate conflict in terms of violence and torture here serves two purposes.
First, it bridges the above discussions of causes of conflict, state transformation, and elite
power to specific actions carried out by the state or its agents. While the ZANU-PF
regime continues to argue the justification of invasions as “peaceful protests” over land,
an analysis of farmers’ and farm workers’ experiences with farm invasions and violence
demonstrates otherwise. Torture and human rights abuses must be seen not only as
crimes against humanity or persons, but also as social processes through which states
attempt to legitimize their own actions by delegitimizing specific categories of people.
Second, clarifying the nature of farm invasions as torture and conceptualizing torture in
terms of identity and Otherness further links internal causes of intrastate conflict to
external causes. In other words, the development of “virtual democracy” in Africa
following the political transformations marked bythe end of the Cold War, weaken
African leaders’ ability to rule autonomously, therefore increasing their reliance on
coercion and violence when faced with political challenge. In this context, states seek to
justify their actions through the creation of the subversive other.

Violence as political too]. To contextualize the 2000 invasions and the ZANU-

PF regime, it is important to also mention the historical use of violence by the regime.

The current use of violence in response to a challenge to power should not surprise

anyone who has followed Zimbabwe’s history. Mugabe/ZANU-PF’S competition has

70

historically either been eliminated or attacked (Gukurahundi). The clearest example is
the violence that dominated the mid-19808 in the Midlands and Matabeleland, known as
Gukurahundi locally, which means the rain that cleanses all (CCJPZ 1997). During this
period, the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace of Zimbabwe (CCJPZ) cites 7,246
reported human rights offenses for the period 1982-87, the vast majority of which were
committed by agents of the state or ZANU-PF (CCJPZ 1997). Table 2.2 summarizes the
nature of Gukurahundi human rights violations with detentions, assaults, and deaths
emerging as the most prevalent abuses (see below).

Table 2.2
Gukurahundi Human Rights Violations, 1982-85

Deaths 1 43 7
Miss' 354
Destruction of 680

Torture 365
Detention 2713
Assault 1 537
l 59
TOTAL 7246
Source: CCJPZ I997

 

In addition to the Gukurahundi period, Zimbabwean scholars, novelists, and others have
begun to uncover the violence of the liberation war perpetrated against villagers not only
by the Rhodesian Front forces, but also by the two liberation armies, Zimbabwe African
National Liberation Army (ZAN LA) and Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army
(ZIPRA) (see Moore-King 1988, Kanengoni 1997, Staunton 1990, and Kriger 1992). The
brutality and violence committed by liberation fighters against villagers during the war is
a topic that many Zimbabweans do not want to integrate into their historical memory. It

seems difficult for people to face the duality of a movement that simultaneously coerced

71

and liberated a nation. In recent years, Zimbabwean historians, novelists, filmmakers,
and academics have begun to uncover this much ignored aspect of the liberation history
of Zimbabwe and have stressed that all sides of the war (the Rhodesian Front, and
guerilla forces ZANLA and ZIPRA) committed acts of terror against the populace
(Moore-King 1988, Kanengoni 1997, Staunton 1990, and Kriger 1992).

I raise this issue here to highlight the consistent use of violence by ZANLA and
the ZANU-PF regime in response to political challenge as well as to point to the
similarities in the strategies of violence and intimidation over the years. Human rights
organizations have begun to trace the tactics used during the current crisis to both tactics

used in Gukurahundi and the liberation war (NDI 2000, ICRT 2000).

Decline in ZANU-PF Regime Popularity

The rise in civil society. The late 19908 marked a transition in civil society
organizations’ criticism of the ruling ZANU-PF government in Zimbabwe. Beginning in
the late 19808, the labor movement in Zimbabwe became increasingly vocal about not
only the plight of workers, but also broader political issues such as corruption and
governance (Sachikonye 1997). The early 19908 saw a wave of public sector strikes that
continue to occur in Zimbabwe to this day. Strikes in the early 19908 included Railway
Workers (1992), Postal and Communication Workers (1992 and 1994), Bank Workers
(1993-4), and Civil Service Workers (1996) (Raftopoulos and Phimister 1997:145).
More and more frequently, the target of the strikes was government itself. Following the
widespread strikes in the early independence period, the regime took the lead in

establishing the ZCTU as a coordinating body for the various trade unions (Sachikonye

72

1997). Sachikonye (1997) argued that despite its initial closeness to government
(exemplified by the fact that the ZCTU’s first General Secretary was a relative of
Mugabe’s), throughout the late 19808 and early 19908, the ZCTU became increasingly
more independent and critical of government. As evidence of the increased politicization
of the labor movement during the 19908, Sachikonye (1997) highlighted ZCTU’s
criticism of the one-party state and corruption, and its legal challenge to the arrest of
union demonstrators under the Law and Order Maintenance Act over protests to the
Economic and Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) in 1992. The ZCTU played an
additional critical role in the rise of Zimbabwe’s civil society through its organization of
the mass stay-aways and protest of late 1997 and 1998, which will be discussed below. It
is out of these mobilizations that the opposition political party Movement for Democratic
Change (MDC) would later form.

Also during this period, the Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans
Association (ZN LWVA) became increasing organized and politicized. In response to
pressure from the ZN LWVA over corruption in the War Victims Compensation Fund, in
August 1997, Mugabe announced an unbudgeted allocation of funds to compensate war
veterans — a lump sum of Z$50,000 each plus monthly increments of 232000 for life.
The move brought severe criticism both domestically and internationally (Financial
Gazette 28 August 1997, Mail and Guardian 2 November 1997, Mail and Guardian 12
December 1997). Despite the overwhelming evidence that War Veteran Leader Dr.
Chenjerai “Hitler” Hunzvi facilitated the looting of the War Vets Compensation Fund by
party “chefs” or big shots, Mugabe’s relatives and others, Hunzvi emerged unscathed and

did not implicate his co-corruptors (GoZ 1998a). In the end, ZN LWVA successfully

73

pressured the government for monetary demands, and the groundwork was laid for
Mugabe to call on “his” war veterans during the 2000 elections.

The decision by the government to introduce a series of taxes to finance the war
vet payouts culminated in the ZCTU organized stay-aways and riots of December 9-10,
1997. During these two days in December 1997, ZCTU effectively brought the nation to
a standstill and pressured government to scrap many of the tax measures introduced
(Financial Gazette 11 December 1997, Mail and Guardian 12 December 1997). The
ZCTU built on the momentum gained during this period of anti-government sentiment
throughout the remainder of the 19908 and ultimately spawned the opposition party, the
MDC, ZANU-PF’s primary challenger in the 2000 parliamentary elections.

Weakening support for ZANU-PF. In addition to the rise of civil groups critical
of government, the ZANU-PF regime had fallen out of favor with the populace and
appeared to be out of touch with the needs of the Zimbabwean population. Initial
findings of the Southern African Democracy Barometer (or Afrobarometer) revealed that
the majority of Zimbabweans were dissatisfied with how democracy works in Zimbabwe
(Mattes, Bratton, Davids, and Afiica 2000).'0 Specifically, 56.9 percent of Zimbabweans
surveyed felt “not very satisfied” or “not satisfied at all” with democracy in Zimbabwe,
while 16.8 percent responded that “Zimbabwe is not a democracy” (Mattes, Bratton,
Davids, and Africa 2000:28). According to Mattes, Bratton, Davids, and Afiica (2000z6),

“there is a widespread sense of disillusionment and cynic-ism about the political system.

 

'0 The Afiobarometer research “measures public attitudes on democracy and its alternatives, evaluations of
the quality of governance and economic performance, perceptions of the consequences of democratic
governance on people’s everyday lives, and information about a range of actual and potential economic and
political behaviors” (Mattes, Bratton, Davids and Africa 2000:l). The research included multi-stage,
stratified area cluster probability samples of approximately 1200 respondents from each of the study
countries of Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The research was conducted in
1999.

74

the public mood is not just ‘anti-Mugabe,’ but expresses a generalized discontent with
the larger system of one party dominant ZANU-PF rule.” Only 19.4 percent of
Zimbabweans evaluate the current regime as less corrupt than the previous regime (Ian
Smith’s UDI government); while only 20.8 percent consider the ZANU-PF government
more trustworthy than the Smith regime (Mattes, Bratton, Davids, and Africa 2000:39).
The Afrobarometer’s findings on Zimbabweans’ dissatisfaction with the current regime
are supported by the findings of a public opinion poll conducted January 14 — February 9,
2000 by the Helen Suzman Foundation (Johnson 2000). According to the Suzman
survey of 1000 rural and 900 urban households, 63 percent of Zimbabweans responded
that they felt it was time for a change in government from ZANU-PF (Johnson 2000:4).ll

In addition to dissatisfaction with ZANU-PF rule, several studies (including one
conducted by the Zimbabwean government itself) suggest that the preeminence of land as
the social issue in Zimbabwe needs to be rethought. In the Afrobarometer survey
conducted between September and October 1999, only 1.1 percent of Zimbabweans said
land was an issue needing governmental attention. Zimbabweans identified the economy
(74 percent), job creation (37 percent), and health (18 percent) as the nation’s top
problems (Mattes, Bratton, Davids, and Afiica 2000:46-47). The Suzman research also
found land was less of a priority than economic issues to Zimbabweans as a whole.
When asked to state the most important issues the government faces in the Suzman
research, Zimbabweans prioritized (1) rising prices, (2) unemployment, (3) fall in the ZS,
(4) poverty, and (5) land (Johnson 2000:13). Zimbabweans also expressed their

dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of the land issue and placed the

 

" Admittedly, unlike the Afi'obarometer research, the Suzman report offers little discussion of their
sampling methods in their final report. However, taken with the Afrobarometer findings, there is a clear
suggestion of the political attitudes of the Zimbabwean people.

75

responsibility for the lack of resolution over the land issue primarily with government
(74%) (Johnson 2000:34). In addition to the Afrobarometer and Suzman research, the
GoZ’s 1995 Poverty Assessment Survey Study (PASS) data suggest that economic
issues, rather than the land issue, rate attention from government. According to the PASS
(GoZ 1997), Zimbabweans do not perceive ‘poor quality land’ or a ‘shortage of land’ as a
primary cause of poverty, nor do they perceive ‘provision of land’ as a solution to
household poverty (PASS 1997). Respondents linked poverty to unemployment,
drought, low paying jobs and rising prices while they felt employment creation, wage
increases, and access to agricultural loans and irrigation were potential solutions to
poverty (G02 1997). Combined, these studies suggest not only the need for the regime to
rethink its political platform that so narrowly focuses on land, they also suggest the need
for social scientists to challenge our assumptions about “the land issue” in Zimbabwe.
The research reveals that the changing demographics of a country with a significant
youth population that has benefited from the expansion of the education system in
postcolonial Zimbabwe has perhaps subsequently expanded their career aspirations
beyond communal farming.12

The Draft Constitution and Clause 57. While the labor movement continued to
challenge the regime over diminishing living standards and the rising cost of living under
ESAP, other civic groups pushed for democratization through constitutional reform. The
National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) formed in 1997 with the express purpose of

seeking nation-wide dialog on the issue of drafting a new constitution. Throughout the

 

'2 My research with farm workers in 1997-1998 supports this. Many of the farm workers I interviewed had
completed their 0 levels (and some their A levels) and saw farm labor as transitional. Particularly younger
farm workers aspired to formal employment rather than communal farming and hoped to save money from
working on a farm towards technical training and hopefully a job elsewhere.

76

late 19908 and early 2000, NCA organized meetings nation-wide in Zimbabwe to solicit
views on constitutional reform. Ultimately, the regime created a parallel organization,
the Constitutional Commission (CC), which was tasked with canvassing public opinion
and drafting a new constitution for the February 2000 referendum. Media reports
suggested, however, that the constitution presented in the referendum had been rushed
through the CC debate and approval phase. In the end, Mugabe added Clause 57 which
enabled the state to compulsorily acquire white-owned land without compensation. The
Clause further stated that if farmers desired compensation, they should approach Great
Britain, the “former colonial power.” The famous land clause caused tremendous
controversy throughout Zimbabwean society and was added to the Constitution without
the CC commissioners’ consent.l3 Despite the parallel processes, the NCA continued to
develop its own draft constitution and campaigned heavily against the CC draft
constitution. The NCA claimed that the CC draft further entrenched presidential powers
against the wishes of citizens (N CA meetings). Ultimately, the citizens of Zimbabwe
rejected the regime’s Constitution and its Land Clause, leading to the launch of the land
invasions.

Therefore, what we see in the 19908 is the simultaneous rise in civil society and
democratic organizations, the waning of Mugabe’s popular support, and the consolidation
of Mugabe’s power with the ZN LWVA. These events occurred against a backdrop of
economic decline under structural adjustment and intense scrutiny by international
financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Notably, ZANU-PF announced in early 2000, that it had hired the ZN LWVA to

 

'3 Clause 57 of the draft constitution granted the government the right to appropriate land from white
farmers for resettlement without compensation.

77

“campaign” for the coming election to the tune of Z$2 million, a move largely regarded

in Zimbabwe as payment for the campaign of terror (N D] 2000).

78

 

20V 302 3:38:80 0883
3326033 533 v5 macaw 33:83

82:8 83>»
.3 countenance 95 BS: we cosh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

32 E began: @0398 3382 3th 05 E metamom 0332 83.5 oh 820 Stoned 0332 mam—
:owmtueaae 9.2 can meeoBQBEmN 038: Sec fiawt
£93 3 a mom: can eemmmooeeo b5 oU<mm e5: 8308. 3 mac—tom 833 868280 tong: 22. $2
Sheen m>26hfl£§§
MSEEM .38 954% maiflSSme Letgb «3%.:
38% 2t aexflmg 2% 8 Mat new: .8323 2223:: $8 EM: Sameeeeq eemunmeaeb Seam $3
:33— oaeEP— again—Eco :3, 2:5 aao>

 

 

82-3.: :33.— 23 a bee: 333.5

".N 03a.—.

79

 

22 2:

 

 

$93383: @833 0883 5% $825 28.8 98 93.88%
H: 83$qu c2338 .3 83on 03ng mo 25: 05 omega oh
3 SE: $53 as: an: 82
.83 80205—95 x33 so 80:85
E @2588 >53 32.8 cram—«coca: 5352028 23 waflooamuw .922
was—03 :23?me 8 ooqsmmme $22 Mo @33235 8.26m 8.5.30 oh
s< Sfipam BS 232 :2
$2.: Eafirxbém 3: Ba
22* BS: 333.95% S?» 3.33 Saws =5
63.? mguxzk 9532 Loxumicza 33
3V 2: .233. m3 Ac 3.3.: S A-§=EE8
32‘ mm 323 «.933 ES 323 §6 339.2%
:3 «.833 «933 3 “ESQ? 95:2 333
85me .mfiam 3:26 30333 23m 093 323 9% x83
223 0883 mafia 3:5qu :9: 23. 50253 was .33 an magnum oh 8< EoE:oEo&< v54 ome

 

 

=33.

 

82......—

 

aommmmEEcU )3... ans..—

 

 

uao> \

 

80

 

ofiafiwoa 8082388 no 83:: 3:85

825—388
8m 25¢ 23m 092 03:83
8 Emu 6.6 8085300 03w oh

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ho< coummmzwg‘ was
33
$6580 8.5me 8 €032 302 356580
150299 88m btofisa 2:: mo 098:0 9 355 EBB .31 H owfifio 0H
8< 353 3:25:00
52
.983. 3:23.» 5.3.358 ~83
gmbfik at S 3323.? muNNNEQQg .3 N .533 5 3.5% 3 AGE Ewfigux
\e Sam :93; S ES.8\M New xokquQE BS .38 name .. xm-mn.m=.5.§
9356 ..um§e.M=.S.§ .xm-uu.mfi=.§: .xm§n.m=.5.§= 3o-c\§8\3
wand EELQHQ “.9833 $525 WM. :0 3:5 BS 335qu .Aifim23c
ufihEchQ 6w\c EuEwEmmmx 5 umaaumm ~0ngng Sgtmhmtficgm 2335.309 93cm Lmumauzuq o3 N
x83 $3
2053“ mo €333 Ba 823 :8 22 02% :3
was 3885* 8< at 05 :33 359800 28 96— mo <<A cum—a2 oh 2qu ~o< 226% 284 $3
:33— 32...?— EiaEEcU §o< 9:5 53>

 

 

 

 

81

..I|§1 fl ,‘V

\ Mg -'.

538:5? .8 85.; B 823 22 852.3. .9: ”#8: 23.3. soc 3&3 03¢

 

xméovas couficoEoEEH

Evan—:82
5 22% .2 55? m 233“ oh

Ho< :oEflixé 9:3

o3 _

 

 

=33—

 

989:5

 

acfiafiacu >o< eunu—

 

53>

 

 

82

CHAPTER 3:
METHODS
Introduction

My training as a sociologist instructed me to begin by defining a problem to be
studied, formulating research questions, identifying a research site, conducting research,
analyzing the results, and finally writing it up. However, this chapter is not typical,
because the research process and methodology on which it is based is not typical.
Sociology teaches us that we should start the research process with a clearly defined
question and then adopt methods that will produce the data to answer them. In
preparation for my dissertation fieldwork in Zimbabwe during 2000, I did all this.
However, fieldwork is messy and unpredictable. It would be insincere to present this
research as if the theoretical focus, methods, and research design guided the study of
Zimbabwe’s land crisis and the associated violence and insecurity. Rather, what
happened was nearly the opposite — my research process evolved into the art of the
possible. What was “possible” was a complex conglomeration of sociological
serendipity, risk assessment, and crisis. My methodology emerged out of a creative blend
of ethnographic methods, pragmatism, and my own personal assessment of risk in the
field.

Therefore, in this methodology chapter, I address various issues surrounding the
“doing” of this study. I begin with a brief discussion of sociological serendipity and
answer the question of how I came to study farm invasions and political violence in
Zimbabwe. Next, I address issues surrounding studying violence and conflict and what

Behar (1996) terms “the vulnerable observer.” I follow this with a section that pays

83

special attention to the issues of power and identity in shaping the fieldwork experience.
These discussions serve to contextualize the approach of ethnographic methods in
relation to studying violence. I follow these contextualizations with a discussion of the
specific methods used in this research. I discuss the participant-observation and

interviewing techniques, informant selection, and triangulation as research strategies.

Sociological Serendipity

While I originally planned to study the implication of globalization on
commercial farming communities, changes in Zimbabwe’s political context made it
impossible to pursue my initial course of study. Due to my existing access to the
commercial farming community, the Commercial F arrners Union (CFU), and the General
Agricultural and Plantation Workers Union of Zimbabwe (GAPWUZ), I proceeded to
research the evolving political crisis. My dissertation, therefore, focuses on how
commercial farming communities survive under political violence and terror. How does
the state use terror to further its own interest? How is violence and terror experienced
differently by persons of different social positions? Ultimately, I am asking what Linda
Green (1995:111) frames as the way “the routinization of terror functions?” How do

people in different social locations strategize and cope under conditions of chronic fear

and insecurity?

Violence and Vulnerability'

The decision to study the invasions plunged me into a world of researching

violence and insecurity that required an approach to methodology that centered on my

 

' I draw here on Ruth Behar’s The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology that Breaks Ya; Heart. (1996).

84

own and my informants’ safety and psychological well-being. Prior to this study, I had
studied Zimbabwe’s commercial farming sector and land disputes, but I had not studied
violence. In the course of this study, I came to see how violence and insecurity become
normalized in society; how violence and insecurity exist as one of the many threads
woven into society, rather than events that stand outside society (Robben 1995). In their
introduction to Fieldwork Under Fire: Contemporary Studies of Violence and Survival
Robben and Nordstrom (19953) write:

The everydayness of war is a never-ending stream of worries
about the next meal, the next move, and the next assault. This immediacy
of action characterizes not only war but any form of violence. There are
few social prescriptions on how to cope and survive in violent situations.

This emphasis on how people come to grips with life under siege,
on the experience, practice and everydayness of violence, makes attention
to fieldwork conditions necessary. The emotional intensity of the events
people studied, the political stakes that surround research on violence, and
the haphazard circumstances under which fieldwork is conducted entwine
fieldwork and ethnography. These tensions weave their way through the
whole of the anthropological endeavor — coloring the lives and perspective
of the researchers and those they study alike.

In the course of my research, I was presented with a variety of graphic and
emotional accounts of violence. I gathered daily land invasion updates from the CF U
(CF U 29). Through these reports, each day, I received information that recounted, by
region, community, and farm, details of invasions, and often, the violence involved. My
interviews with farmers, CF U executives, and GAPWUZ executives ofien included
detailed accounts of assault, abduction, intimidation, and threats. I attended funerals of
farmers killed due to farm invasion violence; reviewed human rights violations incident
reports; and perused graphic photographs of torture survivors. In a situation that

resembled low-grade war, the research was risky and personally intimidating. In the

course of researching violence for this dissertation, I not only had to alter my research

85

questions under conditions of uncertainty, but I also had to confront my (and my family
and friends’) fears and concern for my safety. This is reflected in my decision to focus
primarily on white farm women and men for primary interviews. Quite simply, it was
less conspicuous and suspicious for a white woman such as I to visit rural whites than to
visit black farm workers. The assumption of ZANU-PF supporters was that all whites
were MDC supporters; therefore, I felt that farm workers, already hard hit by violence,
would be further at risk by talking about invasions with a white person.

Robben and Nordstrom (l995:4) write that “. . .the ontics of violence — the lived
experience of violence — and the epistemology of violence — the ways of knowing and
reflecting about violence —- are not separate. Experience and interpretation are
inseparable for perpetrators, victims, and ethnographers alike.” What Robben and
Nordstrom highlight here is how the researcher’s experience shapes what is known and
the importance of reinterpreting events once one is removed from the immediacy of the
violence. On returning to Michigan from Zimbabwe, it was several months before I
could review interviews and fieldnotes without intense emotional reactions. Life in
Zimbabwe during the farm and election violence was bifurcated and ironic, a confusing
fusion of A nimal Farm and Alice in Wonderland, an advisor and I used to joke. Initially,
life in urban areas remained protected from the electoral and farm violence, but even that
was mediated by social geography — as high density suburbs became targets of political
violence when elections neared.

Negotiating violence and insecurity in the field can be illustrated in an example

from my fieldwork experience. The decision of whether to return early and curtail my

86

grant2 was fiaught with intensity and confusion. Living in conditions of generalized
insecurity shifis one’s reality and alters notions of acceptable risk in fieldwork. I had
always held the belief that a dissertation did not merit life-threatening risks — that
fieldwork risk had finite and clear boundaries. When faced with conflict and violence,
however, such boundaries become obtuse and difficult to gauge. When I returned from
fieldwork briefly in June 2000, a group of close women graduate students held a
barbeque to welcome me back. In the course of the meal and our discussions, I explained
that the situation in Zimbabwe “wasn’t really that bad.” I had determined, I explained,
that most likely, I would not be killed or raped if I encountered “war vets” unhappy with
my research. Rather, if confronted, I might be abducted and possibly tortured for a few
hours before being released, as had happened to others ofien throughout the invasions. I
felt that to kill a US researcher would call negative international attention that the “war
vets” wanted to avoid and, therefore, I thought my danger was not too serious. My
colleagues, all of whom have done research overseas, reacted with amazement and I
slowly came to realize how my perceptions of “acceptable risk” had been altered. Each
day, with each account of beatings and abductions, one redraws the line in shifting sands
as one tries to make sense of the incomprehensible and simply keep going. The ontics of
violence (Robben and Nordstrom 1995) or the daily efforts to survive under conditions of
insecurity impact a researcher’s (or survivor’s) ability to perceive the ways in which
violence and insecurity begin to shape how we view and define the world around us. In

other words, risks become relative to what is going on around you -- in the context of

 

2 My research was funded by the US. Department of Education Fulbright Hayes Doctoral Dissertation
Grant. Additional funds were provided by the Social Science Research Council Pre-dissertation

Fellowship.

87

rape, death, loss of home and livelihood, merely being temporarily abducted or beaten
become normalized and defined as “lucky.”

The importance of acknowledging the position of the researcher and the call for
reflexivity in fieldwork reflects what Ruth Behar (1996) terms the vulnerable observer.
Behar (1996) stresses the need for anthropologists to write about their subjective
experiences in the field as they relate to the subjects of their research. Cautioning against
confessional revelations for revelation’s sake, Behar emphasizes the need to bring the
detached social observer to her/his own experience, while bringing the intensity and
emotion to her/his writing of fieldwork. Behar notes that writing vulnerably is risky, both
personally and professionally. In this writing, I hope to reflect on my own experiences in
the field with the detachment and intensity that Behar inspires. I hope to highlight rather
than hide the conflicting desire I had both to witness and document events in Zimbabwe

and to struggle with my desire to return to the safety of the US.

Power and Identity in Fieldwork

I attempt to write reflexively about my own position within the research context
of violence and intimidation in the conclusion of this study. While I write about the
experiences of white farm women and men, I write also about my own situatedness in the
research. The fears, uncertainty, and strategies of the white farming community will be
presented briefly with my own. While such reflexivity has a stronger tradition in the
discipline of anthropology than in sociology, feminist sociology provides a home for such
writing within the discipline. Feminist research methods inform my research process and

are a useful starting point to explore issues of power and identity in fieldwork.

88

Feminist social scientists writing about power in research settings usually begin
by lamenting the power of the researcher to define the research subject as “object”

(Acker 1996, Gorelick 1991, Stacey 1985; Stacey 1988, Cancian 1996). In critiquing the
unequal relationship between researcher/ researched in traditional social science, feminist
researchers highlight the need to invoke more participatory methodologies through which
research subjects participate in the research process. Scholars attempt to redefine
research “subject/objects” as “informants” and seek to break down the power
relationships inherent in the research process. The desire for “participatory” research,
however, has not remained solely in the realm of feminist scholars. Interdisciplinary
researchers in the field of development studies also have emphasized participation and
the deconstruction of the research relationship to incorporate local knowledge, the
perspectives of development beneficiaries, and the definition of research goals (Parpart
and Marehand 1995, Rahman 1993, Chambers 1983).

While such attention to issues of power and exploitation within the research
pr0cess are indeed critical for researchers to address, discussions of power relations in the
field remain incomplete. Put simply, researchers do not possess total power in the field,
and research “subjects” are not entirely powerless. If we consider fieldwork to consist of
social relations that blend research and personal relationships (Stacey 1988), then we
mUSt aCknowledge a more complex power dynamic. Informants have the power to refuse
to talk to researchers, to avoid answering certain questions, or to provide misinformation.
Informants can attempt to manipulate research outcomes to their own ends, discredit a

researcher in the community’s eyes, and in extreme situations, threaten researchers.

89

Discussions of the “powerful researcher” in fieldwork relationships disguise the
role of gender, sexuality, and race in shaping the research process, a “dirty little secret”
that many Western women experience during fieldwork. Gender and sexuality represent
not only social markers and identities, but also reflect power relationships themselves.
Western women rarely acknowledge their experiences of sexual harassment, denied/
restricted access, or assault during fieldwork.3 How is the researcher/ researched power
dynamic affected when an informant (so-called powerless) propositions a researcher (so-
called powerful)?

Throughout my fieldwork experience, power was a contradictory concept. The
need to gain access to sensitive information, a pervasive feeling of personal insecurity,
and my position in a social hierarchy that intersected race/gender/class/nation mediated
my “power” as a researcher. I ofien felt more vulnerable than powerful. In addition to
the vulnerability associated with researching violence (see above), my position within the
CFU as an “outsider” established a power dynamic in which my ability to continue
research obviously could be revoked at any time. My approach to studying the land
invasions involved “studying up” on social relations and relied on immersion into the
overwhelmingly male world of white commercial farmers. Given the context of
insecurity and terror in Zimbabwe, my entry into the CF U depended on a previous
relationship with a CF U leader. Entry into confidential meetings required assurances that
I would handle sensitive information with care. It also required that I not publicly
' challenge the social norms of the institution that included an overwhelmingly white

membership, entirely white representatives within the union, and only one woman in the

 

3 For an exception to this, see “Ethnography of the Ethnographer” by Cathy Winkler, with Penelope J.
Hanke in which she uses ethnographic methods to analyze her own rape attack in the field.

90

CFU’s leadership structure. My whiteness and my position as a young woman facilitated
the reassurances of my trustworthiness that I made. I came to realize that I was perceived
as “one of them” (whites) as well as unthreatening due to my position as a young woman.
At some CFU meetings, I was introduced as a “lovely young woman from America” first
and as a researcher second, an introduction I felt did not highlight my position as a
serious researcher, yet a representation I did not feel comfortable challenging.

My feelings of powerlessness, however, were often interwoven with feelings of
powerfulness. Racial privilege remains strong in Zimbabwe and white women possess a
status of an almost untouchable quality. White women in Zimbabwe cultivate a formal
distance — exemplified in the term “Madam” — to both Black women and men that
insulates White women from everyday sexual harassment. Embedded in formalized
terms of respect such as “Madam,” is a not so subtle reference to the colonial racial
hierarchy. For example, in settings such as taxi rides or shopping, White women
establish their difference from Blacks through the insistence on the usage of “Madam”
while referring to their domestic workers as “house girls” and “garden boys.”
Throughout the invasions, abductions, beatings, and murders of white men were frequent,
while White women escaped largely unscathed from the most severe physical violence
(until mid-2001). Additionally, while rape and sexual assault of Black women was
pervasive during the farm and election violence, the previously mentioned gang-rape of
two White farrnwomen remains the only such case involving White women to my
knowledge. Therefore, my position as a White woman afforded some level of security
and personal power with which I struggled during this (and other) stays in Zimbabwe.

Thus, although I desired to break-down the social distance surrounding White women

91

through refusing to use racially charged terms such as “Madam” and “house girl” and by
attempting to break down the social barriers erected through language, to do so as a
foreign woman opened me up to a myriad of unwanted sexual advances and propositions
that ranged from benign to threatening. Racial privilege and gender subordination are
thus intertwined in complicated ways. The desire to work against white privilege while
“doing” race becomes complicated when to do so exposes one to gendered forms of
vulnerability.

The most significant source of power I possessed, however, lay in my status as a
US national with financial support. This status provided me with the means to travel by
personal car versus public transportation, to live in low-density and relatively safe
suburbs within Harare, and ultimately, to leave Zimbabwe when the conditions of
insecurity appeared to have no end in sight. My ability to return home to a place where
laws were more or less enforced and to a position in a web of social relations where I was
privileged represents a “global” system of stratification based on social and racial power
and privilege. In the US, feelings of protection by police rather than profiling or
dismissal are a privilege most Whites take for granted. I never fully appreciated the
power of feelings of police benevolence rather than a feeling of indifference or hostility
until I returned to the US following my fieldwork in 2000. These privileges accorded by
my nationality and race created alternatively feelings of relief to be able to return home
and guilt over “abandoning” informants and fi'iends who could or would not leave
Zimbabwe.

Ethnographic methods rely on both formal and informal research settings to

generate data. Following formal settings such as CFU meetings or semi-structured

92

'- i‘.£_

. F’I‘

interviews, informants often retired to a break room for drinks, snacks and additional
discussion, to which I was invited. This informal setting surrounding drinking is
acknowledged among fieldworkers as an important opportunity for establishing rapport
and as an informal source of data. In the course of my research, such situations ofien
arose.

At the end of a long day of interviews and meetings at the CF U, a CF U leader
with whom I had been trying to arrange an interview approached me and said he could
“squeeze me in” while waiting for the negotiating team to return from meetings with the
war veterans. I recognized an opportunity to interview a busy informant and the potential
to talk informally with the team when it arrived. I proceeded with the interview and on
completion my informant asked if I would like to wait and hear about the team’s
negotiations. I stayed. When the team arrived my informant reached to the liquor
cabinet and began mixing drinks as the team members began to recount their day. The
men broke open a bottle of rum and began drinking. I accepted a rum and coke, hoping
to nurse it slowly as we talked. As we sat reviewing the day’s events, the men drank
more and more, and with every drink they took, they pressured me to take another.
Interwoven with their reports, were sexually explicit jokes regarding their wives, and
eventually suggestive comments about me. I became acutely aware of being the only
woman present, after hours, with a group of men quickly becoming inebriated — a
situation most women would acknowledge as uncomfortable. For male researchers, such
an encounter is an opportunity for comradery and building rapport. For female
researchers, the research opportunity is complicated by the sense of unease such an

environment produces. I did not feel powerful:

93

I highlight these various experiences to demonstrate how our identity shapes our
fieldwork experiences in multiple ways. Identity filters how informants receive and
perceive us, determines our access to research opportunities, and defines the research
power dynamic. Research relationships cannot be viewed narrowly through the lens of
the power dynamic that privileges the researcher over the informant. Research
relationships must be viewed as an intersection of a complex web of social relations of
power in which the research relationship is but one. Power in the research context, must
be viewed as fluid, rather than zero sum, a relation that moves and transforms as settings
and participants shift. Just as it would be inaccurate to privilege race, gender, or nation
as the primary relation of power that overrides all others at all moments, it is inaccurate

to define the research relationship as the primary power relation in all places at all times.

Methodology

The study employs a range of qualitative and quantitative methods aimed at
providing a rich understanding of the experiences of the commercial farming sector with
farm invasions and violence and exploring the position of white farmers relative to the
Zimbabwean state. In the following sections, I will discuss my sources of data, how I
gained access to the sources, and what the data contribute to the study. Next, I will
address the methods I chose to employ in this study. Finally, I discuss the forms of

analysis used in the study.

94

Sources of Data

My data sources include participant-observation at CFU meetings, key informant
interviews, self-administered surveys by CFU farmer association chairs, interviews with
farmers and farmwomen, self-administered questionnaires by farmers, a farm family’s
invasion diary, daily invasion reports from the CF U, human rights violation reports
gathered on behalf of farm workers by the Agricultural Labor Bureau, and newspaper
articles.

Participant Observation at the Commercial Farmers’ Union. Through my
contacts at CF U from preliminary research in 1997-98, I gained access to confidential
CF U meetings. One key informant who is a leader within the CF U introduced me to
other CFU leaders and invited me to attend CFU Council meetings for my research
purposes. I attended my first CFU Council meeting in March 2000, a meeting that lasted
over ten hours as council members discussed the emerging invasion crisis and potential
responses. At this first meeting, my informant introduced me as a guest to the meeting
and asked me to say a few words about myself and my research. He emphasized that I
was to be trusted and that those present could speak freely in my presence, an
introduction that would be repeated in other CFU contexts by CFU council members I
would meet on that day. Very quickly, I became an accepted attendee at the monthly
scheduled Council meetings and several unscheduled emergency meetings. I attended
other CFU meetings including one of several “Stress Management Seminars” organized
by the CFU for farmers; workshops with Farmer Association leaders and the national

leadership; and staff meetings.

95

13¢}. 3.1.1 S. (if-pl I

CF U Council meetings include the national CFU leadership (elected and
permanent positions), regional CFU representatives (elected and permanent), and
representatives of commodity associations. At the various meetings I attended, council
members discussed the varied characteristics of local invasions, debated farmers’
differing strategies in response to invasions, and began to attempt to form a national
strategy. Competing interests among farmers due to regional and commodity differences
resulted in emotional disagreements; the way forward through this crisis was neither
clear, nor necessarily unified. As I followed these debates through the crisis, I began to
trace the fractures in unity, regional tensions, and the efforts of the CFU leadership to
balance intra-union politics with their strategies and concerns for the preservation of
commercial agriculture in Zimbabwe. This led me to also explore how the CF U
maintained consensus under crisis. In what ways did local farmer concerns inform
national CFU strategies? And, can the overwhelmingly white CF U survive as the
dominant farming association in a postcolonial multiracial society?

My introductions to regional CFU executives at the CFU Council meetings
provided entry to regional and community meetings as well. Through attending such
meetings and interviewing regional leaders and farmers from different communities, I
was able to develop an understanding of the varied experiences with and responses to
farm invasions throughout the country. Unlike the national meetings based in Harare, the
regional and local CFU meetings were less formal and allowed for diverse viewpoints to
be heard and debated. The regional and local meetings also helped reveal to me some of
the discontinuities between the feelings of local farmers on the ground and the national

leadership in Harare. Such local CFU meetings also provided introductions to farmers in

96

11.3.3... _ .KLI... In. .. sol" .4

various parts of the country with whom I could speak about their invasion experiences. I
began interviewing farmwomen and men about their farming histories and their
experience with the current invasions.

Key Informant Interviews. Participant-observation and key informant
interviewing are important qualitative tools often used in tandem. Whyte (1984) stresses
the value of reinforcing our observations through interviewing participants for “insider”
interpretations of events. In this study, I relied on participant-observation and key
informant interviews within the CFU and, to a lesser degree, GAPWUZ (six interviews),
to gather data on strategies of the unions and their constituents in the face of invasions,
regional variation, and interpretation of on-going events. For both unions, I interviewed
representatives at the national, regional and local levels. In the case of GAPWUZ,
communication, transportation disruptions and security threats eventually hindered my
ability to interview union leaders based outside of Harare.4

Due to my access to the CFU Council Meetings, I was quickly introduced to all of
the CFU Regional Representatives who are required to attend Council Meetings. The
CFU President introduced me and my research purposes to everyone and asked everyone
to help me. Within the CFU I was able to interview five of the seven regional
representatives.s Additionally, I attended several CFU Council meetings where regional

representatives submitted oral and written reports of activities in their regions. Data

 

" GAPWUZ leaders became targets of the “war vets” over time. The leader of GAPWUZ was abducted
and subjected to psychological torture before release, as were several of his regional leaders attempting to
visit farm workers.

5 Coordinating interviews was extremely difficult. In more than one instance, interviews were cancelled at
the last minute due to unforeseeable circumstances such as unavailability of fuel, farmer assaults or deaths
in a particular region, or emergency meetings. Such cases emerged repeatedly and ultimately I ran out of
time to interview the representatives from the final two regions.

97

71“.. ‘3»? \gaOQI' i . F
1.. A,

obtained through key informant interviews were thus cross-checked with Council
regional reports as well as compared with the daily invasion reports.6

Further, I interviewed or received self-administered surveys from eleven farmer
association chairs from various regions. Such interviews provide community
perspectives on invasions and local strategies. I gained accessed to farmer association
chairs at CF U Regional Meetings. At these meetings, I was allowed an opportunity to
introduce myself and my research. In some cases, I distributed surveys, in others, I made
appointments for interviews. The interviews and surveys both served to generate
comparable data, however. I sought out community-based information such as number of
farms invaded/total number of farms; types of damage done to invaded farms; types of
violence & frequency of violence; and community responses to invasions.

Through visits out to CF U Regional offices and interviewing regional officers, I
gained introductions to some farmers who were willing to be interviewed. Some
informants I met at the CF U headquarters on days when the CF U brought in farmers for
seminars on stress management, or simply in the lobby. Others, are farmers who I had
met on fi'om previous visits to Zimbabwe. Interviews with farmwomen and men provide
case studies of how invasions impact a particular location. The fourteen case studies in
the study include interviews with 21 farm women and men.7 Ten case studies are based
solely on interviews, while three rely on self-administered questionnaires,8 and one
emanates from an invasion diary. One farmer’s family allowed me to utilize their diary

of invasion activity for research purposes. The cases involve at least one farm in each of

 

6 These daily reports are discussed in detail below.

7 While I collected data from 14 case studies, in Chapter Six 1 highlight three cases which are
representative of the perspectives and experiences of the women and men I interviewed.

8 The questionnaire includes basically the same questions as the open-ended interviews; it is slightly more
structured. See Appendix.

98

the following regions: Mashonaland West, Mashonaland Central, Mashonaland East,
Manicaland, and Masvingo. Though I attempted to interview husbands and wives in all
cases, it was not always possible. The settings of farmer and farmwoman interviews
varied — of the nine cases involving interviews, four cases involved interviews in Harare
(either at CF U offices or in homes of relatives); four involved interviews on farm; one
interview took place at a club following a CF U regional meeting; and one at a
neighboring farm to the farmers being interviewed. The interviews ranged from 45
minutes to three hours depending on the detail with which individuals recounted events
and whether respondents were interviewed alone or together as couples. Following an
open-ended semi-structured format, interviews gather biographical information, farm
histories, relations with nearby CA or RA communities, farm labor conditions, and
invasion descriptions (see Appendix for interview schedules). In some cases, informants
shared invasion diaries and poetry inspired by events on their farms. In all cases, these
stories tell how farmers and farm women strategize in conditions of violence and
insecurity; the ways in which they attempt to negotiate a normal existence in completely
abnormal circumstances.

I also had one interview with a leader in the Zimbabwe National Liberation War
Veteran Association (ZN LWVA). I met my informant at a conference on the invasions
held in Harare in March 2000 and interviewed him later that month. In addition to
looking to get ZN LWVA’s perspective, I was also hoping to get a letter of introduction to
the local “war vet” leader in the area where I planed to work so that I might interview war
vets there also without difficulties. The interview did not go as planned. I had to pass

through a very intimidating body guard before gaining access. During the interview, my

99

informant began yelling very aggressively at me about whites taking the land,
colonialism, and this being “the Third Chimurenga.” As for my letter of introduction, he
would not give me a letter for the region where I’d be working, but kept offering a letter
for the adjacent region. I kept pressing that I needed a different region, but eventually
gave up and accepted the letter for the incorrect region. This was one of my first
indications that the national leadership did not have influence over all of the local
regions; this would become very clear later. Otherwise, there was not much useful that
came from this interview.

CF U Daily Invasion Reports. To cross check and supplement some information
provided from interviews and participant—observation, I also utilize the daily invasion
reports gathered and distributed by the CFU. My contacts at CFU headquarters allowed
me free-access to the daily invasion reports for my research purposes. Through email,
CFU headquarters maintained a daily account of invasion updates organized by region,
community, and farm to keep its members abreast of the latest events.9 These reports
provide data with which to analyze the movement of invasions, the intensification in
particular areas at particular times, and the relaxation of events in others.

Agricultural Labor Bureau Human Rights Violation Reports. In addition to the
CF U daily reports, I also gained access to 187 human rights violations reports through the
Agricultural Labor Bureau (ALB), an agency that gathered reports in hopes of
maintaining a record of wrongs for future restitution. The ALB allowed me confidential
access to the reports for research purposes. These reports allow me to characterize the

nature of violence associated with invasions. Admittedly, such reports are a questionable

 

9 The invasion reports began weekly, shifted to daily or near daily for about ten months, and then resumed a
biweekly and then weekly fi'equency.

100

data source. They were filled out and collected during on-going conditions of violence
and insecurity and therefore must be considered incomplete. The reports do not inquire
about a respondent’s gender (however it is often evident in the completion of the form by
a gendered term), and were distributed via farmers and GAPWUZ. Despite these flaws,
the reports do facilitate a generalized characterization of the violence and speak to farm
worker experiences that I otherwise was not able to collect. The violation reports portray
the variations in experience with violence and terror that individuals in differing social
locations experience under conditions of routinized terror.

Newspaper Articles. My final data source consisted of news articles produced
between March and September 2000. This source highlights the ZANU-PF regime’s
attempt to characterize the invasions and electoral period through a propagandistic light.
This data source allows me to explore the discourse of political elites as well as average
citizens through public statements and letters to the editor. I clipped articles and letters
from five primary sources over a six month period: The Daily News, The Herald, The
Zimbabwe Independent, The Sunday Mail, and The Financial Gazette. The first two
papers are dailies, the latter three weeklies. The Herald and The Sunday Mail are state
owned and controlled papers, while the remaining three are independently owned and
tend to be critical of The Mugabe regime. The state owned papers provided the Regime’s

perspective on events in Zimbabwe, while the other papers provided varied critiques.

Methods
In this section I will discuss the strategies I used to generate data from my

sources. My methods include participant-observation, key informant interviews, self-

101

administered questionnaires, case studies and content analysis. I will briefly discuss why
I utilized each method.

Participant-Observation. Participant-observation is a time consuming method.
Several of the CF U Meetings that usually would last four hours prior to the invasions,
now lasted ten or more hours during my fieldwork. While I could have opted to simply
interview those in attendance for summaries of key events, I learned early that as Whyte
(1984) notes, participant-observation can provide surprising data. For example, at the
first meeting I attended my informants revealed rifts within the CFU leadership, implied
threats they had received from President Mugabe’s office, and then one member read
scripture fi'om the Bible. Observation played a critical role in understanding the different
interest groups farmers represented based on regional differences and crops planted. At
the various meetings I attended, I took copious notes, and read them over, filling in any
details at night. I observed CFU Council Meetings at the CFU Headquarters’ Offices in
Harare; Regional Meetings in the CFU Matebeleland, Masvingo, Mashonaland West
South, Mashonaland North, Mashonaland Central, and Manicaland offices.

Key Informant and Semi-structured Interviews. As Carolyn Nordstrom (1997: 8 I)
wrote in A Diflerent Kind of War Story, interviewing informants during times of violence
and terror involves listening on multiple levels — listening to validate people’s
experience, “listening well,” and listening to silences that signify danger. Interviewing in
a context of violence involves greater risks and greater need for assurances for informants
than in other situations. Whyte (1984: 98) writes, “Like the therapist, the research
interviewer listens more than he [sic] talks, and listens with a sympathetic and lively

interest.” Interviews with farmers and farm women (see Appendices B and C) focus on

102

their experience with land over time, relationships with workers and neighboring black
smallholder black farmers, and their invasion experience. Interviews with leaders of farm
worker organizations and CFU representatives (see Appendices A and D) center on the
impact of the crisis on members of their respective organizations and violence against
their members.

Self-administered Questionnaires. Due to time constraints, I was unable to
interview farmer association chairs in all the Regions; therefore, I distributed
questionnaires to the chairpersons at meetings I attended for their completion (see
Appendix E). I also distributed a questionnaire to farmers designed to gather comparable
information that the semi-structured interviews developed and distributed them through a
“snow-ball sampling” approach while visiting farmer association meetings (see Appendix
F).

Case Studies. In this study, case studies of particular farms are used to illustrate
the varied strategies and responses of farmers and farm women to violence and insecurity
surrounding commercial farming in Zimbabwe in 2000. The case studies compile
information taken from interviews with husband and wives from a particular farm (if both
were available) as well as any information available from the daily invasion reports and
the human rights violation reports. Case studies rely on inductive theories and
“explanation[s] that develop during naturalistic or qualitative research,” (Creswell 1994:
94). Therefore, the data collected for the case studies have been used to develop my
current understanding of how violence and terror is experienced differently by people in
different social locations and how people strategize under conditions of chronic fear and

insecurity?

103

Content Analysis. I use content analysis as a method for studying the daily
invasion reports (see Appendix G) and newspaper articles. For the daily invasion reports,
I coded each line of each daily report accounting for over 160 variables (see Appendix
G). These variables helped me track the nature of the invasion activities on a daily basis
throughout the country so that I could then analyze later. I clipped and coded newspaper
articles according to similar topics -— invasions, elections, violence and organized the

articles accordingly.

Analysis

The purpose of this dissertation is to answer four questions (1) how does the
regime perpetuate its own interests through the use of state terror; (2) how do people in
different social locations experience violence and terror differently; (3) how does “the
routinization of terror function”'°; and (4) how do people in different social locations
strategize under conditions of chronic fear and insecurity? My analysis brings together
several disparate sources of data (see above) to begin to answer these questions.

Strauss (1987) advocates the use of grounded theory for materials such as field
notes (from participant-observation) and interviews. Grounded theory is an approach to
qualitative data with a focus on the developmental aspects of theory, “without any
particular commitment to specific kinds of data, lines of research, or theoretical interests”
(Strauss 1987: 5). I draw on this approach and its attention to the development and

constant revision of a coding scheme for my analysis of my field notes from CF U

meetings and interviews. Through use of the qualitative data analysis program NVIVO,

 

'° Linda Green (1195: l I l).

104

daily invasion report data can be organized and coded (see Appendix G) in a similar
manner. The information was then summarized and exported into a spreadsheet program
to create tables.

For the human rights reports, the information was entered into a spreadsheet
program and summarized. The human rights information was also analyzed and coded in
terms of types of violence and torture involved, and against whom. The surveys were
entered into a spreadsheet program and analyzed through comparing respondents
answers. These were drawn upon while discussing the case studies or communities in

general.

Conclusion

My dissertation is a study of violence, terror and the way in which different
members of Zimbabwe’s commercial farming community respond to the routinization of
state terror. In this chapter, I have addressed how my study transformed from my
original plans to the dissertation that it has become. Further, I addressed the importance
of discussing the positionality of the fieldworker in conditions of violence and insecurity
and how this alters research agendas and opportunities. Finally, I discussed the sources
of data to which I was able to gain access, how they contribute to my study, and how they

are analyzed.

105

CHAPTER FOUR:
EN EMIES OF THE STATE: ELECTIONS, INVASIONS, CRISIS
Introduction
In this chapter I examine the unfolding of the violence on farms during the
parliamentary electoral period of 2000 (February — June). Based on an analysis of the
timeline of invasion related events and the nature of invaders’ behaviors, I argue that the
invasions were a form of politically motivated violence, rather than a movement for land
reform. The defeat of the ruling party ZANU-PF backed (and opposition MDC opposed)
Constitutional Referendum in February 2000 suggested that the opposition MDC party
might have potential success in the elections scheduled for March 2000. The threat to the
party’s continued maintenance of power after 20 years of rule resulted in state-organized
political violence intended to intimidate and terrorize voters into continued support of
ZANU-PF. With rifis emerging within the ruling party, Mugabe called on the allegiance
of the war veterans which he had solidified in 1998 with the procurement of lifetime
monthly pensions and a substantial payout.‘ War veterans dominated the state security
organizations, agencies which also played significant roles in facilitating the violence.
The regime used its resources to spread political violence both extensively (over space)
and intensively (over time). Violence became the key strategy in a parliamentary election
that focused on the rhetoric of land and neo-colonialism. Violence also quickly emerged
as the predominant feature of the farm invasions, which became a key strategy within the
electoral campaign as sources of ideological and practical support for the violence that

swept the nation on and off farms (ZHRNGOF 2000).

 

' War veterans received payments of 2350,000 in 1998 in addition to monthly stipends.

106

The purpose of this chapter is to begin to answer the questions (1) how does the
state perpetuate its own interests through the use of state terror, and (2) under what
conditions are different people exposed to different kinds of violence. I will do this by
first discussing the role the 2000 Constitutional Referendum played in the emergence of
the political crisis within the ruling ZANU-PF. Second, I will discuss the allegedly
spontaneous emergence of the land invasions that coincided with the election campaign.
Next, I will analyze the intensification over time and space of the invasions as the
campaign proceeded, the violence increased. I will compare the regional variations both
in terms of numbers of farms occupied and severity of experience. Next, I compare the
nature of violence experienced by farm workers and farmers during the election invasion
period. Finally, I discuss the parliamentary elections and violence as an electoral strategy

before summarizing and concluding the chapter.

The Constitutional Referendum and Political Crisis

On February 12-13, 2000, Zimbabweans voted to reject the ZANU-PF
government backed Draft Constitution. Although a Constitutional Commission had been
created to solicit input from Zimbabweans on the new constitution, the Draft Constitution
was largely criticized for not incorporating the views of the people (ZN RN GDP 2001).
In addition to objections to elements of the Draft Constitution which expanded rather
than limited presidential powers, the public objected to last minute revisions of Clause 57
which granted the government permission to acquire white-owned land for resettlement
without compensation to farmers for the land or for improvements to the land. Clause 57

furthermore laid responsibility for paying compensation to white farmers in the hands of

107

former colonial power, Great Britain. ZANU-PF promoted the Draft Constitution based
primarin on the land issue, whereas the opposition MDC and other groups campaigned
against it, citing its lack of attention to the people’s will.

Fifty-three percent of votes cast (excluding spoiled ballots) rejected the
referendum (see Table 4.1). Of Zimbabwe’s ten provinces, six (primarily rural) voted for
the drafi referendum as a whole, while four (two rural, two urban) rejected it. At the
level of constituency, people in fifty urban and twelve rural districts voted against the
draft constitution. Urban voters rejected the constitution, including those in most small
towns and peri-urban areas. The two urban provinces of Harare and Bulawayo
overwhelmingly voted No, as did rural provinces Manicaland and Matebeleland North
(though with narrower margins). Mashonaland Central, Mashonaland West, and
Mashonaland East had among the smallest proportions voting against the ZANU-PF
backed constitution, a point I return to below. In short, rural voters were more likely to
vote for the referendum than were urban voters. Moreover, in Mashonaland white
farmers would later be openly blamed by politicians for the defeat of the referendum and

therefore deserving of the invasions (see below).

108

Table 4.1
Constitutional Referendum Results by Province, February 2000A

Harare 25% 73%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bulawayo 23% 76%
Masvingo 53% 43%
Manicaland 34% 63%
Matebeleland North 45% 52%
Mashonaland East 58% 38%
Matebeleland South 50% 47%
Midlands 61% 35%
Mashonaland West 58% 38%
Mashonaland Central 68% 30%
Total 44% 53%

 

Source: GoZ website

A Percentages based on total votes cast. Difference between Yes and No totals is due to spoiled ballots.

The defeat of the referendum alerted the ruling party and Mugabe to the dangers
of potential shifiing political opinion in Zimbabwe in the parliamentary elections
originally scheduled for March of 2000. Mugabe blamed the referendum’s defeat on a
conspiracy between white commercial farmers, urban-middle class elites (represented by
MDC) and their foreign supporters (ZHRNGOF 2001 :19). Additionally, at a meeting of
the 220 member central committee of ZANU-PF, intended to strategize for the
parliamentary elections, rifis within the party emerged. Whereas Mugabe attacked
ZANU-PF party leadership for the referendum loss, reports from the meeting indicate
party elite blamed Mugabe for ZANU-PF’s declining support and asked him to step down
as the party’s leader (Daily Mail and Guardian 2-24-00).

Mugabe’s political crisis intensified as early 2000 brought several damaging
events that threatened ZANU-PF continued supremacy. In addition to the defeat of the

Constitutional Referendum, Mugabe faced a lawsuit by human rights activists seeking the

109

the mid-19803. Major corruption scandals emerged implicating senior ministers in the
Ministry of Lands Agriculture and the Ministry of Transport and Energy as well (Herald
3-17-00; Daily News 5-1-00). The ZANU-PF Central Committee asked Mugabe to step
down as the party leader and rid his cabinet of corrupt ministers. Mugabe had other
plans. Following the defeat of the referendum, Mugabe declared he would take back the
land from whites regardless of law or international opinion. In an interview on his 76th
birthday on the state-run local television station, Mugabe said,
We (can) take the land under presidential powers and nobody should
rejoice over (our) defeat. The land question has not been resolved. The
people are angry and if we let the people vent their anger, they will invade
the farms and then they (farmers) will come to us for protection (Daily
Mail and Guardian 2-22-00).
This statement by Mugabe is the beginning of government statements, policy
pronouncements, and actions by various Zimbabwean leaders that sanction the violence
and demonstrate the regime’s role in organizing state terror in 2000. The statement also
raises the terror to the level of what Mason and Krane (1989:178) define as “death squad”

violence (see Chapter One), as demonstrated later in this chapter. Farm invasions began

immediately.

ZANU-PF, ZNLWVA and the Election Campaign

The war veterans initially claimed that the invasions were spontaneous reactions
to the rejection of the referendum and the land clause contained within it. According to
veterans and government, the invasions were unplanned, peaceful demonstrations.

During the first week of invasions (late February 2000), a leader of the ZNLWVA and a

110

spokesperson for invaders in one area made the following statement to the state-run
television station news crew.
We fought for the land and would therefore like to warn those that might
be thinking of fighting us off the land that we trained to be soldiers, and
are still soldiers. Our tractors are moving on to the farm to prepare land
for our people and we will not like to hear that any of our comrades has
been moved [sic] (Daily Mail & Guardian 2-29-00).
The television crew had been given advance warning and thus captured the invasion at its
height with hundreds cheering as they marched on the farm. At one of the earliest
invasions, the spokesperson stressed that the invaders were prepared to fight if
challenged, referencing what Lopez (1984:70) calls a “life threatening” state terror
technique. Additionally, the use of the state media was an attempt at information control
of the Zimbabwean population, as increasing hostility towards the independent and
foreign press emerged over time.

My fieldnotes (2-28-00) fi'om a visit to the community this group had invaded
revealed a different story. Contrary to the image of a spontaneous uprising of hundreds
of restless, landless peasants and war veterans that the state-run media projected, I
witnessed invaders approach the local leader, who did not realize that I understood the
local language, and request the daily payment and money promised to them for
transportation back to their homes in the city. The invasion did not seem spontaneous,
and the participants were being paid.

In the early phase of the invasions, the collusion between the ZANU-PF regime
and the war veterans became clear. In late February, the commissioner of police

announced that he would not order the police to remove farm invaders stating, “‘It is

above the police. It is a political issue. What do you expect police to do?”’ (Daily Mail

111

& Guardian 3-1-00). Once again, death squad violence, or what I term state organized
violence, as Mason and Krane (1989:178) note, contains “a distinguishing feature ...that
it is violence sanctioned by the regime, either explicitly... or implicitly through lack of
effort to curtail such acts.” Mugabe announced plans on March 1, 2000 to amend the
constitution to incorporate the content of the land clause from the rejected referendum,
thereby allowing the government to acquire farms without compensation unless Great
Britain provided the funds (Daily Mail & Guardian 3-2-00). In invaded communities,
farmers observed invaders being transported via government vehicles (Fieldnotes, 2-28-
_ 00; 3-28-00).

In Mashonaland Central, the connection between the government, the referendum
results, and elections was made more explicit. In a meeting between Governor Border
Gezi and Mashonaland Central CF U regional leaders, Gezi openly blamed farmers for the
role their involvement in opposition politics played in the referendum’s defeat and stated
that the invasions had ZANU-PF’s full support (CFU 2000d). Gezi warned that farmers
known to support (currently or in the past) opposition and those deemed “socially
unacceptable” would be targeted for invasions. The Governor also noted the role of farm
workers in causing the “No” vote against the constitution and said there would be an
“anti-farm worker” campaign (CF U 2000dz2). Finally, Gezi concluded that “‘this is the
beginning of the Third Chimurenga to take land and this time we will succeed and will
not be thwarted’” (CFU 2000dz3). It was clear early in the invasions that not only was
the regime explicitly and implicitly sanctioning the farm invasions and the violence that

characterized them (see below) (Mason and Krane 1989), but also that the regime

112

attempted to legitimate its actions, as do most perpetrators of violence, by drawing on the
liberation cause and the notion of fighting to free the land (Riches 1991).

On March 2, 2000, however, confusion within the regime surfaced. That same
day, President Mugabe affirmed his position that the invasions were the result of colonial
land imbalances, the role played by white farmers in the defeat of the referendum, and the
maintenance of land inequities He therefore insisted that he would not act to remove
invaders from farms. Less than three hours later, Minister of Home Affairs Dumiso
Dabengwa, under whose authority the police force fall, announced that since a new
constitutional amendment would allow the government to seize the land, the invasions
were moot. Dabengwa therefore ordered all invaders off all farms within 24 hours (Daily
Mail & Guardian 3-3-00). The police commissioner Augustine Chihuri, a war veteran
himself, aligned himself with Mugabe and refused to act. On March 5, 2000, Mugabe
announced increases to war veterans’ monthly pensions of 41 percent (Standard 3-5-00).
In addition to increases in their monthly pensions, in mid-March ZANU-PF hired
ZN WLVA to “campaign” for the coming elections and vowed to pay Z820 million for
their services in this regard (Financial Gazette 3-16-00).

The Zimbabwe Economic Society (ZES) and Friedrich Ebert Stifiung (FES)
hosted a seminar titled “Socio-economic Implications of the Current Farm Invasions in
Zimbabwe” on March 16, 2000. ZES-FES invited the Minister of Agriculture and Lands,
ZNLWVA leader Chenjerai “Hitler” Hunzvi, CFU, ZFU, GAPWUZ and local academics
to speak. The Ministry of Lands and Agriculture representative did not attend, nor did
Hunzvi. ZN LWVA sent another representative, however, who distributed a short

position paper (ZN LWVA 2000). The paper began by describing a letter the association

113

alleged to have sent to the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (UK)
demanding that the UK provide funds for land reform or

Allow us, Your Majesty, to say that we can foresee another short-lived
bloodbath coming very soon. It will be the most appropriate decision of
Her Majesty’s Government to avoid such an eventuality. The small
encounters as we envisage them, will not be fought anywhere else, but
in the commercial farms, against those who are refusing to let go our land.
These will be clashes against Commercial Farmers, and which, if Her
Majesty’s Government does not take heed, will later be misinterpreted as
racial (ZN LWVA 2000:l).

The paper cited three problems which hindered speedy resettlement since independence,
all of which were in its view ultimately the responsibility of white farmers. First, the
paper argued that the CFU had deliberately formed a conspiracy among white farmers to
raise the price of farms intentionally to keep “indigenous Zimbabweans” landless.
Second, appeals to courts of law by the CFU to challenge designation of farms for
resettlement had stalled land reform. Finally, the paper blamed the “mobilisation for the
‘NO’ vote in the draft constitution by the farmers” [sic] (ZN LWVA 20002). The paper

went on to state its position vis-a-vis the invasions:

a. that the occupations have been! and are spontaneous,

b. our Association, to avoid being overtaken by events, has/ and is
encouraging the prevalence of peace during the occupations,

c. an escalation of this volatile situation can only be avoided if affected
farmers, and those to be affected, realise that indigenous
Zimbabweans are waging the Third Chimurenga for their LAND
which was forcibly grabbed from them by the British, and subsequent
colonial settler governments. They should realise that after having
refused to meet the needs of the landless people of this country in a
more civilised way, they have been moulding a bomb for their own
peril,

d. The Commercial farmers, particularly members of the notorious and
self-centered CFU, should realise that, even if they inherited farms

114

from their forefathers, they inherited stolen property. If they bought
those farms, they bought stolen property. The land was stolen from
the indigenous Zimbabweans by the British. Now, indigenous
Zimbabweans are recovering their property,

e. The firing of weapons at unarmed War Veterans and civilians who
are moving in to occupy their LAND, as was affirmed at [farm name
deleted], near Norton, on 29 February 2000, will only add fuel to fire.
Those armed farmers should not underestimate what is happening.
We are peace-loving, but there comes a time when a people stands up
and say ‘ENOUGH IS ENOUGH’. [all emphasis in original]
(ZNLWVA 2000:3).

I have quoted the position of the war veterans at length to highlight several
important themes within it as well as inconsistencies with on-going invasion events.
First, ZN LWVA stressed the spontaneous nature of the invasions. However, as noted
above, the government-controlled media (television and newspapers) often appeared to
have had advance notice of several large or otherwise notable invasions and arrived on
farms prior to or just as invasions began. The arrival of state-run media at large invasions
suggests coordination of war veteran activity with state-owned media. Second, war
veterans’ reference to the “Third Chimurenga” also undermined their alleged dedication
to “peace” during farm invasions. The first and second zvimurenga2 were violent wars;
any movement labeled as the third following two violent wars presumably would also
involve violence. In fact, in a press statement on the day before the presentation of the
ZN LWVA’s position paper to the public, an association spokesperson said the war
veterans would never allow the opposition party to take office if elected into power
(Daily Mail & Guardian 3-16-00): “We will never allow people who oppressed us to

come to power. It means we will go back to the bush. We will declare a military

government.” Clearly, the farm invasions were politically motivated retribution for

 

2 Zvimurenga is plural for Chimurenga.

115

farmers’ alleged involvement in the ‘No’ vote and to ensure future ZANU-PF rule. Land
was not central, the ruling party’s continued power was. Finally, the ZN LWVA
statement’s emphasis on “indigenous Zimbabweans” raises important questions about
national identity and the intersection of identity and violence, issues that will be explored
in Chapter Six.

On March 17, 2000, the CFU successfully petitioned the High Court of Zimbabwe
to compel the government to end the invasions and restore law and order. Specifically,
the court order declared the occupations unlawful and mandated that all persons engaged
in squatting must vacate the farms within 24 hours. The order required that Governor
Gezi, Dr. Hunzvi, and the ZNLWVA cease and desist from encouraging invasions.
Furthermore, Dr. Hunzvi was required to appear on television, radio, and in newspapers
and announce that such invasions were unlawful and encourage invaders to move off
farms. The court order directed Police Commissioner Chihuri to order all ZRP to
investigate and arrest invaders from farms after the 24-hour period elapsed. The order
also specifically directed the Police Commissioner to ignore any orders from the
executive branch that were contrary to the court order. The decision was reached by
consent of the applicant, the CFU, and those opposing the order, Governor Gezi, Dr.
Hunzvi, ZN LWVA, and Police Commissioner Chihuri (High Court of Zimbabwe Case
3544/2000). War veterans ignored the court order, however, remaining on farms and
instigating new invasions in the days following the judgment (Daily News 3-20-00).
Commissioner Chihuri refirsed to comment on the “political” matter and Home Affairs

Minister Dabengwa said the matter was between the High Court and Chihuri (Herald 3-

116

22-00). Once again, the government’s complicity with paramilitary groups demonstrated
the regime’s role in terror and violence.

CFU’s court case resulted in a series of appeals and judgments throughout the
election invasion period which all were decided in favor of the union. The judiciary
rejected Commissioner Chihuri’s request to limit the police’s duties from evicting
invaders to simply maintaining the peace and rejected his claims that the police lacked
the resources to restore the rule of law. Mugabe and Hunzvi continued to make public
statements supporting war veterans’ right to stay on farms. For example, Hunzvi said
despite the passing of the amendment to the Constitution empowering the government to
compulsorily acquire land for resettlement without paying compensation, the war vets
would not move off before the elections: “We are here to stay — it is our land and why
should we move out?” (Sunday Mail 4-9-2000). The persistent rulings declaring the
invasions unlawful and demanding police actions demonstrated the collusion of the ZRP
with the ZNLWVA and Mugabe. Eventually, the judiciary itself became targets of war
veterans who through threats, successfully forced several judges to resign.

Over the course of the invasion period, Mugabe called in key figures in state
security organizations such as the police, the Central Intelligence Organization (CIO), the
army, and ZN LWVA leader Hunzvi to his aid. Organized through existing ZN LWVA
structures, the paramilitary force set out to systematically target key MDC organizers and
to intimidate the population at large (see NDI 2000, IRCT 2000, ZHRNGOF 2000).
With ZANU-PF’s popular support waning, MDC emerged as the first real threat to
Mugabe/ ZANU-PF’s rule since ZAPU/ ZIPRA. ZANU-PF responded with violence,

intimidation, and accusations that MDC was a puppet party for neo-colonialist white

117

Zimbabweans and foreign destabilizing forces (N DI 2000, Daily News). For example, in

an Election 2000 advertisement run by ZANU-PF, the text reads
While our hard won democracy should be deepened to economically
empower the indigenous community, it is shocking that the sellout
individuals do not even acknowledge the democratic achievement of our
continuing revolution. Instead, they have decided to be WHISTLES OF
FOREIGN INTERESTS and are misleading you that they are offering
transparency and that they have power in their hands AND NOT IN
YOURS.... [emphasis in original] (Sunday News 3-26-2000).

Mugabe and his war veterans (within/ without official state security
organizations) targeted commercial farms for both symbolic and practical reasons. In
symbolic terms, Mugabe clearly hoped to rally supporters behind “the liberation of the
land” from “foreigners,” the third Chimurenga. Practically, targeting farmers attacked
any real or imagined financial support they offered to MDC. As ZHRNGOF (2000:3)
noted, “political violence has been practically and ideologically sustained by the farm
invasions, with the invaders themselves taking a leading role. Farms have been a source
of food, and support for the attackers, and centers for the organization of violence
targeting farm worker and rural communities.” Commercial farms thus served as strategic
logistical bases from which war veterans could mount a broader “campaign” of state
organized violence in Zimbabwean society to terrorize the electorate into voting for
ZANU-PF . Through tactics of intimidation, threats, and physical abuse, war veterans
could demand other forms of logistical support — provision of food and transportation to
ZANU-PF rallies being foremost. ZHRNGO (2001) concluded that ZANU-PF engaged

in a systematic campaign of violence, advocated through campaign speeches and carried

out by the “war veterans.”

118

Intensification over time

The invasions began immediately following the defeat of the ZANU-PF regime
supported February 2000 constitutional referendum and continued through the
parliamentary elections held June 25—26, 2000.3 From the beginning of the invasions, the
CF U compiled detailed farm invasion updates (CFU FIU) which were distributed on a
near daily basis.4 In a short amount of time, the invasions spread nation-wide. As Table
4.2 indicates, within the first month (early March 2000), invasions had spread to over 400
farms, or roughly 7.8 percent of the CFU’s 1999 membership of 3,950 farmers who
owned a total of 5413 farms (CFU 2000c). By the end of March, the number had
doubled to approximately 846 farms or 15.6 percent. The number of farms invaded
increased to 1,190 or 21.9 percent in early May and leveled out at 30 percent in June

2000, the month in which the parliamentary elections occurred.

 

3 At the time of this writing, war veterans have also invaded businesses, foreign and locally owned, as well
as nongovernmental organizations under the guise of settling labor disputes.

4 See Chapter Three for a discussion of the limitations of these data. Most significantly here, the reports
do not always report incidents on individual farms. In many cases, the reports indicated (for example) that
there were many demands for transportation by the war veterans throughout the FA. The numbers are
under-representative, therefore, but do suggest trends in the experience that are also supported by key
informant interviews with CFU regional leaders as well as through my own fieldnotes and participant
observation of CF U meetings.

119

Table 4.2B
Progression of Farm Invasions, Zimbabwe, 2000

 

 

 

 

 

 

\lllllllt‘l' ill I' :II'III\ \l'l'cclcll Percent of I'lll'llls \l‘l‘cctcll
March 9 427 7.8%
March 30 846 15.6%
April 14 1056 19.5%
May 4 1190 21.9%
June 19 1631 30.1%
June 26 1649 30.4%

 

 

 

 

 

Source: CFU Daily Sitreps (CFUe).

llTable 4.2 relies on data collected by the CPU through the daily invasion reports. Shortly after the
invasions began, the CF U organized each region to gather information on invasions in their region for the
purpose of establishing a detailed record of events to both keep the national CFU leaders appraised of local
events and for potential use in legal matters. The invasion reports rely on farmer reporting to local farmer
association chairs, and chairs forwarding the information on to the CF U headquarters. There is a bias
toward the reporting of “events” that farmers and leaders feel are significant. Therefore, the reports are
more likely to recount hostile encounters than peaceful ones, though there are many such peacefill
invasions recounted in them. The reports, therefore, must be taken as a partial record of invasions from
farmers’ perspectives. While they most certainly can not be seen as recording “the truth” of what happened
on farms, they do offer a fairly comprehensive account of invasions from a farmer perspective. From
interviews with CFU leaders (national and regional), l have concluded that the reports attempt to be as
accurate as possible, though not complete. Unfortunately, there are no similar detailed reports about the
invasions compiled by agencies such as AGRITEX, or even the ZN LWVA, at least to my knowledge.

The first priority of war veterans early in the election invasion period5 involved
the deployment of war veterans throughout the countryside and attempts to recruit farm
workers into the war veterans’ cause, according to interviews with GAPWUZ
representatives (5/23/00; 5/18/00) and the ALB Chairperson (Interview 5/16/00). War
veterans moved out to farming communities and began “visiting” or “walking-on” farms
to initiate the occupation. War veterans usually “walked-on,” demonstrated, or talked to
workers and/or the farm owner, demarcated land with pegs, and then moved on to the
next farm leaving a very small number of people resident on the farm. The point seemed

to be to establish a presence on as many farms as possible as quickly as possible,

 

5 I distinguish the election invasion period as February — June 2000, the period 1 address in this study.

120

hopefully recruiting local farm workers and villagers to the cause. While Table 4.2
clearly shows the war veterans’ success in their first goal, their ability to accomplish their
second goal is unknown. Typically, farmers received advanced warning (usually from
neighboring farmers) that war vets were coming before a contingent, ranging between
five and over 100 war veterans and others, arrived. Although many farmers’ early
invasion experiences were relatively peaceful (late February — early March), in some
cases, the advance party might demonstrate and/or threaten the farmer, as the journal of
one of my informants, a farmer in Mashonaland Central, described the invasion of his
farm in late February:

Work started as normal. At +/- 1300 hours we got word that the mob was
approaching and [we] could see them coming across lands in front of the house.
Joe Smith arrived here a couple of minutes before the crowd arrived. All work
was stopped barn loading and curing was stopped. One trailer full of reaped
tobacco was dumped on the ground and the tractor and trailer commandeered for
the mobs use. Labour incited to join the mob. Mob approached the house and
using the foreman’s radio called to say the leaders wanted to speak to me. Joe
and 1 went out to the gate and spoke to leaders surrounded by +/- 150 people.
We indicated we understood the reason they were here and requested that we be
allowed to continue with the work. This was being discussed fairly positively
when a Chief Munhu arrived on the scene and said nobody with a black skin
would be allowed to work. He also made threats to myself and Joe. We were
told if we wanted to work we had to use white people... They indicated that they
wanted to enter the security fence and dance etc. We said this was private
property but they were welcome to do so outside the gate but this led to shouting
of threats and general disorder.... Drumming, singing, shouting of threats
continued for +/- 2 '/2 hours we were then told we had I ‘/2 hours to leave the
farm. We said that was an unreasonable request and that we needed to at least
stay the night. they camped and beat drums and sang until 0200 hours... At
about 0600 hours the mob came back....

The above passage reflects several ways in which state terror tactics became
systematic in the election invasion period. Examples indicated in the excerpt above
include war veterans quickly attempting to involve farm workers in their cause and
threatening farmers. Also, war veterans disrupted work processes, damaged crops and

property, attempted sensory over-stimulation and demanded that the farmer cited above

121

vacate his farm. These tactics would be repeated in varying degrees throughout the
nation over the election invasion period and would worsen. In early March, war veterans
moved on and off farms daily. Nationwide, the level of terror tactics employed by war
veterans varied by region. War veterans had begun pegging land, building temporary
housing structures, and cutting trees. However, CFU FIU reports from this period also
indicated the beginnings of intimidation and threatening behavior directed at farmers and
farm workers (as described in above diary), work stoppages at the demand of war
veterans, and war veterans’ addressing farm workers about politics (CFU F IU 3/17/00;
CFU F IU 3/29/00; CF U FIU 3/31/00). By the end of March, farmers more consistently
reported “tense” situations on farms, including death threats, assaults of farmers and farm
workers, aggressive war veterans and hostage situations. For example, in March 2000
CFU F IU reports recorded 52 incidents of violence against farmers and farm workers, 16
disruptions to farm work, and one forced political rally against the opposition MDC (see
Figure 4.1). One CFU FIU report reflects both the law enforcement and life threatening
state terror tactics (Lopez 1984) through its inclusion of both death threats and the lack of
protection from the crimes of others: “Death threat if farmer starts ploughing, [sic] ZRP
not reacting” (CFU F IU 3/19/03).

By the end of March, 21.4 percent of all CFU farms had been affected. Although
the war veteran’s leaders and Mugabe described the invasions as a demonstration over
land inequities, an analysis of invasion behavior over the period of March through June
reveals otherwise. Using NVIVO to code for various activities, throughout all the CFU
F IU reports March — June 2000, the pattern of violence and political intimidation of farm

workers becomes clear (see Figure 4.1) .

122

Figure 4.1C

Number and Type of Primary Invasion Activities by Month, Zimbabwe 2000

400
350

300

Number! Type
—8 —I N N
O 01 o 01
O O O O

01
O

 

March April May June

 

  
  
  

l Demands for Land

1:! Demands for Money, Provisions. and Transportation
lViolence

El Disruptions to Farm Work

E Forced Attendance to ZANU-PF Rallies

 

 

 

So—urce: CFU 2000c.

C The chart and analysis here are based are reported incidents in the CFU F [U reports. The data are under-
representative of total numbers, however, due to the fact that in some cases incidents reported were for an
entire Farmer Association, rather than at the farm level. This affects the variables of Demands for Land,
Demands for Money, Provisions, and Transportation, and Disruptions to Farm Work. In such cases, even
though the report referred to several farms, it was only counted once. Violence is discussed in the text
below. Forced Attendance to ZANU-PF Rallies counts the number of farms on which workers and/or
farmers were forced to attend rallies. This does not include pungwes (to be discussed below).

123

Table 4.3

Election Invasion Activity Timeline, Zimbabwe 2000

March April May June Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demands for Land 5 3 67 21 96
Demands for Money, Provisions, and

Transportation 1 13 161 1 16 291
Violence 52 263 336 258 909
Disruptions to Farm Work 16 51 204 146 417
Forced Attendance to ZANU-PF Rallies O 15 116 77 208

 

Source: CFU 2000e.

As the numbers in Figure 4.1 and Table 4.3 indicate, violence dominated the
landscape of the farm invasions. Items included as “violence” range from assaults and
threats (psychological violence) to confrontations between workers and war veterans,
deaths, and hostage/ abductions. Indeed, only one week afier the invasions began, the war
vets unleashed on farming communities the wave of violence that has characterized these
invasions. The first reported assault on a farm involved a farm worker in Mashonaland
Central, a cook who was assaulted on February 28, 2000 (CFU 2000c). Early in the
invasions, violence and politics were linked. According to one human rights violation
complaint submitted on behalf of a farm worker by a human rights organization early in
the election invasion period, “War Veterans called a meeting then pulled people out and
beat them accusing them of having MDC papers and stealing. Victim sustained a broken
arm.” (Human Rights Violation Reports 2000). The following picture captured by BBC
World News in early April graphically depicts the political nature of the land invasions as

a farm worker is assaulted for wearing an MDC T-Shirt:

124

Figure 4.2
Photo One

 

 

Source: BBC World News cited in NEC 2000.

The importance of including the above photo (as well as the photo below in this chapter)
is to demonstrate the power of deterrent torture within and without farming communities.
Within farming communities, farm workers, and to a lesser degree, farmers, were
exposed to this type of violence — or threats thereof — on nearly a daily basis. Further, the
images captured by the press, independent, foreign, or state-owned, places the images of
state terror in the urban areas and throughout the country for all communities to “witness”
(CCJP 1997). The images contributed to the state of terror.

Within a month of the beginning of the invasions, the paramilitary force’s pattern
became clear: invade farm, identify and assault high profile farm workers in front of
other workers, and warn workers that “sell-outs” would be dealt with accordingly (CFU

2000c, Interviews CFU, and GAPWUZ 2000).

125

The fiequency of violence rose through March and April before peaking in May
and declining slightly in June. A more detailed analysis of these trends are presented in
Figure 4.2, based on CF U FIU data. Whereas in Figure 4.1 I collapsed various forms of
violence into one category, in Figure 4.3 I separate the different forms by type of
violence. While the low numbers in March and April partially reflect the development of
the FIU reporting system and partially some farmers poor reporting of invasion activity,
the analysis presented here are also consistent with key informant interviews with CFU
officials and data derived from participant observation at CFU meetings; there are sharp
rises in reports of violence from March-April, and April-May, when the violence peaked.
In the case of abductions/ hostage situations and deaths, incidents reflect the number of
farmers and/ or farm workers reported to have been abducted or detained by war veterans
during a specific month. Assaults and confrontations, however, reflect reported events
rather than numbers of persons affected. In several cases, F IU noted assaults on multiple
farm workers in a single report, therefore, the numbers of persons affected is not clear.
The confrontations included here involve a number of instances in which farm workers
confronted war veterans and attempted to drive them off the farm. On several farms
where such confrontations occurred, war veterans returned in greater numbers and
instituted more intense violence at a later date.

The data in Figure 4.3 reveal the overwhelming fact that the primary targets of
physical violence were farm workers. The CFU F IU reports include 363 assaults on farm
workers, representing 39.9 percent of the invasion violence. Farm workers also were the
targets of threats or intimidation in 180 cases or 19.8 percent of the violence.

Additionally, farm workers accounted for 55 confrontations between workers and

126

invaders (6 percent) and three deaths (0.3 percent). For farmers, threats were the most
commonly reported form of violence with 193 cases, or 21 percent of invasion violence
attributed to this. Twenty —five farmers were assaulted (27 percent) and five farmers6
were killed due to invasion violence (0.5 percent). Eighty-five farmers and or farm
workers were held hostage or abducted during the invasions, accounting for 9.3 percent

of invasion violence.

 

6 This number is based on what was reported in the CFU FIU daily invasion reports. I know of two other
farmer deaths through newspaper and other sources.

127

Figure 4.3

Violence Associated with Invasions, March -— June, 2000

 

§

350

 

 

300

 

N
0'1
0

 

0
N

 

Number of Incidents
-8 N
01 O
O O

2

 

 

         

  

 

         

 

   

     

 

7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////,

.\.\\\.\\\\\\\\\\.\.\.\\‘\\_\\.\\.\.\.\\\\\\\‘. 1'! .

 

   

 

\‘
S
s
s
S
. 92
100 § S s. \.
\ :3 R . X E
\ -I \ y \ =
§ ~. § / \ = ~
.AA § 4 :2] § ¢ \ g
-. §<o 3.7 .; § / =
17 g? \ =/ :j \ % E
2 2510 ééigl 22 "/1" S g g 35
0 A Z! ..lll"o Ed. §1-/?:'\ // §... é ...a;
March April May Total
5 Hostage! Abductions Threats to! ht'rridation of Farm Workers
[:1 Threats to Famnrs lAssauls of Fanners
lAssaults of Farm Workers mConfrontations Between hvaders and Farm Workers
[3 Farm Worker Deaths m Farrier Deaths

 

 

 

 

Source: CFU 2000e

128

 

In mid-April, as Zimbabwe neared the 20th anniversary of her independence
(celebrated on April 18, 2000), CF U F IU revealed a worsening crisis (CFU 2000c). On
April 14, war veterans abducted and murdered one farmer and abducted and seriously
assaulted five others. Following a confrontation between workers and invaders on
another farm in which farm workers chased war veterans away, the invaders returned in
greater numbers and burned down the entire workers’ village, the tobacco barns, and half
of the farmer’s homestead (CFU 2000c). War veterans attempted to burn houses with
workers locked inside, causing several workers to sustain serious burn injuries. The farm
supervisor’s wife depicted in the photo below, was severely burned and beaten by farm

invaders and ZANU-PF supporters on

Figure 4.4

Photo Two . April 24, 2000, demonstrating several
critical ways state terror and violence
are organized to inflict violence both
physically on the burn victim herself,
and psychologically on those who
1' witnessed the assault (CCJP 1997).

A second farmer was killed in
Matabeleland on April 19, and a farm
worker died under questionable
circumstances in Midlands on April 17.
On April 24, 2000, the CFU FIU from

one community summarized the

 

129

conditions on farms throughout April, noting numerous cases of “skull bashing of labor.”
Throughout the politically motivated and generalized violence throughout April, war
veterans continued to coerce farm workers into participating in the invasions (CFU
2000ey

Yesterday farm workers were told to leave Gold Farm and go to Bronze

Farm where they had to peg plots and build huts. The war vets threatened

to assault them if their huts were not built.
In all regions, farmers and farm workers experienced increased assaults, threats, and
detentions. Reports of rape and sexual assault of female farm workers and wives of male
farm workers begin to surface, though evidence was limited.7 Overall, the levels of
violence and intimidation were extremely high on farms and ZHRNGOF (2000) has
stated that violence against farm workers was the most prevalent, yet most underreported
type of assault. As indicated above, one provincial governor stated to CFU leaders that
there would be an “anti-farm worker” campaign coming due to their suspected voting
“no” votes on the Constitutional Referendum. Additionally, the association of the
opposition MDC with the labor movement in Zimbabwe put farm workers in an even
more precarious situation as farm workers were represented by a union, GAPWUZ. The
underreporting reflects the fact that farmers, despite their best efforts, probably were not
made aware of every assault or threat that occurred on their farms due to factors such as
farm workers’ fear of reporting, or feelings that reporting such events brought no change.

In early April, war veterans attempted to murder a farmer in Mashonaland East

following an attempt on his life two weeks previously. The CF U F [U for April 4

recounted the events as follows (CFU 2000c):

 

7 Sexual assaults are not reported at all in the CFU FIU reports during this period. They surfaced in my
interviews with farmers, GAPWUZ leaders, and in reports of human rights groups.

130

At 10:30 am. on Monday 3 April, Mr. Black went to a part of the farm
near the school to get a signal for his cell phone. 25 invaders attacked him
with sticks, fan belts and 8 gauge wire, beating him severely around the
head and back. They tied him up with barbed wire and dragged him into
the bush. While they discussed what to do with him next, he managed to
free himself and ran into the nearby dam. His son, Josh, arrived and the
attackers left. Mr. Black was taken to hospital in [a nearby town]. It was
established that he had no broken bones but severe cuts and lacerations.
He is due to be discharged from hospital today. The Police have arrested
three assailants, including Maruva, who was involved in the first assault.
The invaders set his [Black’s] motorbike alight and stole his hand held
radio.
In an interview, Mr. Black said the war veterans had discussed how to kill him and where
they should dump his body. A longtime supporter of another non-MDC opposition party,
Mr. Black felt he had been particularly targeted for his vocal political views.
Politicization during farm invasions began early and was linked to invasion
violence. In February and March, some farmers had openly supported MDC financially
and either transported workers to MDC rallies or invited MDC (and other parties) to
campaign on their farms. ZANU-PF responded harshly, with Ministers of the
government and key army leaders telling CF U leaders that white farmers must stay out of
politics or they would not be protected any longer by government (F ieldnotes 3-28-00).
In March, farmers and farm workers were subjected to searches by war veterans for MDC
paraphernalia and weapons. By April, war veterans appeared to have been joined on
farms by ZANU-PF youth. Together, war veterans and ZANU-PF youth targeted farmers
and farm workers suspected to be linked to MDC. Invaders demanded that farm workers
hand over MDC party cards and T-shirts, and began “re-educating” farm workers.
Political rallies dominated weekends, particularly after April. War veterans began

making considerable demands on farmers for food, accommodation, and transportation.

131

Farm vehicles were routinely commandeered by war veterans for the purpose of ferrying
farm workers and villagers to and from ZANU-PF rallies. Farm workers and farmers
were required to attend political rallies, or suffer further intimidation and assault. The
escalation of violence on farms from February through May reflects the height of the
campaign period for the 2000 parliamentary elections. By early May 1,190 farms had
been invaded and by mid-June, 1,631; terror and intimidation had been well established
among the farm worker and farm owner communities by this time. War veterans began
to use farms as base camps to also move into Communal Areas to “re-educate” rural
voters (Interviews Regional CF U Representatives 6/1/00; 5/8/00). Additionally,
international election monitors began arriving in June 2000 to observe the elections to
ensure they were free and fair, which may also account for some of the decrease in farm
invasion violence.

Beginning in April, war veterans started to represent themselves as playing a
policing role on farms, though these incidents were not common throughout the
invasions. In one case, veterans challenged the firing of a farm worker, claiming he had
been dismissed for being a war veteran. In another incident, a farm foreman was
assaulted in fi'ont of the other workers for ejecting a prostitute from the farm village.
War veterans asked farm workers if farmers treated them well and stated that any
disputes or wrong-doings should be brought to their attention. As part of their new
policing role, war veterans conducted property searches of cars and farmers’ homes,
usually looking for weapons. Many farmers were asked to turn over their weapons to

local authorities for safe-keeping (CFU 2000c, Fieldnotes).

132

The election period (June 26-27) itself passed with few events except in
Mashonaland West North where a war veteran attempted to intimidate farm workers on
one farm and in another area where an election monitor was temporarily abducted.
Following elections in June 2000, farmers reported that war veterans who may have
moved off to vote, appeared to be returning to previously invaded farms. Several areas
experienced increased numbers of invaders, and some areas noted increased hostility and
potential retribution for voting patterns. Many farmers expressed the sentiment that by
June, the presence of election monitors in Zimbabwe quieted violence somewhat.
Nevertheless, the state terror and organized violence of the previous four months had
already terrorized the population into voting ZANU-PF (February —- May 2000) (CFU
2000c; Farmer Interviews).

By the time of the elections in late June 2000, nearly one third of all commercial
farms had been invaded at some point (Table 4.2). It is important to note that while 30.4
percent of farms had been invaded as of June 29, 2000, this does not mean that there was
a continuous presence of squatters on these farms. Rather, in most cases, invasions
involved movement on and off the farm following the initial invasion. However, even
though most farms did not experience continuous occupation, the national situation on
farms deteriorated rapidly, and reports of violence increased with torture of farm workers
and farmers, abductions, hostage/ detentions, rape and death becoming more prevalent.
Instilling terror, not taking back the land, clearly was the primary motive of the
paramilitary groups involved in land invasions. Throughout the country, the ZRP were
reluctant to react to cases of violence on farms under orders from local and national

police officials not to respond, because they were told, the matter was “political” (CFU

133

2000e). Therefore, farmers and farm workers lived under extreme conditions of
insecurity throughout the election period invasions.

Aside from violence and intimidation, the data in Figure 4.1 and Table 4.3 also
record “Demands for land,”8 that is, any instances in which invaders claimed the land
belonged to them, demanded the farmer sign over his title deed or that he sign a
document giving part of his property to individuals, or informed the farmer they were
taking the farm. For example, “War Vet Ch—visited [name] farm and thanked the
farmer for ploughing the land for him and told him he would be moving the war vets on
and if the farm was not big enough for all of them he would also be taking over [name]
farm too” (CF U F IU 6-29-00). In another case, the invaders’ demands for written proof
of ownership came with threats. “Also on [name] had a group of about 40 broke down the
chain to the homestead gate and demanded that 850 ha of the farm be signed over to them
otherwise they would kill the farmer and burn the farmhouse down. Had to sign under
the circumstances” (CF U FIU 5-7-00).

Throughout the election invasion period, war veterans steadily engaged in a
variety of strategies to disrupt farm life and work. “Disruptions to farm work” included
war veteran instigated work stoppages, setting up roadblocks on farms and in rural areas
to disrupt farm delivery/supply routes, poaching on farms, and selling plots of land to
nearby villagers or other war veterans. Disruptions to work took many forms, including
interference with tobacco curing as in the example cited above. Many farmers were

prevented from planting winter wheat crops, though exact numbers of farmers affected

 

8 I did not include all invasions with demands for land. There was a distinct qualitative difference that
emerged from the CFU FIU (as well as interviews) between invaders establishing a presence through
pegging land and war veterans/ invaders who attempted to force farmers (usually under threat) to sign over
the title deed or who indicated a serious intention to take over the land and farm it.

134

were unknown at the time of research (Fieldnotes, interviews). Workers were told not to
report to work and threatened with violence if they did. War veterans moved on and off
properties as they expanded the number of farms under their control, leaving farmers
uncertain day to day whether veterans would be physically present on the farm or not.
Theft, property damage, poaching, building houses, work stoppages, and prevention of
the planting of winter crops (particularly wheat) persisted throughout the period. War
veterans demanded that farmers move their cattle off many farms, and brought in CA
cattle to the farms. Additionally, war veterans moved into farmers’ homes, and
established base camps on farms from which they directed further farm invasions and
excursions into neighboring communal and urban communities.

As early as March, “Demands for Money, Provisions, and Transportation”
surfaced in invasion reports on invaded farms and steadily increased until the election.
War veterans/ invaders asked for money, food and water (sometimes beer) and, most
frequently, transportation to ZANU-PF rallies. For example, many farmers reported
pressure to donate money and food toward ZANU-PF rallies. The week of the elections,
one war veteran telephoned two farmers threatening assaults if they did not stop work and
supply the transport to send their workers to a ZANU-PF rally (CF U F 1U 6-23-00). In
another case, a farmer refused to serve tea to 20 invaders who came to his house
demanding to be fed and that transport be provided to a rally. On refusing the tea but
granting the transport request, “the farmer was given a harsh verbal reminder that farmers
are being killed” (CFU FIU 6-18-00).

All instances when farmers or farm workers attended ZANU-PF campaign rallies

under coercion by invaders were coded as “Forced Attendance at ZANU-PF Rallies.”

135

Such rallies included the large “Star” rallies that usually featured a prominent national
politician and which were organized by ZANU-PF at the national level, as well as smaller
rallies organized by local ZANU-PF supporters and war veterans. Many of these smaller
rallies occurred on farms and involved threats and violence, sometimes directed at
particular farmers or farm workers. For example, in late May, a CFU FIU report states
that 100 percent of farmers in the area attended two rallies over the weekend under
duress. At the rallies, speakers emphasized that the parliamentary election ballots would
not be secret. Following one rally, ZANU-PF youth descended on one farm and beat up
two female farm workers due to their non-attendance at the rally, throwing their infants
on the ground in the process. As the data in Table 4.3 indicate, farmers and farm workers
were forced to attend 209 ZANU-PF rallies between March and June.

All invasion activities reported in Figure 4.1 and Table 4.2, rise dramatically in
April and peak in May. All activities taper off slightly in June, despite the fact that
elections were held June 25-26. This pattern reflects several factors. First, the low
number of incidents reported in March reflects both the gradual development of the CFU
information gathering system, as well as the nascent development of war veteran strategy
and increasing anger among war veterans over farmer (and farm worker) strategies in
response to invasions early on (see below and Chapter 5). In March, many farmers and
farm workers united in what came to be termed “football teams” and ran invaders off
farms (see Chapter 5 for discussion; fieldnotes, interviews). At the same time, the CF U
pursued legal cases against the war veterans’ leader and the commissioner of police and
received court orders requiring that invaders move off farms or be arrested (fieldnotes).

The early strategies of farmers and farm workers of resisting farm invasions legally and

136

in some cases through force intensified ZN LWVA and ZANU-PF anger, which leaders of
both groups openly expressed.9

Second, the invasions intensified as elections drew closer. April and May were
key “campaign” periods. ZANU-PF’s campaign centered on the slogan “Land is the
Economy and the Economy is Lan ” as well as anti-white/ anti-colonial rhetoric. The
government-owned press published a wave of articles in favor of ZANU-PF that blamed
Britain for promoting civil war in Zimbabwe (Sunday Mail 4-2-00); declared opposition
parties were “agents of foreign power” (Herald 4-5-00); claimed the MDC was propping
up the interest of white settlers and would bring neo-colonialism (Herald 4-7-00); and
applauded democracy within the ruling party (Herald 4-3-00) and the government’s
successes in building a nation out of a racist and divisive former colony (Herald 4-6-00).
These inflammatory statements by the government reflected the regime’s effort to incite
anti-white sentiment through their campaign. In April and May commercial farms
became key resources, providing logistical and financial support to the ZANU-PF
campaigns in rural areas and urban areas. War veterans coerced money, food, and
transportation fiom farmers that enabled them also to begin campaigns in neighboring
CA and urban and peri-urban areas. The Z820 million in campaign funds from ZANU-
PF ran out in mid-May, which is when demands for money and food significantly
increased according to CF U FIU reports and my own fieldnotes. The need to rely on
farmers for financial support is further evidenced by a “demonstration” by war veterans
at the ZANU-PF headquarters in Harare over the party’s lack of payment of daily rates

for farm invaders (F ieldnotes).

 

9 Chapter Five deals with CF U and farmer strategies in more detail.

137

The tapering of invasion activity in June reflects two factors. First, in June
election observers arrived in Zimbabwe and began touring the country. The presence of
international observers resulted in slightly less intimidating behaviors by invaders
(ZHRNGOF 2001). Second, in June, war veterans’ campaigns had significantly spread to
the urban areas (ZHRNGOF 2001), thereby limiting their activities on farms.

The intensification of invasions began immediately after the Constitutional
Referendum in February 2000 and quickly spread nationwide. Ten percent of CFU
members were affected in early March, and by the time of the election on June 26, 30.4
percent were invaded (Table 4.3). Terror tactics began early in the invasions and became
a consistent pattern by March, continuing to escalate through May. In all months studied,
violence was the most commonly reported invasion activity (Figure 4.1). Farm workers
experienced the highest levels of violence, with 363 reported assaults, as compared to 25
reported assaults of farm owners (Figure 4.2). Farmers experienced more threats,
however, 193, while farm workers received 180 (Figure 4.2). The terror and violence on
farms was explicitly linked to politics. Farm workers and farm owners were being
punished for their alleged “no” vote in the referendum and for their association with and
support of the opposition MDC. Further, farm workers were subjected to “re-education”
and forced to attend political rallies to which farmers were required to provide

transportation and refreshments.
Extensive Spread over Space and Regional Variation

As highlighted in the previous section, the invasions varied by region. Nationally,

27 percent of farmers reported hostile or violent invasions. As the data in Table 4.4

138

suggest, there was significant regional variation both in terms of the percent of farms
invaded in a particular region, and in terms of the percent of invasions considered violent
or hostile by farmers. Whereas 38 percent of farms in Mashonaland Central were
reportedly invaded and 40 percent of these invasions were judged violent, in
Matabeleland, only 16 percent of farms were invaded and 20 percent considered violent/
hostile (CFU 2000c). Mashonaland East had the highest percentage of farms invaded, 39,
and farmers labeled 23 percent of invasions in the region as violent/ hostile. In
Mashonaland West North, 24 percent of farms were invaded; 32 percent were reported as
violent/ hostile. Mashonaland West South reported 32 percent farms invaded and 22
percent were recorded as hostile/ violent. While in Masvingo 24 percent of farms were
invaded and 21 percent reported the invasions as violent, in Manicaland 20 percent of
farms were invaded and 20 percent were considered violent or hostile. In Midlands, 23
percent of farms were invaded with only 14 percent of farmers reporting the invasions as
violent. Overall, 28 percent of farms were invaded and 27 percent considered violent as
of June 29, 2000, according to the report generated from the CFU Membership survey
(CFU 2000c). In general, farms in the Mashonaland provinces experienced higher rates of
invasions and farmers more frequently labeled the invasions hostile than in Masvingo,
Midlands, or Matabeleland (see Table 4.4). (The reasons for these differences are

analyzed below.)

139

Table 4.4”
Farm Invasions by Region and Violence, Zimbabwe 2/2000-6/2000

Mashonaland Central 38% 40%
Mashonaland West North 24% 32%
Mashonaland East 39% 23%

Mashonaland West South 32% 22%
Masvi 24% 21%
Manicaland 20% 20%
Matabeleland 16% 20%
Midlands 23% 14%
TOTAL 28% 27%
Source: CFU 20000.

 

D Table 4.4 is based on data from the CFU Invasion Impact Assessment. The assessment evaluated
responses of 56 percent of the CFU’s 1999 membership of 3950 farmers who own 5413 farms (CFUc).
Those who completed the survey are not therefore, a representative sample. In comparison with the daily
invasion reports, the survey included 1525 farms that had been invaded, while the daily invasion reports
counted 1637 farms invaded at the time of the survey (CFUc). This suggests that 93 percent of farmers
with invaded farms responded to the survey and suggests that the results reflect a fairly reliable account of
the invasions. The data rely on self-reporting by farmers to a CFU sponsored assessment of (primarily) the
economic impact of the invasions. Though not perfect, the data do give a general picture of invasions.

A similar picture emerges when one considers the incidents of violence reported
in the CF U FIU. Whereas the three CFU regions of Mashonaland East, Mashonaland
Central, and Mashonaland West North each recorded over 200 incidents of violence, the
five remaining regions of Masvingo, Midlands, Matebeleland, Manicaland and
Mashonaland West South combined totaled only 244 (see Table 4.5). Notably, in the
CFU Farm Invasion Survey (CFU 2000c), only 94 (23 percent) farmers in Mashonaland
East characterized their invasions as violent or hostile (Table 4.4), whereas in my
analysis of violence reported in the CFU F IU, Mashonaland East records the highest
number of violent incidents, 229 (Table 4.5). This difference could be explained by the
inclusion of farmers’ description of “hostile” invasions as equivalent with violence in the

CFU survey. Hostility reflects farmers’ perception of invaders’ attitudes and may not

140

characterized their invasion as “hostile/ violent” in the CF U’s survey based solely on
hostile attitudes alone, whereas my analysis of the CFU F IU reports was based only on
reported incidents of violence. Further, my analysis includes all incidents of violence,
including violence against farm workers, which may not factor as highly into farmers’

assessments of whether the invasion is hostile or violent.

Table 4.5
Number of Violent Incidents by Region
Zimbabwe, 2/2000-6/2000

O

Mashonaland East 229
Mashonaland Central 224
Mashonaland West North 206
Mashonaland West South 61

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Masvingo 61
Midlands 42
Manicaland 43
Matebeleland 37
Total 903

 

 

 

 

Source: CFU FIU 2000c

Differences also emerged in the types of violence most commonly experienced in
the various regions. In Matebeleland, Masvingo, Mashonaland West South and
Midlands, threats against farmers ranked highest, whereas in Manicaland, threats and
intimidation against farm workers were more prevalent. In Mashonaland Central, farm
worker assaults (117) and threats against farmers (30) were the most common forms of
violence. Mashonaland Central also had 24 cases of abductions/ hostages and 18 cases of
confrontations between workers and war veterans, the highest numbers recorded in a
CFU region for these types of violence (CF U 2000e). Mashonaland Central reported no
assaults of or deaths among farmers, however. Similar to Mashonaland Central,

Mashonaland East and Mashonaland West North both reported high levels of assaults on

141

farm workers (102 and 98, respectively). Mashonaland East also reported 20 cases of
abductions/ hostages and 17 confrontations, with Mashonaland West North having 15 and
eight, respectively. Mashonaland East and Mashonaland West North have slightly higher
incidents of threats to farmers (36 and 33, respectively) than Mashonaland Central (30)
(ibid). The primary difference between Mashonaland East and Mashonaland West North
lies in the numbers of farmers assaulted and killed during invasions. Matebeleland
reported one farmer assault and one farmer death and Manicaland one farmer assault,
according to the CFU F [U (CFU 2000c). Mashonaland West South reported four farmer
assaults. However, Mashonaland East reported 13 farmer assaults and three of the five
total farmer deaths during the election invasion period. Six farmer assaults and one
farmer death occurred in Mashonaland West North.

Obviously, war vets’ use of violence and intimidation were not equivalent across
regions. Several explanations underlie this variation. First, local leadership and
provincial support for invasions were closely linked to the intensity of violence. In
Mashonaland Central, the province experiencing the most intense invasions and the
highest number of hostile/ violent invasions (Table 4.4), former Governor Border Gezi
made numerous public and private statements supporting the invasions and the use of
violence (CFU 2000d). Second, farmers in Mashonaland Central also cited the
development of fights among local war lords over territory and refusals by local war
veteran leaders to acknowledge national war vet leaders as reasons why farm violence
was more intense in their region than elsewhere (interviews 2000). For example, the
Task Force convened by President Mugabe consisting of war veteran leaders (including

Hunzvi) and a CFU team set out to visit “hot spots” throughout the country where

142

violence had been most intense. The task force set out with the national leaders to meet
with local war veteran and farmers to negotiate peace in particular communities. In Some
cases, however, local war veterans refused to attend meetings called by Hunzvi,
suggesting Hunzvi’s authority over war vets nation-wide is tenuous at best.

Third, in general, farms in former ZIPRA areas (Midlands, Masvingo, and
Matabeleland) reported less violence and disruptions to farming activities (CF U 2000c,
interviews 2000). One farmer in Matabeleland told me that the veterans on his farm
approached him and explained that they were only invading his farm to protect him from
the potential of an invasion by ZANLA ex-combatants (interview 2000). '0 The invasion
appeared to have been a front to deter other potential invaders and the war vets actually
helped the farmer police poachers and other squatters. Historical factors also played a
role in which areas experienced most violence. Masvingo, Manicaland, Midlands and
Matebeleland are areas that traditionally have been less supportive of ZANU-PF than the
Mashonaland provinces.

Fourth, Masvingo, Matebeleland and the Midlands are more arid areas and the
commercial farming enterprises there typically are larger ranches with fewer workers.
The targets of the invasions (farmers and farm workers), were thus fewer and farther
between in these provinces. Therefore, the local experiences of invasions varied,
reflecting differing strength in war vet organization, local relationships with farmers,
response of farmers and farm workers to invasions, and a host of other variables. These

local articulations of invasions however, were staged on a foundation of state-sanctioned

 

'0 ZIPRA war veterans were associated with the ZAPU political party following independence and were
rivals of ZANLA war veterans’ ZANU.

143

violence, ZANU-PF financed “campaigning” by ZLWVA, and a general absence of rule

of law.

Strategies of State Terror and State Organized Violence

The situation in Zimbabwe reflected terror and organized violence, sanctioned,
and, I argue, organized, by the regime, against the population in an attempt to intimidate
and coerce citizens either not to vote, or to vote ZANU-PF in the parliamentary elections
(N D1 2000). According to data gathered by the Zimbabwe Human Rights
Nongovernmental Organization Forum (2001), of the 704 victims of human rights abuses
reported to the Forum, only five were affiliated with ZANU-PF.ll Furthermore, ZANU-
PF supporters (which includes war veterans) and government officials made up 93
percent of the perpetrators of violence (Amani Trust in ZHRN GO 2000). The National
Democratic Institute (N DI) Pre-Election Delegation to Zimbabwe concluded, in May
2000, that conditions for free and fair elections in Zimbabwe did not exist, noting that
“violence has created an atmosphere of anxiety and fear” (NDI 2000:1-2). In addition to
noting irregularities in the electoral process and an unlevel playing field in which the
ruling party ZANU-PF enjoys access to government resources, NDI (2000) highlighted
specific forms of intimidation and violence in rural areas (both in LSCF and CA/RA

communities), including,

'30 “. . .the deployment of war veterans wearing red berets, the trademark of

the North Korean trained 5th Brigade, suggesting a renewal of the

 

" The data gathered by the Forum was not restricted to abuses relating to farm invasions but included all
political violence reported to their organization.

144

‘Gukurahundi’ campaign if elections do not favor the ruling party...”
(NDI 2000: 10-11);

03° beatings of supporters of ZANU-PF opposition parties;

03° documented cases of torture and rape; and

03° ‘re-education’ camps where farm workers, and in some cases villagers, are
forced to chant pro-ZANU-PF slogans (N DI 2000:10—12).

In most cases, the violence against and hostility on farms was targeted most
severely at farm workers. According to the CFU’s Invasion Impact Survey (CFU 2000c),
of the 7,220 human rights violations recorded prior to June 29, 2000, farm workers
accounted for 91.6 percent of the total victims, while farmers accounted for 8.4 percent
(see Table 4.6).'2 The most prevalent abuses or violations against farm workers involved
illegal searches (45.9 percent), followed by minor assaults (26.7 percent) and verbal
death threats (16 percent). Verbal death threats, however, were more commonly reported
by farmers representing 74 percent of their human rights violations, followed by illegal
searches (12 percent) and minor assaults (6.4 percent). The murders of two farmers in
one week in early April 2000 caused many farmers to take death threats seriously (CFU
2000c). Though sexual assault represents less than one percent of violations according to
CFU data, it is widely believed by farm worker union and human rights organization
leaders that the percentages of such incidents were severely underrepresented due to fear

of reporting by farm workers.

 

'2 It is important to recognize that the CF U survey information is not perfect. Due to the on-going nature of
the crisis at the time of the survey, many of the statistics are underrepresented here. The information does
however, give a rough picture of the situation on farms. Most of my narrative focuses on farmers due to
the fact that l was unable to interview farm workers, as noted in Chapter Three.

145

Table 4.6
Farm Invasion Human Rights Violations, Zimbabwe
February-June 2000
'I‘()’|'.-\l.

Farmers lill‘lll \\ (il'lst‘l's

1‘) pc (11. Violation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ll. I’t-rccnt \ll. l’crccnt
Illegal Searches 70 12% 3039 45.9% 3109 (43%)
Abductions 7 1.1% 329 5% 336 (4.4%)
Minor Assaults 39 6.4% 1763 26.7% 1802 (25%)
Serious Assaults (requiring 17 2.8% 380 5.7% 397 (5.5%)
hospitalization)
Verbal Death Threats 449 74% 1069 16% 1518 (21%)
Written Death Threats 22 3.6% 18 <1% 40 (.6%)
Rapes 1 <1% 13 <1% 14 (<1%)
Deaths 1 <1% 3 <1% 4 (<1%)
TOTAL 606 100% 6614 100% 7220 (100%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Report on Invasion Impact Survey, CFU. 7 July 2000. (CF U 2000c).

A common strategy among invading war vets was to hold political rallies known
as pungwes (interviews 2000; see also NDI 2000). The discourse used by black and white
Zimbabweans to describe these rallies or pungwes originates from people's experiences
during the war for independence in the 19703. Pungwe is the term used to describe
political meetings or re-education rallies that the ZAN LA liberation fighters held in
villages during the war. While pungwes provided villagers and guerilla fighters the
opportunity to build solidarity and offer mutual support, pungwes often involved forced
or coerced participation by local people, mandatory singing/ dancing/ chanting
ofrevolutionary songs, and the disciplining of those termed “sell-outs.” Sell-outs during
the war for independence were persons proven or suspected of supporting the ruling
colonial government; during 2000, sell-outs were persons proven or suspected of being
affiliated with MDC. Sell-outs were often beaten, their homes burned, and they
sometimes were killed in front of others. Pungwes also provided the fighters with access

to women and teen-aged girls for what was often coerced or forced sex (see Staunton

146

1992, Moore-King 1988, Kriger 1992). The violence and coercion associated with
pungwes intensified during 2000. Whereas during the liberation period, pungwes served
both a coercive and solidarity-building function, in 2000, pungwes appear to be solely
instruments of violence and intimidation (interviews with GAPWUZ officials 2000; NDI
2000).

Pungwes were commonplace in the period prior to the elections and, as during
war time, coercion played a major role in participation in the rallies. Farmers received
threats that if they did not provide transportation for workers to the pungwes, their homes
would be burned, they would be killed or beaten, as well as a myriad of other threats such
as threats against their families and threats to burn down their workers’ village (farmer
interviews 2000). Farm workers and villagers were also threatened into participating and
attending. Informants indicate that the pungwes, in many cases, ended late in the night
with the war veterans sending home the male farm workers and remaining with women
and girls for sex (interviews with GAPWUZ officials 2000).

Pre-election violence in Zimbabwe in 2000 served as a coercive force through
public forms of violence which was used to discipline not only those physically tortured,
but more importantly as a form of deterrent torture, to serve as a threat to those who
escaped such physical violence (Tindale 1996). For example, in one particularly
gruesome case, the bodies of two victims of political violence were displayed on the
porch of a store front in a small resort town (Daily News). The two individuals had been
among a group severely assaulted on an invaded farm which local farm workers were

forced to observe. Among farmers, the deterrent torture emerged through the beatings

147

and deaths of fellow farmers, notably, MDC activists or supporters. For farm workers, it
came much closer, in their villages, communities and homes.

It is important to note that the numbers in both Table 4.6 and Table 4.7 (below)
should be considered rough estimates. It is widely believed by CFU and GAPWUZ that
the human rights violations reported here represent the tip of the iceberg. The data
included in both tables were produced by surveys conducted in situations of on-going
violence, in communities where many workers fled violence, and research was conducted
with a sample of commercial farmers. Therefore, it is expected that the data on farm
workers is grossly under-represented, particularly in the case of rapes. Table 4.7 includes
data on human rights violations recorded by the National Employment Council for the
Agricultural Industry (N EC) and includes pre-election human rights violations both on
farms and in Zimbabwe at large. According to NEC (2000) research, 26 deaths occurred
related to political violence, and there were 1,593 reported assaults, and 11 cases of rape.
Property destruction accounted for 620 violations, while 427 persons were detained or
abducted. NEC found 1,383 cases of threats of assault, and 225 death threats. Over
3,000 people were displaced from their homes as of May 29, 2000 due to political

violence prior to the parliamentary election in Zimbabwe in 2000(N EC 2000).

148

Table 4.7
Pro-election Human Rights Violations

Deaths 26
Assaults l 593
l 1
destruction 620

Detention/ abduction 427
Assault threats 1383

Death threats 225

‘ 3000+
Total number of affected violations 10 419
Source: NEC, 2000

 

The data in Tables 4.6 and 4.7, give us a rough sense of the election violence. As
of 29 May, 2000, over 10,000 persons had been affected by human rights violations that
had been reported (NEC 2000). Given the significance of the Gukurahundi” period in
creating a political culture dominated by fear, it is worthwhile to note that during the
three-year period documented by CCJPZ, 7,246 human rights violations were
documented; in the three month period documented by NEC, 10,419 violations occurred.
While the political violence in four months in the year 2000 involved more reported cases
to date than was reported for the Gukurahundi, during the latter, mass executions and
disappearances were commonplace (CCJPZ 1997) whereas during the former, the
majority of abuses involved assaults, threats, and destruction of property. Clearly, the
Gukurahundi period represents a much more intense and severe period of violence than

the invasions of 2000. I include a discussion of the Gukurahundi violence here in an

 

'3 Gukurahundi refers to the period of political violence in Zimbabwe in the mid-19805. See Chapter Two.

149

attempt to show a pattern of the use of violence for political intimidation by ZANU-PF as
well as to indicate the scale of violence in such a short period of time.

In farm worker communities, violence and intimidation severely impacted
livelihoods. Disruptions to farm activities resulted in loss of wages and in some cases
retrenchment of jobs. Farm workers have been forced out of their homes to make room
for war veterans on some farms. NGOs working with farm workers report that farm
workers have pulled children out of school out of fear that they will be assaulted or
abducted while traveling to school (interviews 2000). School children have been raped
and abducted. Farm worker housing has been destroyed, including the minimal property
farm workers may own. Humanitarian organizations are expecting thousands of

displaced persons due to the invasions (Zimbizi 2000).

Parliamentary Elections and State Terror and State Organized Violence as an
Electoral Strategy

Though the invasions tamed slightly during the elections (June 24—25), the desired
effect had been accomplished. Voters in provinces with high levels of farm invasions
and farm violence voted for ZANU-PF (Table 4.4 and 4.8 below). In Mashonaland
Central, while 68 percent of voters supported the ZANU-PF-backed constitution, 79
percent voted for the ruling party in the parliamentary elections, an increase of 10
percent. Mashonaland East showed more dramatic increases in ruling party support:
from 58 percent in the referendum to 72 percent in the election. In the province with the
third highest proportion of voters (64 percent) supporting ZANU-PF in the elections

(Mashonaland West), only 58 percent voted for the referendum. In the provinces with the

150

highest levels of farm invasion violence — Mashonaland Central, Mashonaland East, and
Mashonaland West — the proportion of voters voting for ZANU-PF significantly
increased between the referendum and the election.

In the areas with lower levels of invasion violence, the outcome was less clear. In
Midlands the proportion of ‘Yes’ voters and those voting for ZANU-PF remained similar,
61 percent and 58 percent respectively. Although Manicaland experienced little violence,
ZANU-PF support actually increased in the region between the referendum and the
elections from 34 percent voting ‘Yes’ to 44 percent voting for ZANU-PF. Matebeleland
North increased its support for MDC between the referendum and the elections from 52
percent to 71 percent, whereas in Matebeleland South voters showed increased support
for ZANU-PF, voting ‘Yes’ at 50 percent (over 47 percent voting ‘No’) and 56 percent
voting for ZANU-PF (only 39 percent voting MDC) in the parliamentary elections.
Masvingo also increased its support for ZANU-PF — 53 percent on the referendum and 57
percent during the election. While the terror experienced in these farming communities
was not as significant as in others, only in two provinces (Midlands and Matebeleland
North) did support for ZANU-PF decline. Voting patterns suggest that even in areas with
low levels of state organized violence and terror the electorate were effectively affected.
Overall, slightly more voters supported ruling ZANU-PF in the elections than in the

referendum.

151

Table 4.8
Referendum and Election Results by Region, Zimbabwe 2000

25% 73% 27%
23% 76% 13%
53% 43% 57%

34% 63% 44%
North 45% 52% 23%
Mashonaland East 5 8% 3 8% 72%
Matebeleland South 50% 47% 56% 39%
6 1 % 3 5% 5 8% 36%
Mashonaland West 58% 3 8% 64% 3 3%
Central 68% 30% 79% 20%
Total 44% 53% 47% 46%
Source: www.gta.gov.zw/President%20speeches/Statistics;
www.daiIynews.co.zw/daily/2000/June/June28/1 568.html

 

E The Provinces here are those defined by the Government of Zimbabwe (002). In previous tables on
invasion violence, the provinces are based on provinces as defined by the CFU for their organization and
differ slightly item the Col provinces. Specifically, CF U excludes the urban provinces of Harare and
Bulawayo, as there are no farms in those provinces. Additionally, the CFU has collapsed the two
Matebeleland provinces into one, and divided Mashonaland West into Northern and Southern provinces.

The final column in Table 4.8 reflects how state terror and organized violence
worked to deter voters’ support of MDC. By comparing the percentage difference
between those voting ‘No’ on the referendum with those voting for MDC, I argue that we
can see the effects of the violence and fear created by the state campaign of terror. In all
provinces except for Matebeleland North and Midlands (which increased support by 19
percent and one percent, respectively), support for the MDC decreased, overall by seven
percent. In the urban regions of Harare and Bulawayo, the decreases were two percent

and eight percent respectively. In Manicaland, there was a 16 percent decrease in support

152

for MDC, while in Mashonaland East the decrease reported wasl4 percent. Matebeleland
South recorded an eight percent decrease in MDC support, while Mashonaland West and
Mashonaland Central decreased five percent and 10 percent respectively. These changes
reflect the overall success of the campaign of violence and terror waged by ZANU-PF
utilizing the paramilitary force of war veterans to terrorize voters into voting for ZANU-
PF or not voting at all. The changes also reveal why the campaign was more successful
in some regions of the country and less so in others.

For example, the Mashonaland regions have historically been strongholds for
ZANU-PF politically. A ZANU-PF supported referendum to garner support as low as 45
percent in the Mashonaland regions alerted Mugabe and the regime that he had lost his
primary support base. Farms and later communal areas experienced more violence for
two reasons: (1) it was critical that Mugabe re-establish a base in his historical stronghold
by whatever means necessary, and (2) as discussed previously in this chapter, farms in
the Mashonaland regions were smaller in size, closer in proximity, and employed more
workers than game and cattle ranches in the Matebeleland regions which were distant
from each other and employed few workers; these geographical factors made violence in
the Mashonaland regions more efficient. In addition, historically, the ZANU-PF regime
lacked support in the Matebeleland regions, as well as in Manicaland. The Gukurahundi
period of the mid-1980’s deeply scarred the historical memory of Zimbabweans living in
Masvingo, Matebeleland, and Midlands.

Regions which experienced low-levels of physical violence demonstrate the
nature of how state terror operates. As Walter (2001) notes, terror includes the notion of

extreme psychic fear - a state which the regime in Zimbabwe intended to create through

153

its utilization of state terrorist techniques (Lopez 1984: 70). These included
disappearances, torture, extortion, lack of protection against crimes of others, and
‘thought reform’ (Lopez 1984: 70). Individuals did not have to experience the physical
violence personally — it was present in the daily newspapers, accounts of the torture of
farmers and farm workers. Through this, the media, whether implicitly or complicity
becomes an actor in perpetuating the state of terror as the entire nation witnesses, every

event, every horror, and the level of terror rises.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have traced the origins and timeline of the parliamentary election
invasions of 2000 that engendered the period of state terror and state organized violence I
am studying. I have demonstrated how the land invasions do not represent a movement
to take back the land, but rather represent a desperate act by a despotic leader in political
crisis. This chapter demonstrated the regime’s desire to maintain its own power and the
use of state terror to perpetuate that interest. Through state organized violence and terror
conceived by Mugabe and carried out by the war veterans on farms and in rural and urban
communities, Mugabe managed to terrorize voters into maintaining ZANU-PF’s
dominance. In the following chapter, I focus on strategies used by the CFU, GAPWUZ,

and farming communities to respond to the violence.

154

CHAPTER 5:
MANAGING STATE TERROR AND STATE ORGANIZED VIOLENCE:
THE COMMERCIAL FARMERS’ UNION (CFU),
THE GENERAL AGRICULTURAL AND PLANTATION WORKERS UNION OF

ZIMBABWE (GAPWUZ) AND COMMERCIAL FARMING COMMUNITIES

Introduction

In this chapter, I explore how organizations such as the CFU, GAPWUZ, as well
as commercial farming communities responded to state terror and state organized
violence during the invasions of 2000. Toward this end, I address three questions. First,
how did farmers and farm workers unite or divide in the face of this crisis? Second, what
were the strategies of survival that these organizations employed under such conditions of
violence to advocate for their clientele as well as ensure for organizational survival?
Third, in what ways did farming communities respond to the violence on farms or war
veterans in their communities? I argue that the land invasions brought farmers into new
forms of relationships with their workers under a common goal, while the CFU, through
its strategies, undermined those relationships, as well as one of its primary goals,
organizational survival.

I begin by examining the proactive coalition of farmers and farm workers united
in opposition to the farm invaders. Next, I turn to the CF U and describe how the
organization intervened both to protect its members and to ensure its own survival, in the
process placing a wedge between farmers and farm workers and abandoning the farm

workers to the violent invaders. Abandoned by the CFU and farmers, 1 demonstrate how

155

GAPWUZ lacked the organizational capacity to act on behalf of its constituency.
Finally, I turn to farming communities to examine the varied responses to invasions.
These community level responses illustrate the CFU’s impact on how farmers’ responded

to farm invasions. In my conclusions, I focus on the concept of survival.

Historical Relationships Between CFU/ GAPWUZ and Farmers/ Farm Workers

Prior to the farm invasions, the CFU and GAPWUZ operated primarily in
opposition. GAPWUZ and the CF U’s bargaining team, the Agricultural Labor Bureau
(ALB), met yearly to determine farm worker wages. GAPWUZ and the ALB jointly
investigated worker complaints of wrongful termination, violations of occupational health
and safety standards, and complaints about working conditions on farms (see Chapter
Two for a full discussion of these organizations). Additionally, relations between farmers
and farm workers were often tense. My interviews with farmers and farm workers in
1997-98 revealed poor working and living conditions for workers, as well as a volatile
work environment (see Chapter Two for a detailed discussion). The farm invasions,
however, brought a new — if temporary — alliance between the previously often

antagonistic relationship between farmers/ their workers and the CFU-ALB/ GAPWUZ.

Farmers/ Farm Workers Strategies

“Football Matches.” One of the first reactions to invasions and the violence
associated with them represented a response of cooperation between farmers and farm
workers as they united to defend farm workers, and ultimately, the farm -- the home and

source of income for both farmers and workers. In early March, farmers and farm

156

workers in four of the eight CFU regions united in a strategy identified as “football
teams.” Although the CF U advised farmers not to engage in confrontational behavior,
initially some farmers, primarily in the Mashonaland provinces, ignored the message. In
these communities, farmers responded to reports of on-going beatings of farm workers by
sending groups of neighboring farmers to observe events taking place. Farmers hoped
that their presence as non-interfering witnesses would encourage war vets to stop the
beatings and, according to farmers, usually it did. These response teams came to be
called “football teams” after a farm worker approached one of the farmers and asked if he
could join the farmers’ “football team” (Interview 6-1-00). Thus began the alliance
between farmers and farm workers. Though at first the teams were sent to observe only,
as farmers and farm workers worked together, a more aggressive position developed.
Farmers and farm workers united to defend their communities. Soon, male farm worker
youth were climbing onto lorries, supplied and sometimes driven by the farmers, by the
hundreds and riding from farm to farm to forcibly evict war veterans who they often
outnumbered. The farm workers arrived on invaded farms and chased the squatting war
vets away.

According to one CFU regional representative, the “football teams” offered
farmers and farm workers a way to defend themselves from the violence against farm
workers that had begun in March. One CFU regional representative described the
approach in the following way.

[W]hat happened is then the farm workers were quite pleased because
they saw this as a way of defending themselves, and said, well can’t we go
together, literally, can we join the football team, and the actual phrase
came from the farm workers saying can we join the football team. But, it

got a little bit out of hand. In some cases there were 300 people walked
onto a place where there were 50 invaders and say time to move off, and

157

the most difficult time I had in this whole phase was actually persuading
farmers that that was not the right thing to do. I had to go to the farmers
who were orchestrating this and say this is not the way to handle it. And
because of the natural cycle of violence, we would go there with numbers,
intimidate them [war veterans] off. Their first reaction would be to come
back with bigger numbers, they would fail in the numbers game. You
know, there are 350,000 workers, that’s before you start taking the
unemployed people who are living on farms. The war vets would fail in
the numbers game. So, it would be an escalation until the farm workers
contingent were bigger than the war vets could muster and then the only
option is to take out weapons and that’s what we started to see. It started
with some petrol bombs being thrown around. Only when that happened,
did farmers realize that they’d overstepped with starting a cycle of
violence that they couldn’t see through to its conclusion (Interview 5-1-
00).
Although eventually the “football team” approach was flawed, in the short term it
brought immediate success in that several farms were instantly free from invaders. In
some areas, entire communities were cleared of invasions in a couple of days as trucks of
predominately farm workers, and some farmers, swept through the community, chasing
off veterans farm by farm. The strategy was, however, short-lived and short-sighted as it
provoked further anger and violence from war vets. Farms where the “football teams”
evicted war vets were later re-invaded, often by greater numbers of veterans with
increased hostility (Interview 5-1-00; 6-7-00). Notably, the region in which the strategy
first emerged (Mashonaland Central) has one of the highest rates of invasions and reports
of violence (see Table 4.4 in Chapter 4). This strategy is unique in that farmers and farm
workers worked together toward a united goal of preventing violence on the farms where
they live and work. Once the CF U convinced its members to abandon this approach,
however, the situation of workers became more precarious.

Several of my informants noted, that in their interactions with state oflicials, the

trustworthiness of farm workers had come under question by regime leaders following

158

the referendum. As indicated in the CFU affidavit cited in Chapter Four, ZANU-PF
regime leaders promised an “anti—farm worker campaign.” The regime perceived farm
workers to be aligned with the opposition and considered them foreigners (Fieldnotes 3-
28-00). ZANU-PF/ regime leaders quickly seized on the “football team” approach as
evidence of “the white man’s army” (Fieldnotes 3-28-00). While farmers and farm
workers united to form “football teams” in March to drive out invaders, by the end of
March the limitations of that strategy had begun to surface and the CFU brought
considerable pressure to regional and local leaders to quit the “football matches.” Once
the CFU convinced farmers not to engage in “football teams,” farm workers were on their
own to defend themselves. As I discuss in more detail in Chapter Six, farm workers

engaged in a variety of survival/ resistance strategies.

Farmer/ Farm Worker Unity — The Case of Dave Stevens.I The landscape of
farm invasions changed on April 15, 2000 when a white farmer and his black farm
manager in Mashonaland East were abducted and eventually killed. According to Dave
Steven’s wife Maria, war veterans on their farm, Arizona farm, had sexually assaulted
(possibly raped) a young woman (as was common on many invaded farms) (Zimbabwe
Independent 4-28-00). During the assault, when the brother of the young woman
intervened, the veterans assaulted him. Other farm workers and Stevens responded to the
assault and the workers ultimately drove the war veterans off the farm on the evening of
Friday April 14, 2000. The following morning, the ZRP responded to war veteran

complaints that farm workers had assaulted them, detaining several farm workers and

 

' This case is well known publicly and the information here draws from public sources, therefore, I do not
use a pseudonym.

159

leaving a police presence on the farm. Later that morning, the war veterans returned,
armed and with their numbers buttressed. The veterans overwhelmed the ZRP on the
scene and abducted Dave Stevens and his farm manager at gunpoint (CFU F IU 4-17-00).

A team of five farmers from the community had responded to Stevens’ radio calls
when the situation intensified and encountered the three war veteran vehicles on the road
as they approached Stevens’ farm. The farmers saw that Stevens was handcuffed, and
they proceeded to follow the war veterans to a nearby town. The vehicles headed straight
to the local ZANU-PF headquarters where the war veterans fired upon the farmers’
vehicle, causing the farmers to seek refuge in the local police station. The veterans
entered the station and abducted the five farmers from the station with no interference or
resistance from the police. The men were then split into three groups — one individual
farmer, and two groups of two. The two groups of two men were each detained and
severely assaulted through Sunday. The individual farmer and Stevens were driven away
from the town and seveme assaulted in front of a small group of locals. Eventually,
Stevens was shot and killed at point blank range. The remaining farmer’s life was spared
when a woman in the crowd pleaded for him, based on the assistance he had offered to
the local CA in the past. The farmer and Stevens’ body were delivered to a hospital on
Sunday the 16th (CFU F IU 4-17-00; F ieldnotes 4-30-00). The farm manager’s body was
found about a week later.

In the case of Stevens, the relationship between a farmer and his workers, and
their joint opposition to abuses by invading war veterans resulted in the deaths of Stevens
and his manager. Stevens was known for the strong relations he had with his workers

and his innovative approaches to on-farm worker incentive programs. He had

160

experimented with offering workers profit-sharing in the farm and was constantly trying
to improve conditions on the farm for his workers. His vision for an improved society
also included political involvement. Stevens was a rural district council member and
active in the MDC in his community (Fieldnotes 4-23-00).
One CFU Regional Representative expressed the pressure of decision-making
while living under the routinization of fear (I will return to this concept in Chapter 6).
When Dave Stevens was killed, it was then life-threatening, by realizing
the extent to which this group was willing to go. Our normal principals
are compromised and we’ve had to get into survival mode. And this is
what is most, I think this is psychologically going to be the biggest
damage, all the principles we’re used to, stand up for your rights, right and
wrong, law and order, have all been compromised and to survive, we had
to compromise our own principles because to make a stand about shooting
a mombe [cow] could cost you your family, your life it’s as simple as that
(interview 6/1/00).
Green (1995:105-106) notes that “Fear is the arbiter of power — invisible, indeterminate,
and silent. ...” In the quote above, the CFU Regional Representative revealed how the
power of fear controlled many farmers’ decision-making following the death of Stevens.
Stevens’ death signaled an important shift in farm invasions. War veterans were
now prepared to act on the numerous death threats they had given to farmers. On April
18, 2000, only days after Stevens’ death, the second farmer, Martin Olds, was killed, this
time in Matebeleland. Olds was also active in MDC. Three weeks later, Alan Dunn and
John Weeks were killed. Dunn was active in MDC, and the Weeks’ murder was
classified as political by the CF U. The war veterans and ZANU-PF were making
examples of farmers active in MDC, similar to the killings of MDC activists in other

communities within Zimbabwe. Stevens, Olds, and Dunn — all MDC activists — most

likely were targeted for their political activity, as were many other farmers who were

161

active in opposition politics and experienced attempts on their lives in the election
invasion period.

On the day of Olds’ murder (April 18), two white women on a farm on the
outskirts of Harare were gang-raped. The rapists shouted political slogans at the women
during the rapes. The two women were relatives of a CFU leader (Daily Mail &
Guardian 4-20—00).

Beginning in mid-April and coinciding with the first killings, farmers became
more willing to concede to demands by veterans, and these demands intensified. With
the “football team” approach a forgotten strategy, the situation for workers rapidly
deteriorated. From the start, the CF U put pressure on regional CFU leaders to stop the
“football teams,” despite their initial success and the demonstration of solidarity with
farm workers that has not been seen since. Many farmers were sympathetic to their
workers’ vulnerable position, but the CFU increasingly stressed the importance of
meeting veterans’ demands (interviews). The continued emphasis on meeting war
veteran demands under conditions of violence as a form of local negotiation represents
what Mertz (2002: 357) considers violence survivors’ inaccurate view of themselves:
“they must imagine themselves inhabiting a world in which there is ...some possibility of
reaching, reasoning, or connecting with the people who hold the power of life and death.”
The CFU must envision a world in which it still maintains a position of political and
economic power and influence in Zimbabwe. The leaders of the CF U could not concede
that there were no real negotiations taking place, that every negotiation was followed
with increasing numbers of farm invasions and violence against farmers and, even more

so, against farm workers.

162

CFU Strategies to Manage State Terror

From the outset of the invasions, the CFU was concerned with two primary
objectives: (1) advocating for, and protecting, their clientele; and (2) organizational
survival. The CFU played on the farmers’ fears for their and their families’ lives to
ensure that its goals were met. In its attempt to safeguard commercial farming (and thus
its raison d ’etre for existing), the CFU abandoned farm workers by creating a wedge
between them and farm owners. In pursuing its objectives, the CF U took the approach
that the leadership based in Harare understood how best to handle the crisis rather than its
members on farms throughout the country who were living the invasions on a daily basis.
What emerged amidst the crisis of state terror and organized violence, was a crisis within
the CFU about how to handle the invasions.

Since the beginning of the farm invasions of 2000, the CFU has engaged in
multiple strategies on multiple fronts in their attempts to resolve the state terror and
organized violence. As such, the CFU has instituted numerous strategies including legal
challenges, engaging with domestic and international press, negotiating with war vets,
government officials and international actors in their attempts to manage insecurity on
farms, quelling internal dissent in an attempt to sustain the loyalty of its members, and
organizing stress management workshops.

The Courts. First, the CFU from the outset has attempted to demonstrate the
illegality of the land invasions and subsequent acquisitions for the Fast Track
resettlement plan. In various cases they have sought to establish that (l) the invasions

were illegal and required that individuals (such as war vet leader Hunzvi and former

163

Mashonaland Central Governor Border Gezi) refrain from encouraging further invasions;
(2) the police commissioner had responsibility to instruct local police to protect farmers
and farm workers from invasion violence and prevent further invasions; (3) the Fast
Track plan was unconstitutional due to the conditions of violence and insecurity existing
on farms; and (4) the government had not followed Zimbabwean law regarding the
acquisition process. In 2000, the CF U had prevailed in all its court cases, despite threats
by war vets against judges involved in such cases. Despite the favorable rulings for the
CFU, the court cases did not effect any changes on the ground. The regime refused to
comply with the rulings. In Harare, the leaders pursued this course relentlessly, not
recognizing how the social rules and fabric of society had been altered by violence and
terror. As Green (1995: 108-109) notes, “Routinization [of terror] allows people to live
in a chronic state of fear with a facade of normalcy at the same time that terror permeates
and shreds the social fabric.”

The Press. Second, the CF U has strategically engaged the domestic and foreign
press as a means to convey their side of the story to Zimbabweans and the international
community. The use of the media was a delicate dance for the union, however. While
the union hoped to convey the urgency of the situation on farms, it was also concerned
about scaring off international buyers for its important tobacco producers. Through the
media, the CF U sought to demonstrate to government officials and war vets that it was an
apolitical organization, while also seeking to demonstrate to fellow Zimbabweans that
“apolitical” does not imply support for the current regime. In this light,“ CFU repeatedly

discouraged national, regional and local leaders from using their position within the

164

n.—

union or union meetings to express support for opposition politics, a move which angered
some within the union’s membership.

“Jaw-Jaw.” Third, the CFU attempted to negotiate — formally and informally —
with government officials, war vets, and international donors and governments regarding
the land invasions. Shortly after the invasions began, CF U leaders recognized the need to
“jaw-jaw” rather than to allow members to respond in kind with violence. CFU leaders
began meeting with government officials and, under the advice of President Mugabe, put
forth a negotiating team to meet with war vet leaders to diffuse “hot spots” throughout
the country. The union communicated with regional and international leaders, and
negotiated with donors and the UNDP in attempts to create a solution to the land problem
agreeable to the CFU, the Zimbabwean regime, and donor agencies. Throughout the
various levels of negotiation, the CFU continued to stress the importance of maintaining a
viable large-scale agricultural industry and the safety of farming commrmities. While the
CF U continued to defend this position, their perpetual negotiation with a state negotiating
in bad faith reflected an unstable view of themselves created by the routinization of fear
or terror. As Mertz (2002:357) puts it, “What sort of agency is this, .. . that refuses to
acknowledge its own powerlessness—that insists on finding a ‘normal order’ where none
exists, a ‘human’ response where inhumanity is prevailing, safety where there is danger?”
CFU leaders could not acknowledge the limitations of their agency as an organization
within the context of state terror and organized violence.

Manage internal strife. Fourth, the CF U attempted to quell dissension within its
own ranks and maintained the position that it was critical that farmers represent a united

front in the invasion crisis (field notes). One of the early areas of contention between the

165

CFU leaders and members (as represented by their elected regional officers at CFU
Council Meetings) during invasions was the issue of politics. In negotiations with CF U
leaders, regime leaders accused farmers of coordinating the activities of the MDC, the
opposition party. Vice President Msika, the CIO, and army officials warned CFU leaders
that if farmers continued to support the opposition party, farm invasions would “explode”
(Standard 4-2-00). Farmers accused CF U leaders of allowing themselves to be
blackmailed by the regime and expressed anger toward them for pressuring CFU
members to disassociate themselves from the MDC (Standard 4-2-00). As one farmer I
interviewed said in response to CF U pressure that its members remain apolitical, “I’m
MDC and anyone who wants to get on the fence I’ll shake it so bloody hard they’ll fall
off” (F ieldnotes 3-28-00). Another farmer also questioned the CFU’s warnings to its
members (Fieldnotes 3-28-00):
The question of MDC is important. We’re between a rock and a hard
place. We’re playing in a so-called democracy. Individuals should be
able to get involved — members should stand for whoever they want. The
problem is ZANU-PF threats. CFU is an apolitical organization, but we’ll
get the fallout anyway. We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t so
we might as well do it.
Farmers’ concerns over CFU directives to withdraw from political activities also centered
on concerns over being perceived as aligning themselves with ZANU-PF and abandoning
farm workers and the nation at large (interviews). Farmers expressed concern that
despite CFU claims of being an apolitical organization, the CFU historically has “leaned
to ZANU-PF and appeasement and expediency rather than what’s right. .-.. We’ve
prostituted ourselves to keep our land. The old establishment in agriculture don’t give a

damn about the country, they only want to continue farming. ...[CFU] is all crisis

management” (Interview 5-16-00). These farmers’ concerns over hiding their political

166

views simply because they were CFU members demonstrated one aspect of frustration
farmers felt towards the CPU leaders in Harare. While advising farmers to minimize
participation in and support of MDC, the CF U also advised farmers to heed war veterans’
demands, out of concerns for “safety.” Increasingly, these demands involved
transportation for workers to ZANU-PF rallies. The CFU was complicit in the political
intimidation of farm workers and did nothing to encourage alternative perspectives.

At one CFU meeting in mid-May after several weeks in which farmers had been
providing material support to invasions by responding to war veteran demands (for food,
transport, and the like, see Chapter Four), a farmer challenged the union leadership and
farmers present at the meeting by talking about the impact of the violence on farm
workers and the need to stand in solidarity with workers. He noted that GAPWUZ had
expressed willingness to support a nation-wide strike on farms in unity with farmers
because the group was concerned over the inaction of the CF U to protect workers and to
ameliorate the impact of invasions on farmers and fanning. The suggestion, however,
was overlooked by CF U. Concerns about farm workers were repeated at various
meetings over the invasion period, but never taken seriously by CFU leaders. CFU
pressed on with its key message, keep farmers on the land and respond to demands for
provisions and transport for ZANU-PF rallies as long as farmers were under duress.
Once again, the routinization of terror functioned to alter CF U leaders’ perceptions and
kept them believing that the individuals with whom they negotiated, did so in good faith.

Despite several pleas from representatives within the CF U Council to take a more
radical approach, the leadership continued to attempt to persuade members of the wisdom

of its approach and to deny more aggressive actions. In April, following the death of the

167

third farmer, the exchange during one Council meeting demonstrated the delicate
situation of an organization attempting to both protect its members’ lives and maintain a
large membership base for organizational survival:

Leader A: Our primary objective has got to be keeping people on farms
farming. We’ve talked about farming shut downs, that’ll go against us. If
guys chuck their keysz— our job is to keep farmers on the land.

Council Member A: The War vets want us to chuck our keys in.

Leader A: The banks aren’t going to be aggressive, they’re owned by
London, New York.

Council Member B: We have these quiet areas; how many farmers are
going to be taken out before something gets done? ****-* was a quiet area
until yesterday.

Leader A: I understand—

Council Member C: I don’t want to be negative, but it appears we are
being strung along until that *** [Mugabe] is back in power. What are the
costs to bear? Is it a farmer a fortnight? If so, for how long? You’ve said
there are two heads: government and the CFU. The head of government
has a plan. He’s adhering to it and he’s winning. He’s winning ZANU-PF
votes all over. He’s moving into areas, we’ve said, touch wood3 [sic], not
here. He’ll move into the suburbs, he’s not going to take no for an answer
this time. He is stringing us along. The minister at Stevens’ funeral said,
“This is not an incident, this is a murder.” Again, yesterday, [Dunn]4 was
not breathing, there was damage to his arms, they were broken to pieces.
All the blows were aimed at his head. He was an exceptional man. He
stood up for principles. He was prepared to do jobs in his district that no
one else wanted to do. They’re stringing us along. I’m finding it difficult
to accept that these guys, the good guys are, why in deaths. Two weeks
ago we felt a little better, ah, again, sorry no solutions. We’re dancing to
that evil man’s tune. It’s a horror. The 1000 keys on the table are coming
(Fieldnotes 5/8/00).

 

2 It had been suggested previously in the debate that all farmers turn in their keys to the banks as a form of
protest and to attempt to force the banking community to publicly support farmers as had other sectors of
the economy and society.

3 The farmer meant “knock on wood” for good luck.

‘ Alan Dunn was the third farmer killed. His name is on the public record, therefore I do not use a
pseudonym.

168

Council Member C pointed out that the CF U was being strung along by Mugabe while he
went around the country collecting votes, and asked how many farmers had to die before
CFU was prepared to take a radical step. The CFU leader never answered his question
and the debate continued until members ultimately returned to the position of the CF U
leadership (Fieldnotes 5/8/00). Through this and other Council meetings, the CFU
leadership continued to repeat their position and recommended course of action until it
was adopted. The CFU Council was a place for regional leaders to voice concerns, but,
ultimately, the leadership guided the decision-making process (F ieldnotes). On more
than one occasion, disagreements with Council decisions resulted in the resignation of
Council Members due to conflicting views over the proper course of action (Fieldnotes,
interviews). Therefore, several dissenting voices were driven out of the CF U Council
through sheer frustration.

The CF U used several strategies to silence dissenting voices within the CFU
Council. In one instance, 3 CFU leader questioned the constitutionality of a regional
councilor reading aloud a resolution from his province during members’ privilege.

Council Member A: I would like to put forward a resolution that I would
like to be addressed. Can this be discussed so I can go back to my people

and tell them something? . ..

CFU Leader A: Can I read it? (He reads it silently.) How was this voted
for?

Council Member A: 100%

Council Member B5: All Farmer Association Chairmen voted for it.

CF U Leader A: This is not a signed document, has it been seen by all the
Farmer Association Chairmen?

Council Member A: They agreed in principle.

 

5 Council Members A &B are both from the same region in this case.

169

CFU Leader A: This is not a legal resolution according to our constitution
(F ieldnotes 8-22-00).

The CF U leader then proceeded to explain that the resolution could not be debated
because first, it had not been properly submitted as a formal agenda item, and second, it
was improper to submit a resolution as representing a regional perspective based only on
verbal communication with FA Chairs (Fieldnotes 8-22-00). The resolution proposed
that the CFU appoint a task force to investigate:

1. Rescinding all title of Agricultural land to the state subject to
compensation by foreign donors.

2. Actively negotiate with donors and Government methods by which
compensation can be paid directly to members and to their best
advantage.

3. Encourage an all embracing and independent Land Commission to
oversee any transference of land.

(Resolution to Council 8-22-00).
The authors of the resolution hoped that such actions would depoliticize and de-racialize
the land issue, force the regime to reconsider its strategy of state violence, and offer
farmers choices (emigrate, lease back their farm, or change careers) (Resolution to
Council 8-22-00). This was not a proposal which the CFU leadership approved because
included in its solutions were options for farmers to sell their land in foreign currency to
the regime, an option the CFU did not want as it would decrease its membership base.
Further, according to this resolution, all agricultural land would be state owned and
leased to large scale farmers. The resolution would challenge the current role of the CF U
if many farmers opted to leave Zimbabwe. Additionally, the CFU could not be sure how
changes in land ownership patterns — from ownership of large farms to leasing

arrangements — might alter farmers’ participation with the CF U. Therefore, the CFU

attempted to keep the resolution off the floor for debate.

170

In an attempt to at least appear to be including more farmers in the decision-
making process, CFU invited all FA Chairs to two day-long workshops to strategize
about the land invasions. Each FA Chair was told to bring one or two other farmers from
his FA to the workshops. The first workshop, held May 24, 2000, focused on gaining
support for a CF U press release, sending FA Chairs back into their communities in the
hope that inroads had been made into solving the invasion violence, and convincing
farmers (via FA Chairs) to submit to war veteran demands to avoid violence (F ieldnotes
5-24-00). In this meeting, the need to bring relief to the farm workers was raised only by
farmers. CF U responded that they were negotiating with police about the forced
attendance at ZANU-PF rallies, but advised farmers to provide the transportation should
war veterans demand it to ferry workers to meetings against their will. Thus, the CFU
was willing to sacrifice farm workers as primary targets of violence.

The second workshop, on August 8, 2000, was structured differently. The
workshop was participatory with debate centered on whether to continue to pursue the
CFU’s approach of lawsuits and negotiations, or to force the union to consider a more
radical stance. Several F As had proposed resolutions including withholding tobacco
from the tobacco selling floors until after August 15, 2000,6 threatening not to plant next
season’s crops unless there was a return to law and order, and sending a task force
overseas to lobby for donor support and assistance in resolving the land issue. The CF U
leaders split the farmers into four groups to discuss the issues and to come up with
alternative courses of action than those the CFU had taken thus far before reconvening.

The four different groups proposed different options ranging from participating in a

 

6 Tobacco was Zimbabwe’s largest foreign exchange earner at the time and the country was short of forex.
August 15, 2000 was a significant date in many resolutions because banks required farmers to provide a
letter of “no interest” from the 002 by this date in order to secure seasonal loans for the coming year.

171

national shutdown/ strike (which had been called for by some human rights
organizations) to “drastic” measures such as not paying taxes and closing all bank
accounts (to get the banks to support them) and to grassroots lobbying by farmers among
CA residents about the need for every farmer to receive a letter of “no interest” by
August 15, 2000 (F ieldnotes 8-8-00). Ultimately, at the end of the day, the leadership
effectively argued against the alternative proposals from break-out groups, as well as the
resolutions proposed at the beginning of the meeting, and the larger group “voted” for the
same CF U agenda that had been in place from the beginning — to continue with lawsuits
and negotiations (Fieldnotes 8-8-00).

Even this surface level democratic decision-making within the CFU did not last
long. Within less than two weeks, the CFU leadership withdrew one of the lawsuits that
directly implicated President Mugabe, causing a flurry of unrest among farmers within
the provinces. Farmers in one FA drafted a resolution and emailed it to other FA Chairs
asking that their FA sign on to the resolution for the CF U Executive Council Meeting
scheduled for August 18, 2000. The resolution expressed concern for the “seemingly
unilateral decision taken to withdraw the legal proceedings instituted by the CFU” and
demanded that the lawsuit continue to be pursued or the FA Chairs would demand the
resignation of two leaders of the CF U (Resolution to CFU Executive Council 8-18-00).
The email resulted in an emergency CF U Council Meeting at which an apologetic CFU
leader explained his reasoning for the change in the CF U’s course of action, and said he
would change the course back, if that was so desired. No such changes were called for.
Again, the CF U leaders convinced the Council Members that the CF U’s perspective was

the correct one.

172

The CF U faced internal strife over its handling of the invasions almost
immediately. First, the CFU was criticized for attempting to dictate its members’
political involvement. Ultimately, the result of its advice to members resulted in defacto'
political support for ZANU-PF by farmers. Second, the CFU ignored suggestions by its
members in the CF U Council to take a more proactive/ radical stance, as well as to
consider how the invasions were impacting farm workers. Third, dissenting voices were
silenced by a variety of means including talking around their point until they gave up,
frustrating them until they resigned, and using the union’s constitution to keep a
resolution off the floor. Finally, the attempt at participatory decision-making was an
exercise in the leaders’ abilities to effectively argue their original perspective, as the
leaders ignored all suggestions made by the farmers and convinced the farmers of their
original perspective. When the CFU leadership changed course less than two weeks
later, without consulting the membership, members were furious and attempted to
overthrow the top leaders. An emergency meeting was called at which the CFU leaders
explained their actions and convinced the Council Members that their new course of
action was the correct one. The experience, however, still left a bitter taste in the mouth
of many farmers.

Workshops. Finally, the CF U organized a series of Stress Management
Workshops for CFU members. Originally, only one workshop was scheduled, but the
response was so overwhelming, the CF U scheduled several additional workshops to
accommodate the demand. The workshops emphasized how families should cope with
the stress of living under farm invasions and how living under chronic fear impacted

personal relationships (Fieldnotes 6/9/00). In this way, CFU attempted to strategize to

173

1.54.1.1.-le .A

..

 

maintain unity as well as protect its members from the psychological impact of invasions.
By bringing farmers and their families together to discuss stress management, the CFU
encouraged a national sense of community among farmers, a feeling that was important
in a period when the ZANU-PF regime had labeled white farmers “enemies of the state”
and many white farmers’ sense of national identity was challenged (see Chapter 6).
Overall, the CF U maintained the attitude that the “expert” leaders were most
competent to make the decisions regarding how to handle the invasions, rather than
trusting their own members who were living it daily. This attitude lead to tensions within
the CFU Council. Additionally, the CF U leadership centered its attention so narrowly on
advocating for farmers and preserving the union that it did little to advocate for farm

workers.

GAPWUZ

It was difficult for GAPWUZ to craft survival strategies to advocate for their
clientele. GAPWUZ representatives were barred fiom going to many farms by war
veterans and risked abduction/ torture on entering others (interviews). Given the small
remittances of dues by its members, GAPWUZ also had limited financial means for
general operations. Therefore, throughout the invasions the organization attempted to
support its members by issuing press releases, but GAPWUZ was not invited to
negotiations with war vets and the CFU by the ZANU-PF regime.

GAPWUZ expressed support for the CF U initially during the invasions as
evidenced by statements of the farm worker union leader. In a press statement released

in March (GAPWUZ 2000), GAPWUZ leader Philip Munyanyi said,

174

fie: It). nu. life's .. J1

 

GAPWUZ the trade union registered and certified to represent farm
workers expresses its solidarity with them [CFU] and notes with great
concern what has been happening on commercial farms in Zimbabwe.
Our Field Representatives have reported numerous cases of intimidation,
assault, theft and destruction of property. These senseless acts not only
threaten our very fragile agro-based economy but also the jobs of
thousands of farm workers and the livelihood of the people behind them.
GAPWUZ have always supported land reform but not at the expense of
farm workers. Farm workers are the backbone of the economy and are not
pawns to be played with. They are people who should always be treated
with dignity and respect and this is the stance that we have taken in the
past and will continue to take in the future.
in the strongest terms we urge those people interfering with [farm
workers] to stop doing so immediately.
In this statement, the leader of GAPWUZ carefully worded his concern for commercial
farming as an industry and for farm workers in particular. GAPWUZ field
representatives throughout the nation received reports of violence and/or intimidation
from farm workers. Under the guise of investigating workplace complaints as the
organizations previously had, the ALB and GAPWUZ began attempting to investigate
farms with cases of extreme violence against farm workers. Soon, GAPWUZ’s efforts to
investigate were stopped following the abduction and torture of an ALB/GAPWUZ
investigating team. The team members’ lives were threatened and they endured mild
assaults (Interviews 5-18-00, 8-4-00, and 4-28-00).
In late-April, the position of farm workers in the face of invasions was
exacerbated further as evidenced by the establishment of a negotiation team of war
veterans and the CFU at the suggestion of President Mugabe. GAPWUZ representatives

were absent from the table. The government, war veterans, and CF U formed a task force

to deal with “flash points,” but GAPWUZ representatives were not invited to participate.

175

According to GAPWUZ representatives I interviewed, the union felt its members’
interests were not represented in the task force and they felt abandoned by the CF U.
Farmers’ provision of transport and other material goods for war veterans, at the advice
of the CFU leadership, only further exposed farm workers to invasion violence
(interviews).

GAPWUZ had difficulty advocating for its clientele in the face of invasions due
to financial limitations. The union attempted to appeal to Zimbabweans through the
media. Additionally, GAPWUZ aligned itself with the ALB in a way that altered their
relationship by investigating the violence as a team. Historically, ALB and GAPWUZ
representatives jointly investigated farm worker or workers complaints on commercial
farms. While the representative would work together to find resolution to the situation,
GAPWUZ represented the interests of the farm worker and the ALB represented the
interests of the farmer. In short, they occupied adversarial roles. The farm invasion
violence and terror transformed this relationship as ALB and GAPWUZ joined forces to

investigate the violence on farms, particularly violence against farm workers.

Community Responses

Although initially farmers responded to invasion violence in solidarity with farm
workers, pressure from the CFU to alter these strategies resulted in many communities
following CFU advice that benefited them and disadvantaged farm workers. At the local
level, white farming communities responded to the immediate threats and insecurities in a
variety a ways. These responses varied by community and over time. Factions of war

veterans who competed over the same farms complicated the responses of farmers.

176

1....1...l..l......1._ .11 a... .
m . .

Throughout the crisis, farmers attempted to manage violence relying on strategies, many
recommended by the CFU, that include negotiation and strengthening community ties.

Despite the proactive approach in Mashonaland provinces early on which united
farmers and workers (i.e., the “football team” approach), most farmers and farming
communities responded to the invasions through negotiation. Negotiations involved a
variety of actors depending on the local circumstances. In some areas, a farmer
negotiated directly with war vets who invaded his farm while in other areas, specially
appointed security teams negotiated with war vets without the affected farmer’s
involvement. Farmer Association chairs led negotiations in other areas (CF U Regional
Interviews; FA Questionnaires; interviews).

For example, as one Farmer Association (FA) Chair from Mashonaland Central
noted, in his FA, the farmer usually negotiated with war veterans with the aid of one to
two additional farmers (FA Questionnaire 6/9/00). Specifically, he noted,

It depends on the individual farmers and the War Vets in question.
With the “shock” tactic used by W.V. arrival unannounced — usually with
a crowd of 10-50 chanting, singing, drum beating (sometimes drunk)
supporters — some farmers were visibly shaken.

, In these circumstances, one/two/three farmers will go to their
assistance. Sometimes this is merely moral support in the form of a
presence; as certain WV will not speak to anyone other than the farmer
whose farm they have invaded.

But the norm is to get at least one other persons [sic] to the scene
for moral support. . ..

We believe that is has helped to “keep the lid on it.” This is a
numbers game. You stir it up and they come back treble the numbers of
supporters.

We have dealt with four different groups in this area. The mood of
any one group can differ from on [sic] a day to day basis — depending on
what sort of support gallery they are play too [sic], and whether they are
under the influence of drugs/ alcohol (FA Questionnaire 6/9/00).

177

 

The outcome of different community responses was as varied as the responses
themselves. While the FA Chair in Mashonaland Central reported that he felt the strategy
in his F A was successful, this was not the case for a FA Chair from Matebeleland who
noted that in his FA negotiations were generally not successful. According to the Chair
from Matabeleland, individual farmers negotiated with war veterans by him/ herself
during invasions. The Matabeleland FA Chair noted, “Each group of invaders has
different agenda no common rules to work to [sic]” (FA Questionnaire 8/21/00).

By using negotiation, communities established agreements that they hoped would
secure temporary peace and security from war vet hostility. Negotiation included both
elements of compliance to war vets’ demands and the subversion of war vets’ activities.
For example, one farmer in the low-veldt established an arrangement with war vets in his
area in which he provided the invaders with mealie-meal and kapenta in exchange for the
invaders remaining camped on an abandoned farm adjacent to his and did not interfere
with his farming.7 In Midlands, one FA chair took a non-confrontational approach from
the beginning of the invasions. In his community, farmers and war vets worked together
to find local solutions and policed farms for illegal poaching. Following the regime’s
publication in early June of a list of 804 farms to be acquired by the government, the FA
chair and farmers collectively decided to concede the hectares designated by the list in
their community. The farmers proposed different lands than those listed, but created a
plan that offered the same hectares to the local war vets. On presenting the plan to the
local war vets, invasions stopped and farmers and war vets worked together to resettle the
assigned land (interview 8/5/00). It was unclear whether this strategy would be respected

at the national level as the regime continued with resettlement when I left Zimbabwe.

 

7 Mealie-meal is the staple food in Zimbabwe. Kapenta is a dried fish used for relish.

178

‘ ' (4‘. V
L

I'.
l e

-4

In one community I visited, a group of farmers openly began courting a
relationship with the neighboring Government of Mozambique to explore the option of
settling there and establishing tobacco farms with the financial backing of tobacco
companies. While this strategy appealed to some farmers, others worried that they would
spend 20 years building up a farm and then have something similar to what happened in
Zimbabwe take place (F ieldnotes 5/25/00).

The final strategy used by farmers has been strengthening community ties. In
recent years the CF U has stressed the importance of communities expanding both their
communications and security networks. Through the installation of farm community
two-way radio systems, the expansion in cellular phone lines, and the intemet, distant
farming communities are able to communicate among themselves and with the national
CFU headquarters on a daily basis. Farming communities instituted daily radio roll calls
and security briefings to ensure that local members remained informed about the situation

in their community and nationwide.

Conclusion

First, overall the invasions brought workers and farm owners into new
relationships as they struggled to defend a common goal, the farm, which represented the
economic livelihood and homes of both groups. Farmers and workers united, albeit
briefly, under the “football team” approach, and in cases such as that of Dave Stevens in
support of their common interest. Second, the CF U relied on multiple strategies to
confront the invasion. Specifically, the CF U engaged the courts, the press, and

negotiated with war veterans and the regime. Further, the CFU attempted to resolve

179

disputes within the union and conducted a variety of workshops for members.

GAPWUZ, on the other hand, lacked the institutional capacity to advocate for its
members. GAPWUZ issued press releases, but was not invited to the negotiating table by
the regime or the CFU. Third, farming communities negotiated in a variety of ways with
war veterans.

CFU strategies designed to preserve the union and protect! advocate for farmers
did not necessarily aid farm workers. CFU leaders advised farmers to cede to war
veteran demands which ultimately put workers at more risk for violence. Additionally,
CFU strategies for organizational survival through conservative approaches to the crisis
alienated many members and resulted in the creation of a splinter farming organization
late that year.

In this chapter, I have highlighted three white farmer community approaches to
survival following CF U intervention to the proactive responses early in the invasions: (1)
negotiation, (2) migration and (3) community ties. Two of these community based
responses to the invasions were the products of CFU advice — negotiation and community
ties. The strategy of negotiation, stressed by the CFU, again reflects the need to rethink
the concept of agency in the context of terror and violence as survivors do not
acknowledge that they are in danger and lack the power to negotiate any real solutions
(Mertz 2002). The farmers considering migration experienced doubt; as survivors of
violence they began to see themselves as a “marked community” (Smivasan 1990:311).
Survival strategies reflect an intersection of the routinization of fear, social location, and
communities. Violence survival strategies exist at the community level as well as at the

individual level (as will be explored in Chapter Six).

180

Community based survival strategies demonstrate the need to expand not only the
concept of violence survivor in terms of social location (Das 1990), but also the need not
to characterize all perpetrators of violence in a particular conflict as acting in similar,
consistent ways. Differing groups of war veterans responded differently to negotiation,
making it impossible for farmers nationwide to develop a standard approach to dealing
with the veterans. Perpetrators of violence, and the times and ways in which they act in
concert with each other in state organized violence, also requires unpacking. The
differing responses of war veterans impacted the community-based survival strategies of

farming communities.

181

quivo.‘B.P—Ll ..tIII .
. . . R . ,

CHAPTER SIX:
THE INTERSECTION OF RACE, GENDER, AND VIOLENCE —
EXPERIENCES WITH AND SURVIVAL STRATEGIES FOR FARM

INVASIONS

Introduction

In the previous chapter, I explored the responses of organizations and
communities to the farm invasions and violence. Here, I examine the experiences with
state terror and violence and survival strategies developed by individuals. Farm life was
marked by extreme circumstances of insecurity and terror for white farm owners and
black farm workers, and both their families. In this chapter, I build on the historical
reasons why farmers and farm workers emerged as the first targets in the wave of state-
sponsored terror discussed in Chapter Two. Since independence, government officials
and many others in society have believed that farm owners and workers are not “true
Zimbabwean” citizens and, thus, they consider them the “other.” As a result, both
farmers and farm workers have been particularly vulnerable to political assault. Farmer
and farm worker experiences with invasions have not been universal, however. The
experience with farm violence and terror is complicated by a race and gender system
marked by intersecting hierarchies.

While Chapter 4 focused on the development of the state terror and state
organized violence that led to the land invasions in 2000, Chapter 5 centered on the
response of the CFU, GAPWUZ and farming communities to the political crisis. In this

Chapter, I address two primary questions. First, how do people in different social

182

locations experience state terror and organized violence differently? Second, how do
people in different social locations strategize under conditions of chronic fear and
insecurity? Toward this end, I first analyze invasion violence against farm workers using
human rights violations reports. Second, I examine invasion violence against farmers and
farm women using human rights violations reports and vignettes based on interviews. '
Next, I analyze farm worker and farmer and farm women’s survival/ resistance strategies.

Finally, in the conclusion, I discuss farmers’ survival strategies.

The Experience of Violence

The varied experience of white farmers and black farm workers was demonstrated
briefly in Table 4.6 in Chapter 4. To summarize, of the 7,220 Farm Invasion Human
Rights Violations recorded between February and June of 2000, violations against farm
workers accounted for 6,614 of the total (CFU 2000c). Of these violations against farm
workers, 45.9 percent were illegal searches, 26.7 percent minor assaults, 16 percent
verbal death threats, 5.7 percent serious assaults (requiring hospitalization), five percent
abductions, and less than one percent written death threats (18), rapes (13)? and deaths (3).
For white farmers, the picture was very different. The leading violation against farmers
was death threats (74 percent), followed by illegal searches (12 percent). Farmers
experienced 6.4 percent minor assaults, 3.6 percent written death threats, 2.8 percent
serious assaults (requiring hospitalization), 1.1 percent abductions, and less than one

percent rapes (l) and deaths (1) (CFU 2000c). Whereas these data reveal that farm

 

' Due to the limitations of my research, as discussed in detail in Chapter 3, 1 was only able to interview
farmers, CFU leaders and GAPWUZ leaders. I will use interviews fi'om 1998 to give a voice to farm
workers where data are available.

183

workers were subjected to illegal searches of their homes and physical assaults as the
primary forms of state terror and state organized violence, farmers overwhelmingly were
subjected to death threats. The illegal searches of farm workers’ (and farmers’) homes
should be classified as, what Lopez (1984) considers, “surveillance of personal activity”
given that in the majority of cases the purpose of the searches was to find MDC
paraphemalia that would indicate a MDC supporter lived in the household (see accounts
drawn from human rights violations reports below). The physical violence directed
against farm workers represents torture; however, the nature and goals of the torture were
unclear based on the limited information given in Table 4.6 (Tindale 1996). Death
threats received by farmers reflected both what Lopez classifies as a “life threatening”
form of state terror technique, as well as psychological violence that can result in fear,

paranoia, and a violation of a person’s dignity (Degenaar 1990, Zur 1994).

Farm Workers and Invasion Violence

Community Terror and Violence. The data in Table 6.1 lay out the gender and
racial breakdown of the human rights violations reports included in this analysis. The
majority of complaints involve black males (n=83), followed by white males (n=38), and

blacks of both genders (n=24).

184

Table 6.1:
Human Rights Violation Reports by Gender and Race

Male Female Both Unknown Total
White 38 3 3 45
Black 83 12 21 140

Both 0 0 0 1
Unknown 1 0 0 1
Total 122 1 5 24 l 87
Source: NEC 2000

 

Despite the regime’s attempt to characterize the invasions as mass uprisings over
land imbalances, the duplicity of such statements is revealed in the accounts of farm
village terror reported in the NEC complaints. In this section, I analyze the cases
involving blacks of both genders or general assaults on farm villages or compounds. In
the 24 cases included here, 14 specifically described the invasion as involving pro-
ZANU-PF/ anti-MDC activity of some kind. Fifteen cases described the perpetrators in
their assault as “ZANU-PF” or the “ZANU-PF Youth” while the remaining identified
their assailants as simply “war veterans,” or “mob.” The following case exemplifies
these types of complaints (N EC 2000).

All farm workers were forced to go to a ZANU-PF Meeting. They were
asked about their working relationship with the foreman. When they did
not respond they had water thrown over them and were beaten with fists,
sticks and kicked.
Other complaints noted the enforced attendance at ZANU-PF rallies, forced purchase of
ZANU-PF party membership cards, the surrender of any MDC material (T-shirts, party

membership cards, printed materials), forced singing and chanting, forced physical

training, and beatings for lack of attendance at ZANU-PF rallies. For example, one

185

 

report stated, “Verbal threats. Made to dance and sing ZANU-PF slogans. Workers
beaten with rubber truncheons, then doused with cold water.” Such actions took place
under the threat or the actual imposition of assault and death and, in several cases,
workers suspected as “sell-outs” or as MDC members were publicly beaten or
humiliated. Workers were often required to observe public beatings and humiliation of
their counterparts. In some cases, workers’ children were targeted.

The war vets/ invaders used multiple forms of intimidation to create community-
wide fear on farms. One violation report read (N EC 2000),

Homestead Occupied on 4th May 2000. Farm workers issued with ZANU-
PF cards and pegged the entire farm. Severe intimidation and death
threats to workers. Forced to sing from 8pm to 2am each day and are
carefully watched. Occupiers take meat, eggs, and vegetables. Owner
forbidden access to the farm. The keys for the abattoir are held by war
Veterans [sic]. Some items stolen during farmer’s furniture removal.
In this case, workers were forced to join a particular political party under conditions of
intimidation and death threats. They were forced to sing until late hours of the night, a
requirement that doubtless caused sleep deprivation given the typically early working
hours of commercial farms (sensory over-stimulation [CCJP1997]). The farmer was
denied access to the farm, and the workers’ movements and activities were subjected to
close scrutiny (surveillance [Lopez 1984]).

A further type of community-based terror tactic involved the destruction of entire
communities. In the case cited below, war vets were retaliating an attempt by farm
workers on the previous day to oust the invaders from the farm (NEC 2000).

On 18 April 2000 plus or minus 150+ people (war vets etc.) arrived,
supposedly from Harare. They torched the Afiican Village and beat up
any labourers they managed to catch. The rest evacuated to nearby farms

and further a field. They torched burley tobacco barns and stored tobacco.
Attempted to torch a field of soya beans. They abducted a church worker

186

residing on the farm — damaged and looted his house. Torched the farm
owners managers (his sons) house and looted property from it.
Supposedly support unit [police] helped him remove things from house.
Farmer prohibited from returning to farm for seven days. He was then
called to a meeting with war vets and his labor, humiliated in front of his
labor and war vets and labour forced to sing/shout party slogans. Since
then on a regular basis they have been called on pain of death to attend
meetings where they have been “reeducated.”
In addition to the description given above of the torching of workers homes’ and farm
property, the complaint includes a detailed list of all property lost in the fire on this
occasion. In total, 70 workers reported all their personal belongings destroyed, including
their national identity cards (required to vote) and cash equivalent of over two months
salary in some cases. In total, 94 huts were burned down. Newspaper accounts of the
incident provided further disturbing details. Several farm workers suffered severe burns
in the attack as war veterans attempted to barricade workers inside their homes while
setting the workers’ homes on fire. The above case involved several forms of state terror
tactics including kidnapping (abduction), lack of police protection from other citizens,
thought reform, and torture (Lopez 1984). In a similar case involving the burning of
another farm worker village, workers were made to sleep in the war vet camp and
perform chores for the war vets before being forcibly marched to another farm and forced
to destroy the farm and assault workers there.

Finally, several violation reports simply listed community-wide physical assaults
of various kinds: “Skull bashing, search for MDC material and supporters;” or “Farm
labourers beaten up, 14 went to hospital, 1 broken arm, 1 damaged eye and swollen face.
The rest had beaten backsides.” These reports offered few details about the

circumstances surrounding the violence, merely noting the violence itself. In many

invasions, war veterans attempted or forced farm workers out of their housing.
187

Additionally, disruptions to farm work impacted farm workers’ wages and, in some
cases, employment.

Black Male Farm Workers. The most numerous of the reported incidents
involved black male farm workers. Eighty-three (44.4 percent) of the 187 cases affected
black men. A significant number of the cases involved the targeting of farm worker
community leaders for abuse. Foremen (farm worker supervisors), school teachers,
domestic workers, drivers — farm workers with positions of some authority who were
generally better compensated than other workers -— were often singled out for beatings, in
several cases in front of other workers. One complaint reads, “50 war vets invaded. 3
attacked the foreman, punching him with fists and sticks, claiming he was an MDC
supporter.” In several complaints, foremen went into hiding after receiving death threats
from war vets. The following case revealed how the war vets used terror and violence to
interrogate community leaders, as well as to profit from their violence more directly, by
expropriating farm workers’ possessions and money. The foremen wrote (N EC 2000),2

It was ten to one pm when ZANU-PF supporters came to my house.
They told me to give them farm radio and mountain bike. I refused at first
and one of them gave me one hard strick [strike] to my back. I then went
inside my house to take radio and gave them.

They went with me to the church hall and told me to remove my
shirt and watch. They said lay down and tie my hands and legs together
with bark fiber and gave me two hard strick [strikes] on my back.

They went on asking me where is your boss. I said I don’t know
were [where] he have gone. They forced me to surrender M.D.C. T shirt
and card. I said I don’t have. After forty-five minutes they then untie me

and charged me a fine of ($800.00) eight hundred dollars for not
surrendering farm radio in time. I paid the money in afraid of my life.

 

2 The worker’s position as a foreman in revealed through his possession of a farm radio. Farm radios are
two-way radios used by farmers for communications with their farm foremen in distance fields. Due to
their cost (approximately US $800 each), farmers only allow trusted workers in senior positions to possess
them. Therefore, the complainant’s possession of the farm radio indicates his position of authority on the
farm.

188

 

The war veterans were supervising ZANU-PF youth to beat me
and forced me to attend ZANU—PF meetings.
INJURY TO VICTIM: Bluezzing [bruising] and pain.

In this case both interrogational and deterrent torture were combined. The war
veterans sought specific information regarding the farmer’s whereabouts, as well as tried
to identify any potential MDC sympathizers and discourage participation in opposition
politics. Other examples designed to discourage participation in MDC activities
included, “Public beating and humiliation of victim in front of compound because of
being a suspected MDC supporter.” In another case, the torture was simple but severe,
“feet cut with knife,” but, the cause of the violence was unclear. The vast majority of
reports included accounts of physical violence, most linked to MDC/ ZANU-PF conflict,
or to the suspicions of MDC association on behalf of the invaders. One report read, “Jon
taken to rally [ZANU-PF] by war vets and never returned — killed.”

The lowly status of black male farm workers in Zimbabwean society and their
status as “others” in the eyes of society and the regime were further revealed in the
brutality of their experiences with farm invasions. While three cases involved
“humiliation” or threats only, each of the eighty remaining reports included some form of
physical violence. The reports detail violent acts such as beatings, electrocution, dousing
with water, abduction, stripping combined with beatings, and one disappearance
(believed dead) and two deaths. The invaders beat male farm workers using a variety of
devices that included thorny branches, sticks with protruding nails, stones, rope, clubs,
and tree branches. The violence against male farm workers represents several forms of

state terror techniques including thought reform through the persistent attempts to enforce

ZANU-PF loyalty, lack of police protection against the crimes and terrors of other

189

 

citizens, extortion, threats, kidnapping (abductions), and torture (Lopez 1984). Further,
the humiliation, public beatings and enforced stripping in front of others are forms of
psychological violence which violate a person’s dignity (Degenaar 1990).

Black Female Farm Workers. Aside from the cases involving farm villages as a
whole, reports of violence against black female farm workers or the wives of farm
workers numbered only 12. Although only a limited number of cases were reported in
the human rights violations reports, the overwhelming majority involved sexual assault or
attempted sexual assault. Of the 12 reports of violence against women, eight revolved
around sexual crimes: two confirmed rapes, four cases of sexual assault (not further
explained), one attempted rape and one case of “propositioning” by a war veteran that
required the intervention of a male farm worker who was standing nearby. Rape
represented a particular form of torture for black women on farms (N EC 2000).

ZANU-PF + war veterans came unannounced at night to hold a meeting in
the compound to which the parents went to attend. Some of the youth left
the meeting and went through the houses - one of the youths grabbed
Virginia [pseudonym] and pulled her outside and raped her.
While the number of cases of reported rapes and sexual assaults remain low, GAPWUZ
as well as nongovernmental organizations (N G08) and human rights organizations
believe the numbers to be much higher. GAPWUZ officials received reports of
widespread rape, similar to that described above (Interviews 5-23-00, 5-18-00). Girl
children have been specifically targeted according to one NGO that works with farm
workers (Interview 7-6-00). Parents have pulled children out of school due to harassment
by war veterans as their children walk to school. One farmer I interviewed told me about

the cases of three daughters of farm workers on his farm: one girl was raped by resident

war veterans while two were abducted by war veterans (Interview 6-9-00). The abducted
190

girls had been missing for over a month when we spoke. In another case involving
female farm workers not included in the hlunan rights violations reports data set, six
black women who were raped on a farm tried to report the crimes to the police. The
police, however, refused to take down the report because it implicated war veterans
(interview). A director of one human rights organization claimed the group had received
reports of up to 15 rapes per day (Interview 8-1-00).

The cases involving black females on farms also often involved their children. In
one report, four women were sexually assaulted, one woman raped, and six children
under the age of twelve were beaten. A more disturbing case involves a group of women
who remained at their farm village rather than attend a ZANU-PF rally (N EC 2000).

28 ZANU[PF] members returned to compound whilst rally was on, beat

women, two of whom had babies on their backs. one baby beaten and

other trodden on. All four women and two babies treated at *** Hospital.
Attacks on black women, thus, highlighted their vulnerability as women. They were
subjected to assaults on their persons, on their and their partner’s children, and their
sexuality. Women’s cultural responsibility to care for young children makes them more
vulnerable than men due to the fact they would be less able to flee a farm village under
invasion attack. Further, in 1998, my research revealed a large number of young single
mothers living and working on farms. Cockbum (2001) notes that women and men
experience different forms of torture due to differences in their physical bodies and the
cultural meanings ascribed to male and female bodies.

Farm Workers, Violence, and Othering. Farm workers in Zimbabwe have been
labeled “the forgotten people” because of the lack of public awareness and concern for

their living and working conditions prior to farm invasions, as discussed in Chapter 2

191

(Mugwetsi and Balleis 1994). The othering of farm workers did not begin with farm
invasions. Farm workers represented unique targets of political violence as they have
historically been viewed by the government, and often by much of Zimbabwean society,
as foreigners. A farm worker I interviewed in 1998, Phiri, argued that skilled individuals
and farm workers should be given preference in resettlement, noting the particular effects
of displacing farm workers whose parents originated outside Zimbabwe.3
...if I was the one who had started the whole thing I think this farm, if it
has been acquired, I prefer to give preference to the people on this farm
because some of them do not have any relatives in this country and some
of them come as far as Tanzania. Where would you expect such a person
to go or otherwise he would end up in the streets?
Phiri’s case highlights the experience of many farm workers I interviewed in 1998.
Many younger farm workers had a high school education and aspirations of jobs off farm
and outside of subsistence farming in CA8 or RAs. Like Phiri, economic pressures drove
many individuals to seek farm work in what they hoped would be a temporary situation,
but the conditions on farms and the Zimbabwean economy made it difficult for them to
save money and move off the farm to find other jobs. Farm workers often did not have
communal area homes to return to either because of their parents’ or grandparents’
national heritage, or, in the case of many women, the loss of access to land due to divorce
or the death of their husbands. In the view of farm workers, the land acquisition program
proposed by the ZANU-PF regime excluded the needs of farm workers and ignored the

reality of their dependence on farms for their and their families’ livelihood. Many farm

workers explained that the government only cared about farm workers at election time

 

3 In 1997 the 002 published a list of approximately 1,400 farms that it planned to compulsorily acquire for
resettlement. The CF U successfully fought back in court resulting in the delisting of the vast majority of
the 1,400 farms.

192

when it came around to register people to vote for ZANU-PF. The regime’s lack of
concern for farm workers in the land exercise of 1997/98 was most succinctly stated in
the Herald where the government said that farm workers need not be taken into account
because they could all simply return to Malawi or Mozambique, from where they came
(Herald 12/8/1997). In the Fast Track Resettlement Plan of 2000, farm workers again
were not included among those targeted to receive land. Farm workers, like farmers,

were seen as outsiders, not true nationals.

White Farming Communities and Invasion Experience

Community Terror and Violence. There are a total of only 45 human rights
violation reports submitted by whites, and only one was by both a male and female
complainant. While the number of reports is small, the reports indicate that the
experience of community terror and violence varied by region and community (see

Chapter Four).

White Male Farmers. Whereas black male farm workers experienced primarily
physical forms of torture, white male farmers’ experiences centered on threats, physical
violence, abduction, psychological torture, as well as destruction of property. The thirty -
eight reports involving white male farmers also described instances of disruptions to farm
production, threats/ intimidation, and deaths. White farmers experienced physical
violence, including seven cases of violence, one death, and five abductions out of a total
of 38 human rights violations reports analyzed. War vets threatened death to farmers

(seven), a threat made real by the deaths of five farmers due to invasions (though only

193

two were reported in the set of human rights violations); they also issued nine generalized
threats.

In the case that follows, the farmer was threatened, told to leave the country, and
his workers were subjected to torture (N EC 2000).

Upon approaching the workshops the perpetrators and leaders with
approx. 50-60 vets and landless were singing and chanting Chimurenga
songs — hondo [war] etc. There was a very hostile atmosphere, axes and
sticks were wielded and abuse was shouted. Among the shouting and
singing he explained in a very aggressive tone that 1, Joe, will sacrifice
with my life if [I] carry on doing what I am doing. Apparently, it had
something to do with MDC. There after he said they were going to peg
and that we must f“'*k off where we came from, and that we must go and
keep ourselves confined to the residence. A week later I went on vacation.
They came back enforce, [sic] camped on the premise for three days,
howling and singing, dancing throughout the night. The workers were
interrogated and disciplined all night. For that period (1 week) they were
looking for me. Subsequent to this a formal meeting was held in ZRP
presence. There the death threat was lifted.

Among the types of state terror techniques employed against this farmer were, death
threats (life threatening and psychological) and sensory over-stimulation (Lopez 1984,
Zur 1994, CCJPZ 1997). Threats to “sacrifice” their lives were taken seriously by
farmers. One farmer was told his name was on a list that included one of the murdered
farmers. Another was forced by war veterans to sign his own death sentence. The case
cited above, however, reflected the way in which war veterans sought to Other whites by
implying both affiliation to MDC (possibly true) and the demand that the farmer “f"‘*k
off to where we came from.” Invaders thus reinforced the outsider status and
vulnerability of white male farmers by highlighting their lack of loyalty to the party and
their perpetual foreign status. War veterans on another farmer’s farm put it more directly
as the following excerpt from the Human Rights Violations Reports (N EC 2000)

illustrates. “Owner was confronted by war veterans who accused him of being too cheeky
194

fini.nb\huoy.ilt , 4.!
,

 

and told him to go back to England. They asked him if he owned the land and told him he
was not wanted there and he must leave the country within 24 hours.” War veterans here,
as well as in the case mentioned above, attempted to utilize the state terror technique of
“expulsions” of white farmers.

White men also experienced a fair share of physical violence as a result of farm
invasions, according to the violation reports. The deaths of two of the five farmers killed
during invasions were among the reports included in the human rights violations files. In
both cases, the farmers were attacked by a group of invaders intent on killing their victim.
Four additional complaints emanated from the circumstances surrounding Stevens’ death,
noting the four farmers’ abductions and beatings at the hands of war veterans. The four
men sustained several serious injuries requiring hospitalization.

In addition to deaths and beatings, white farmers suffered psychological torture.
Five complainants cited the forcible signing over of land to war veterans. Seven farmers
were threatened with death, or the death of a family member; another two were
threatened with destruction of the farm property if they did not sign a paper ceding their
property rights to war veterans. Several farmers also complained of being forced to
attend ZANU-PF rallies, where they were made to sing, dance and chant party slogans.

In addition, farmers were verbally harassed, and accused of stashing weapons.

White Women on Farms. Only three cases involving white women on farms
were included in the human rights violations reports. The farm invasions appeared to
have involved far fewer physical forms of human rights abuses of white farm women
than other survivors. Two cases recounted the gang-raping of a farmer’s wife and her

younger sister following the attempted murder of her husband. This case remained the

195

only case of rape against white women during the election invasion period of which I am
aware. While the data base offered only a limited account of the rapes, a more detailed
account is presented in a newspaper article and in interviews with CF U leaders. In the
words of the farmer who witnessed his wife’s and sister-in-law’s rapes, the assailants beat
him until he pretended to be dead.
“They took my wife through to the bedroom and tied her feet and hands
behind her back and they gagged her. They found [my sister-in-law] in
the spare room and they only tied her arms and legs behind her. They
kept on asking her who she was going to vote for. She told them she
didn’t know any party.” The men then raped the sisters (Daily Mail &
Guardian 4—20-00).
The rapes appeared to be politically motivated, both in terms of the MDC and potentially
in terms of the CF U. The two women are nieces of one of the CFU’s most prominent
leaders. As Seifert (cited in Cockbum 2001:22) notes, the rape of women during wartime
can serve a dual purpose: (1) to humiliate a woman and (2) to emasculate another man by
proving that he cannot protect the women in his community, thus also asserting power
over the man. No other rapes of white women were reported in the period under study to
my knowledge.
The last of the three cases involving white farm women included in the human

rights violations reports reflect the feelings of many white farm women with whom I

spoke (N EC 2000).

196

I have no serious complaints, but I do feel that my human rights have been
violated. I find it an infringement on my rights to arrive home to find
ZANU-PF posters displayed around the farm. This is private property and
I do not feel that they can actually put up posters on our property
especially when the opposition party can not for fear of retribution on the
labour or ourselves. My freedom of choice has been taken away. Since
having “war veterans” on our farm, I have not felt it to be expedient to run
or walk or ride as I always used to, as they are camped right on my normal
route. Although we had threats “blood will be spilled” etc, things have
calmed down and are now peaceful; is this because we complied, to keep
the peace? I think so. My husband had a death threat through the police
and an MDC representative. This was to intimidate us and our labour to
stop supporting MDC. This is against our democratic right of choice. I
find it extremely difficult not to stand up for what I believe for fear of
putting my family in danger. I think of Daniel who was not prepared to
compromise and I feel like a coward.

In the excerpt, the woman highlights what she sees as less severe human rights violations,

namely freedom of political participation and expression. She also complains about her

restricted movement due to the war veteran presence. Her statement continued with her

frustration over the dismissal of her national identity.

My heart broke when I was called “an enemy of the state” by my President
on 18 April 2000. True I am white and I am a farmer's wife, but in all my
39 years I have never done anything to betray my country, to deserve
being classed “an enemy of the state.” Yes, it may have been rhetoric but
it was said and meant at the time. This surely is a violation of many
people’s rights as it’s a generalization and a very serious accusation. One
that will stay with me for years. In the light of so many serious, life-
threatening violations, I realize that all of this sounds petty but for too long
have we been quiet about simple violations. Enough! I wish to be treated
as a Zimbabwean, born and bred who chose to live here after
Independence because I believe in democracy and my country.

The above statement reflects the sentiments of many farm women and men I interviewed.

The challenge to their loyalty to their country, to their nationalism, though not

constituting a human rights violation, highlighted the position of whites as the perpetual

Other in what they consider their homeland.

197

In addition to the human rights violation reports, my interviews with farmers and
farm women revealed a variety of experiences with farm invasions as the following three
cases reveal.

The Case of Mike and Jane Smith,4 Mashonaland North West. The Smiths
were both born in Zimbabwe. In their early 405, Mike and Jane have three daughters,
who range in age from 6 tol 5. They own one farm, which they purchased in 1986, and
produce a variety of produce such as snap peas, coffee, fresh green beans as well as a
significant amount of wheat. The Smiths employl35 male and 30-40 female workers on
a permanent basis and utilize up to 600 seasonal workers (mostly female) at peak
production periods. The Smith farm borders one of Zimbabwe’s largest MS, a
community with which the Smith’s had close ties until the farm invasions began in
March.

Jane expressed anger, because of their historical ties to the RA community, over
RA residents who participated in the invasion on their farm.

Well that’s what makes me very resentful because we have helped them,
tremendously. I mean Mike has bent over backwards trying to help these
people. We've fertilized for them. We’ve plowed for them. We’ve
reaped for them. When they very first moved into the area, government
literally dumped them there with nothing, and just rocks, and that was it.
We were actually asked to provide them with water, so we’d send them
water carts every day. We got the boreholes drilled for them. That whole
lot, I mean, the millions I think we spent into that resettlement area is
frightening. You know, anyone when they come to the farm, OK we’ll
help you. You know, some of them We pay their school fees. But you

know, you help them and help them and help them and this is the thanks
you get. And I’m really mad.

 

" Based on interviews on May 9, 2000 (Mike) and May 16, 2000 (Jane).
198

You see, when they moved on to the farm it was all resettlement people
that came out to the farm. Okay, I know they probably were intimidated,
but not to that extent. I mean they were quite chucked [excited]. Singing
and chanting and “Yea we'll just take this farm.” They can’t see it. Like
Mike tried to say to them as well, it’s not fertile. It’s a diffith farm that
we’ve actually got even the maid Elizabeth, you know she was
recognizing resettlement people, she said you, you’ve got land, you’ve got
land, you’ve got land. I mean what are you doing here? Like she says to
them, in fact sitting on Mike’s desk right now is electrification for a
growth point there which we had got organized since the government is
doing nothing about it. We’ve gone to meetings for them, well that’s all
stopped now we don’t do anything. And we had this electrification plan,
all drawn up in our name we were prepared to pay for the damn thing and
we’d have loved to get electricity, well I’m sorry were not going to do
anything with it now. It’s, we, well I know Mike feels very betrayed.
Very, very betrayed. He’s helped them, and bent over backwards to help
them and then they come and they dothis. And the threats that he is
getting as well and it’s frightening, we just don’t actually know where to

go.

Mike said he felt he had been targeted precisely because of his close ties to the RA
community. He said he felt the death threats directed at him reflected fear among
members of the ruling party that farmers helping their black neighbors and
demonstrations of racial unity would threaten ZANU-PF’s power (Interview 5-9-00). In
addition, Mike was active in the MDC.

Despite their unhappiness over the participation of their RA neighbors, when the
invasion on the Smith farm began in late February 2000, the Smiths did not feel

threatened immediately. Rather, they felt inconvenienced. As Jane recalled,

199

[They] pitched at our house eight at a Monday night. Singing and dancing
and they wailed and beat their drums all night. All day and all night, they
wouldn’t speak to Mike or anyone. And then, but we never felt
threatened, you know because Mike recognized most of the people that
were there, so we didn’t actually feel threatened and we were quite happy.
I mean they’d bang away daily, until eventually you sort of, they realized
they actually weren’t irritating us that much. You feel violated, you know,
but you can’t, you know that they’re watching you continuously and you
know I wouldn’t now let the kids go ride their horses; they couldn’t ride
their bikes, you know, because I just felt that it was unsafe. But we never
felt threatened until about two or three weeks ago, the whole thing
changed. A whole new group moved in, and they were very, very
aggressive. And then you get these death threats as well. But, you know
when they were there, it didn’t really make that much difference, we’re
still paying workers and they are just there banging away on their drums -
which you actually get used to after a while as well (Interview 5-16-00).

The invasion turned ugly, however, when Mike’s name kept coming up in negotiations
between Mike’s security guard, the police, and the war veterans in mid-April. According
to Jane, shortly after warnings from both the police and Mike’s guard, reporters and
photographers from the government owned newspaper The Herald arrived and began
taking photos for the “before and after” pictures of the farm. The Smiths knew
something was going to happen, so they left for a scheduled trip to Harare earlier than
planned. Soon after they left, approximately 140 invaders arrived on the farm en mass.
On realizing Mike and Jane weren’t there, the crowd dispersed. From that point on, the
death threats began. The Smiths returned to the farm again for one night, but Mike left
early in the morning on the following day. Again, 140 veterans arrived en mass

demanding to see Mike and threatening to kill him. Once again, they left upon realizing

that Mike was not there. They remained off-farm throughout the remainder of the

200

invasions, other than occasional brief day visits lasting for just a few hours. Mike and
Jane’s experience reflect high-key violence, not uncommon for farmers active in MDC.

The Case of John Miller, Manicaland. Mr. Miller owns a farm in the
Manicaland Province.5 He and his wife are in their late fifties and have three adult
children who do not live on the farm. They employ 85 male and 76 female farm workers
on a permanent basis, and approximatelyl 50 temporary laborers during peak seasons.
The farm produces tobacco, cut flowers, maize, and cattle. Miller’s farm is deeply
embedded within a commercial farming community geographically and does not have
CA or RA farmers residing within 15 km. He meets with CA and/or RA farmers
seasonally and assists them by providing the farmers with subsidized seed, free fertilizer
and farming advice. In the farm worker village on the farm, all 290 units of farm worker
housing are made from brick and/or cement blocks and each unit has its own blair toilet.6
Miller’s workers have access to a borehole for potable water and there is a primary
school and a rudimentary health clinic with a trained farm health worker on the farm.
Miller regularly helps his workers with money for funerals, and he grows the staple food,
mealie-meal, which he mills and sells at cost to his workers.

Prior to 2000, Miller’s farm never had been affected by squatters. The farm,
which he purchased in 1972, is his only agricultural land. Since March 2000, roughly 90
invaders, all male, have intermittently invaded his farm. The invaders were
predominately peaceful, though they made minor threats against both Miller’s workers

and him and his family. They engaged in considerable political campaigning, however.

 

6 This story is based on interviews with John Miller in 1998 as well as a questionnaire he filled out in
2000.
6 On many farms, housing is a mixture of brick/ cement houses and pole and dagga huts. Blair toilets are
pit latrines uniquely designed to lessen the spread of disease by trapping and killing any flies that wander
into the pit.

201

Following the murder of Dave Stevens, Miller and his family left the farm for two weeks
for safety.

Miller’s case represents a relatively low-key invasion. Although, a few farms in
his immediate community were occupied by a small group of war veterans, disruptions to
farm production were minimal. Though Miller had not experienced any serious threats,
the invasions had forced him to question his position in Zimbabwean society. Miller’s
political rights had been denied and his identity as an Afiican challenged.

The Case of Nancy and George Loft, Manicaland.7 Both Zimbabwean born,
George and Nancy grow tobacco, potatoes and keep cattle on their farm in Manicaland.
They both have been active in their farming community trying to raise awareness among
farm workers about AIDS. They have fourchildren ranging in age from 6 tol 7, all in
boarding school.

George talked about his local community, saying many people were gone, a result
of a combination of holidays and decisions to relocate (particularly women and children)
to towns. During the time of our interviews, he was concerned that things were peaceful
in his community thus far, and believed that the violence eventually would come there as
well. Although council members and local people told him he was protected because of
his good relations with his workers, he said it doesn’t matter. He felt that the situation
was deteriorating to a point where who you were and what kind of relationship you had
with your workers and your local community was irrelevant because as soon as you left

your immediate community, you were targeted and vulnerable just by being a white

 

7 Based on informal interviews on 4-4-00, 4-23-00 and 1 1-97. These interviews were very informal, and not
tape recorded, therefore, I do not have exact quotes. The Lofts were aware that the conversations were part
of my on-going research project. For much of the time during the conversations, Nancy was not available.

202

farmer. Therefore, in April George and Nancy rented an apartment in Harare for
themselves and their children (for weekends and holidays). George commuted to the
farm on a regular basis to manage farming affairs.

George and Nancy’s farm was not invaded in 2000. Despite the lack of disruption
to their farm, as was the case of many farmers, the insecurity of the climate of invasions
created difficulties in continuing farming. Banks began requiring that farmers offer a
letter of proof from the government that their farm would not be acquired before
approving seasonal loans for the coming year, letters that the government would not
provide. Therefore, farmers such as George were placed in the position where they had
to try to convince their banks to risk loans in a climate where the regime ignored its own
laws regarding property rights. Thus, finance became another serious problem that
accompanied the invasions.

For George and Nancy, the invasions included no violence, but they still
threatened their livelihood. Without finance, farmers could not plant for the coming
season. As with Miller’s case, less intensity of invasion experience was not accompanied
by a sense of security.

These three different cases reflect the varied intensity of invasion violence across
different contexts. Further, I highlight Jane’s voice in detail because her interview

exemplified the views of the white women with whom I spoke.

State Terror, Organized Violence, and Social Location
Not all debates on human rights originate in the West. The Organization of

Afiican Unity African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (OAU ACHPR)

203

represents an African led definition of basic human rights and outlaws torture. According
to the definition, war veterans acting on behalf of and in collusion with the ZANU-PF
regime have impinged on the rights of white farmers and black farm workers in
Zimbabwe, violating their individual rights to political freedom, equal protection under
the law, personal and national security and, most significantly, their inviolability, dignity,
and protection from torture. Though both white farmers and black farm workers have
been subjected to various forms of physical and psychological torture, the nature of their
position in a race and gender hierarchy shapes their experience with farm invasions,
human rights abuses, and torture. This hierarchy reflects social and political processes of
othering that place black farm workers in positions of vulnerability that white farmers do
not experience.

Black farm workers live outside the protected spaces on farms in which whites
live and operate. Whereas white farmers and their families live inside security fences and
move about their farms in vehicles, farm workers live in farm villages that are typically
unprotected and thus they are more vulnerable to invasion. Farm workers have been
subjected to community based terror tactics that include forced attendance at ZANU-PF
rallies, destruction of property, public beatings and assaults, and abuse of their children.
Furthermore, as invasions have seriously disrupted farm productivity, farm workers have
experienced disruptions to their employment. Some farmers have been unable to pay
workers when crops are destroyed, and several have had to trim their labor force to
remain viable. Male farm workers have experienced severe physical brutality, while
female farm workers have experienced high levels of sexual assault. Suspected of

supporting the opposition, farm workers can do little to prove otherwise to ZANU-PF war

204

veterans who demand compliance with fines, requests for housing, and attendance at
rallies. The abuse of blacks on farms focuses on their questionable loyalty to the party
and blatant attempts to beat them into compliance. The government, via its paramilitary
forces on farms, considers farm workers to be untrustworthy, and this view requires the
ZANU-PF state to coerce submission through violent intimidation.

Whereas black female farm workers and farm workers’ wives experience high
levels of sexual violence in addition to community terror and forced attendance at
political rallies, white women were overwhelmingly spared from sexual (excluding the
two rape cases mentioned earlier) and other forms of physical violence. Again, this
reflects the geography of commercial farms and the protected spaces white women lived
within during the invasions. In comparison, black women lived in open villages
subjected to easy infiltration by war veterans.

White farmers and farm women have also experienced physical violence due to
farm invasions. The proportion of deaths of whites compared to blacks in pre-election
violence reflects the increased likelihood that white farmers could face death compared to
all other groups in Zimbabwean society. While whites represent only 0.8 percent of
Zimbabwe’s population, of the 26 deaths due to pre-election violence, five or 19 percent
of those killed were farmers. While more blacks were killed overall (21), given the fact
that whites represent less than one percent of the total Zimbabwean population, the fact
that whites (all men) account for 19 percent of those murdered in invasion violence was
disproportionate to their percentage of the total population.6 Their position as outsiders

and a relatively small proportion of the population made whites easy political targets for

 

6 This is of course not to say that I think more black should have been killed. Rather, my statement is
intended to highlight the differences in forms of violence experienced.

205

intimidation, but, because of their small numbers, less likely to contribute to ZANU-PF’s
electoral goals. Therefore, whites’ experiences with farm invasion reflect more attempts
at revenge against particular individuals for specific grievances (e. g. open support of the
opposition) and general dehumanization through persistent denial of their nationality than

intimidation to vote a particular way or not to vote at all.

Farm Worker Survival Strategies! Resistance

While the extremity of the physical violence against male farm workers is
disturbing, there is evidence among the complaints that male farm workers were not
passive recipients of violence. Despite the community terror tactics of the war vets and
police inaction, farm workers attempted to defend each other and to defy political
intimidation, to the best of their ability, as several cases reveal. In Chapter 5, I
introduced the first example of farm worker strategies - the “football teams” — i.e., farm
workers actively encouraged farmers to provide transportation for farm workers so that
they could chase war veterans off farms.

Other examples emerge from the human rights violations reports. The first case
documents the efforts of farm workers to aid a fellow worker, despite personal risk,

during an assault on the farm village by war veterans (NEC 2000).

206

Victim was at home and heard that a fiiend was being assaulted by war
vets. He and others from compound went to plead on fiiend’s behalf when
they encountered war vets & ZANU-PF supporters approaching
compound. War vets et.al. began using slings & stones. People ran for
their lives, that was when victim was injured. Farmer gave victim
transport to clinic & police station where victim saw war vets making false
statements. Police accused farm workers of maltreating war vets and took
no action. Victim went to clinic where he was attended to for: Multiple
lacerations on upper part of body head and mouth i.e. left side back of
head left side mouth lip, left upper jaw and left eye. He lost three teeth
(premolars).

Although the farm workers found themselves outnumbered and suffered injuries, this
case reveals two important facets of the farm invasions. First, farm workers were not
passive victims in the assaults on farms. They attempted to defend each other, their
property and their livelihoods. In some cases (as in the village destroyed by fire
mentioned in the section on community violence), farm workers engaged in direct
confrontation with invading war veterans. Secondly, this case highlights the
unwillingness of the police to conduct proper investigations into farm violence and their
alliance with war veterans, an example of a form of Lopez’s (1984) “law enforcement”
state terror technique.

The second case involved black male farm workers’ activism under state terror
and state organized violence and demonstrates farm workers’ refusal to completely
acquiesce to war veterans’ demands for ZANU-PF loyalty (NEC 2000).

Victim was wearing an MDC t-shirt and was handcuffed, tied to a tree and
beaten - he was told to denounce his party. Left eye injured and stomach
which was “electrocuted” to the live wires of fence of [farm name].

Farmer saw in progress and reported to police, but police did not respond
until much later.

207

In a climate of politically motivated violence and the anti-MDC attitude of war veterans,
wearing MDC clothing constituted a highly visible rejection of war veterans’ intimidation
tactics. The disobedience resulted in severe discipline from the war veterans, and the
farm worker was lucky to survive.

In another human rights violation report, the male farm worker was “Told to take
off shirt and lie down on back and was slapped a few times and had cold water thrown
over him every +/- 30 minutes for 8 hours because of shouting anti ZANU-PF slogans.”
According to another report, a male worker was “Beaten by 15 ZANU-PF Youths
sustaining severe injuries for being an MDC Chairman.” Peppered throughout the
violation reports were additional examples such as moments when farm workers refused
to chant ZANU-PF slogans, or shouted anti-ZANU-PF slogans, despite consequences of
personal violence. In addition, workers were beaten for not attending ZANU-PF rallies
or for wearing MDC T-shirts (see above).

Farm workers also acquiesced to, rather than resisted, invaders’ demands in order
to survive. They attended multiple ZANU-PF rallies en mass with transportation
provided by farmers (CFU 2000c). In some cases, farm workers were pressured to join
the war veterans in invading other farms and they did so as a survival strategy
(interviews). In other cases, farm workers fled farms and added to the 3,000 displaced
persons caused by the state violence (see Table 4.7). Resistance, like power, is multiple

in its forms, a point I return to in my conclusions.

208

Farmer Survival Strategies9

In the following sections, I draw on my interviews with white farm women and
men to highlight individual survival strategies and experience with rural white identity in
the context of invasion violence. I begin by highlighting patterns of individual survival
strategies I uncovered in my interviews and participant observation with farmers and
farm women. Next, I draw on the experiences of three families with varied experiences
with invasions to highlight how race and gender intersect to shape the experience of
invasions.

Symbologues. Part of survival under conditions of violence and terror is the way
in which survivors creatively transmit knowledge about surviving and resisting through
what Nordstrom (1997: 204) calls “symbologues: dialogue through symbols.”
Syrnbologues include poems, songs, sculptures, and jokes that pass on information about
war drama. In this section, I discuss a few of the symbologues that I encountered during
my fieldwork studying state terror and state organized violence in Zimbabwe.

Early in the invasions, jokes began to emerge surrounding the occupations. The
first joke I recall hearing, but then heard repeatedly, was the following, “Have you heard
Zimbabwe’s new National Anthem? Old MacDonald had a farm!” At one regional
council meeting I attended, a member shouted from the back of the room, “Can the Vet.
[veterinary] Department do anything about rabid war vets?” (F ieldnotes). Farm women

also expressed their concerns through humor. As one farmer’s wife explained to me, the

 

9 This section draws on interviews with farmers and farm women from 1998 and 2000. It focuses solely on
the experiences of white farmers and farm women due to the limitations of my research as discussed in
Chapter 3.

209

wives in her community had come up with a response to the oft-asked question, “How are
you?”: FINE, F ”king Insecure, Neurotic, and Emotional (interview).

The majority of farming communities have social clubs where farmers and their
families meet for sports, drinks, and farmers association meetings. According to my
informants, during the invasions, there were an increased number of social events at clubs
throughout the country, including sports events organized for children and adults, and
often increased alcoholic drinking among men (interviews). The clubs themselves hold
symbolic meaning as a cultural refuge for white farmers in Zimbabwe who vowed to stay
after the war ended in 1980 (interviews).

At CF U Council meetings, Council members began quoting from the bible and/or
making biblical references, something I was told had never been done before by one
informant (interview). Additionally, fliers with religious content were distributed to
commercial farms and printed in both Shona and English.

The final symbologue I heard was a dream one farmer related to me. In the
dream, he is walking down a path and meets two lions. The lions are big and fierce and
he knows they could easily devour him. He also knows, however, that he must confront
them. Usually, he said, you would try to walk around lions rather than meet them head
on, but not this time. So in his dream, he walks straight toward them. As he approaches
the first, he comes right up to its face and then feels himself propelled forward by a force
from behind. WHOOSH! He walks right through the lion. As he approaches the second,
he feels the same propulsion, and again the force causes him to walk right through the

second lion -— WHOOSH! “Now, one of those lions is politics, and the other is the bank,”

210

he explained to me. “What do you think it means,” I asked. “I don’t know what it
means,” he replied. “But I’m not afraid anymore.”

The Dialectic of Agency and Powerlessness: The Case of Mike and Jane
Smith, Mashonaland North West. Jane and Mike disagreed about their future in
Zimbabwe. Mike is descended fiom some of Zimbabwe’s earliest white settlers and has
never considered leaving Zimbabwe, which he considers his homeland. Jane, however,
also born in Zimbabwe, had begun making inquiries into immigrating to Australia and
attributes their different perspectives to gender.

It’s their [women’s] home and their children suffer. You’re just living in
limbo. For Mike, he is the land, he lives for it. For him to have the farm
threatened is one thing, but for me, it’s my home. Where do I go, I’ve got
to have a home for my children.
I don’t see a way out of this one. I want to go home [to the farm]. I’m
making inquires into immigration to Australia. So, that’s the next stage.
Not that we want to, but we’ve got to have an option. If I go, I won’t go to
another African country. Mike thinks this will be resolved. If it is
resolved, things are changed. He believes there is a chance, until he’s
firmly told, no way, get off, he won’t go. But we’ve got to have a plan.
Despite having left his farm for over two months due to persistent death threats, when I
last spoke with Mike, he grinned while telling of a series of activities he used to subvert
or fi'ustrate the war vets on his farm. On one occasion, he opened the watering system in
the field in which the squatters had built their shelters, drenching their property and
causing the war vets either to leave or to remain wet during the cold months of winter.
On another occasion, in a confrontation with war vets threatening to destroy his irrigation
system, he said fine, go ahead, rather than beg for a reprieve. He then refused to plant his

winter wheat crop despite the fact that the war vets had backed down and spared his

equipment, a move that further angered the war vets occupying his farm. Mike joked that

211

he had his own mujibas (or informants) who warned him of threats by the war vets,
inverting the use of mujibas during the liberation war who warned guerrilla liberation
fighters when Rhodesian forces approached. Such strategies are inherently risky, and he
received numerous death threats. Yet, Mike’s experience exemplified the non-violent
warfare (on the part of farmers) that emerged throughout Zimbabwe’s commercial farm
sector as a form of resistance, negotiation, and struggle over power on farms.

Mike and Jane’s invasion experience revealed a variety of ways in which farmers
creatively survived the intrusion into their lives, disruptions to their production, and
threats of violence. They developed a variety of strategies to c0pe with the pressure of
the invasions. Early in the invasion, the Smiths demonstrated the tension between agency
and powerlessness and maintaining a normal order that Mertz (2002) discusses. Despite
their fi'ustration with the involvement of their RA neighbors, Jane claimed the Smiths
continued with their normal activities and basically ignored the 24 hour a day singing and
drumming outside their house. Yet, she follows this statement shortly thereafter
acknowledging how she had restricted her children’s activities due to safety concerns,
thus contradicting her earlier claim that they “didn’t feel threatened” and felt “happy.” In
addition, the rape of the two young women mentioned above had a ripple effect among
white farm women. According to my interviews, many white farm women curtailed their
movement on farms and scaled back their interactions with farm workers in the farm
villages due to concern over their safety because of the war veterans’ presence on farms.
White women’s use of space on farms, in short, was reconstructed due to the presence of

war veterans and women’s fears about exposure to rape and violence (Bonin 2000).

212

Jane’s interview also revealed the significant role women play in maintaining and
restructuring family life under conditions of violence (Kanapathipillai 1990). On
receiving death threats in April, the Smiths moved into Harare for safety. When farming
neighbors told them the threat that the veterans would kill Mike “wherever he is” had
been repeated, the Smiths began to shift locations every couple of nights to avoid putting
anyone else in danger. Despite their desire to remain in Zimbabwe, Jane explored
immigration possibilities. For Jane, her first concern was having a safe home for her
children, not letting her children suffer. This perspective was overwhelmingly shared by
the women I interviewed who had children living at home with them. In my interview
with Mike, he focused on his farm and subverting the invaders. He engaged in a variety
of activities designed to make the invaders on his farm uncomfortable and demonstrate
his unwillingness to run away. While Mike’s actions can be read as a form of resistance/
agency, as Mertz (2002) reminds her readers, in the context of chronic fear and violence,
survivors of violence lack an accurate perspective of themselves and their situation.
Mike and Jane’s case symbolizes the dialectic of agency and powerlessness. In order to
continue functioning, they must envision a world with hope, with humanity, even where
one does not exist (Mertz 2002). This envisioning represents the synthesis of the
dialectic of agency and powerlessness carved out of violence survivors’ inability to
recognize the limitations of their own situations in the context of chronic fear.

Identity, Othering and Politics: The Case of Jon Miller. The anti-white
discrimination of 2000 has caused Miller to consider leaving Zimbabwe, though he
doesn’t know where he would go. According to Jon, he does not feel free to participate

in politics. The invasions and concomitant political violence and racial antagonism by

213

the ZANU-PF regime, raised again in 2000, also raised nagging questions for Miller
about his own identity and place in the world. A descendant of German migrants to the
Cape colony in South Africa in the mid-1600s, Miller’s grandfather immigrated to
Rhodesia in 1891 , four years prior to Rhodesia’s Pioneer Column. During the war for
liberation, Miller felt disillusioned by the policies of the white government and uneasy
about the prospects of living under a Marxist regime. In an interview in 1998, Miller
lamented being conscripted by the Rhodesian government to fight a war he didn’t support
and the difficulties of the postwar period.

You know after the war, one can imagine that there was a lot of bitterness
and antagonism towards whites because the whites had been the
government in power. And like I said, I didn’t support the local, the
white government as it was then and so there were differences among the
whites anyway. White farmers in particular were labeled as people who
supported the government and that was largely due to the fact that the
white farmers defended themselves when they were attacked. When
people came to shoot up a farm during the war, the guerrillas came onto
the farm to shoot the place up; the white farmers would defend themselves
in a kind of a rough and rugged kind of way. The government saw that as
opposition to the, the guerrillas saw that the white farmer as being the
spearhead of white oppression because they fought back and they
defended themselves [sic]. So that’s an oversimplification of the thing but
that’s how it was put across. And basically, obviously there were a lot of
farmers that supported the white regime at that time, but the situation after
independence was difficult for whites.

In the post-independence period, white identity was threatened both personally
and politically. While the transition government ensured white participation in
government for a short period, whites quickly withdrew from political life. The ZANU-
PF government viewed white farmers as supporters of the regime they had fought to
overthrow. Whites felt unsure where they belonged. Miller continued,

You see the biggest problem that you have in that changing situation

[post-independence] is that you don’t have a sense of belonging. In one
way in your head you know that this is where your roots are and this is

214

your place, you’ve been here and you know nothing else and this is home;
but somehow because of the way things are, the way things have
happened. People being arrested all of the time, there was an undercurrent
and a suspicion all the time, and people felt “where’s my identity” and it’s
really hard to find an identity with people there and to feel at home, and to
feel confident, and to feel that you’ve got any rights.

Miller’s concerns evaporated with time. After independence, he continued to invest
heavily in his farm, despite his insecurities about the future for a capitalist venture under
a Marxist state. When ESAP came into effect, Miller’s doubts about his future in
Zimbabwe lessened. Throughout the first 20 years of independence, in his view, racial
tensions waned as opposed to their immediacy during the post-war period.

Later in the interview in 1998, we discussed the 1997 gazetting of farms for
acquisition by the ZANU-PF regime. Miller again spoke of his ancestry and identity and
the possibility of leaving Zimbabwe.

I’m not young anymore, so when I think of my farm being taken away,
my whole life has been given up for farming and farming in this country
and so on. It is like I have invested everything that I am as a person into
the land and into the country to try and preserve the land and to look after
it so that it can be handed on in a better condition than when I took it over
and I just feel angry and upset and I think it’s grossly unfair that there
should this kind of legislation that can just take away my land and give it
to somebody else, because I’m white and somebody else is black and it
must be given to somebody else because he is black and not because he is
really good for the country and I’m not good and I’m not doing a very
good job or anything like that. So I just, the whole thing is really unfair
and I don’t see myself as a foreigner, you know, I see myself as a
Zimbabwean, I mean I don’t even know my ancestors in Germany, that
was over three hundred years ago, I mean what do I know about that? So I
see myself as an African and I see myself as African as any other person
that sees themselves with 300 years in America or Australia or whatever.

. I just believe that I’m just as indigenous as anyone else but as far as
the government is concerned, because I’m white, I’m not indigenous and I
think that is really unfair to have that interpretation and I feel very
insecure to know that our leaders think like that and they can legislate to
discriminate against me and so yeah I do feel insecure and frightened.

215

In the face of the 2000 invasions, Miller considered leaving the country due to anti-white
sentiment, political intimidation, and lack of freedom. The invasion of his farm did not
disrupt his farming operations, but he only sees a future in Zimbabwe with a change of
government. In Miller’s view, Mugabe has backed himself into a comer and is desperate
to stay in power to avoid charges of war crimes, human rights abuses, and corruption.
While Miller believed farmers should have a right to their opinion, he felt it was better to
politically “to be a bit low key” during the invasion period.

Throughout Miller’s experience in post-independent Zimbabwe, he has struggled
with his white African identity. This struggle intensified during the farm invasion in
2000 due to openly hostile anti-white sentiment from the Mugabe’s regime, politically
motivated violence and terror, and political intimidation. Smivasan (1990) notes how
minority groups that survive violence become “marked communities,” they become
othered. Miller’s experience demonstrates how state terror and violence attempted to
other whites. For Miller, survival strategies included maintaining a low profile
politically, and potentially emigrating.

The Heterogeneity of Identity and Othering: The Case of Nancy and George
Loft, Manicaland. When I interviewed them in April a few days after the deaths of
Stevens and Olds, the Lofts had been renting their cottage in Harare for just a couple of
weeks. The weekend of Stevens’ abduction and death, George and the children all came
to town to meet Nancy at the airport. George had a headache, so they stayed in their
apartment in Harare that night. This was the day that Stevens, the farmer in Macheke,
was killed. They started receiving calls and learned what happened. They headed out of

town on Sunday, but then before they reached the Mutare road (which goes through

216

Macheke to their community in Manicaland), George got a feeling that Nancy and the
kids should stay in town. So, they turned around and he left the family in their apartment
in town.

After Stevens’ death, George visited his former school, St. Paul’s. He went to the
chapel where his father’s funeral had been held. The chapel had been built after he had
finished school, he explained. He went in and found that the chapel had been decorated
with hundreds of small crosses. The students must have been given a project to make
their own cross, be said. George sat there for some time, looking at the crosses, about
500 he estimated. What was amazing, he said, was that each cross was unique, no two
looked alike. He said he was thinking about the coming Easter holiday and the cross that
Christ chose to bear. He said he realized that like the crosses that the students had made,
we each have our own unique cross to bear, our own issue that we need to confront in our
lives. He felt the conflict in 2000 in Zimbabwe was his cross to bear.

In George’s view, the only people considered citizens in Zimbabwe are people
who are supporters of ZANU-PF. In a meeting with his workers, he stressed to them that
in 2000, ZANU-PF was not an option; they don’t see me and they don’t see you, he told
his workers. He stressed that people are not running to MDC because of the MDC, but
because ZANU-PF was simply not an option for farmers and farm workers at this point in
time, because they are not protected by the government.

Throughout his life, George said, he has always been searching for his
Zimbabwean identity. During the Rhodesia days, he insisted, even as a child, he never
felt a part of Rhodesian culture with its emphasis on separation. He remembered that as a

child, visiting the farmers’ club, he always felt different from other whites, he didn’t fit

217

into the Rhodie culture. Since independence, he’s longed for a sense of belonging in
Zimbabwe. He said he was someone who never thought about leaving Zimbabwe,
although all of his siblings have. It never appealed to him. However, the current crisis
has made George think about leaving Zimbabwe. George wonders how far he can let
things go, when should he take his family and leave. He and Nancy were concerned
about the impact of the invasions on their kids, how they were being affected
psychologically by this conflict.

In an interview in 1997, George talked about his feelings as a white Zimbabwean
during the contemporary era. Relating his own experiences to Shona culture, George
described the concept of unhu. Unhu (from which the word munhu or person is derived)
refers to more than just a person’s physical self. According to George, unhu includes the
physical, the personality, the core of who a person is. If another person can see or
recognize your unhu, that is a great thing. '0 He explained that, historically, whites in
Zimbabwe did not see the Afiicans’ unhu, did not recognize them as human. In his view,
African nationalism grew out of this non-recognition in the 1950s and 19605. Describing
the regime’s decision to compulsorily acquire 1,400 white-owned farms in 1997, George
reported that he felt that his unhu was not being seen by the men in government. He said
the experience of having their (some government officials) own unhu unacknowledged
by whites while they were growing up and as young adults had so scarred many black
Zimbabwean leaders, that they now are unable to see the unhu of the whites. Lamenting
the fact that Zimbabwe had never had reconciliation in a manner similar to South Afiica's

Truth and Reconciliation Commission (which was on-going at the time), George felt that

 

'6 I later confirmed George's interpretation of unhu with my Shona tutor at University of Zimbabwe who
said it was very well defined by George.

218

the reconciliation after Independence was simply to say to whites “We’re not going to
kick you out.” He felt that in 2000, Zimbabwe truly needed reconciliation. Nancy added
that what hurts her was consistently being referred to as “white settlers.” Both she and
George were born in Zimbabwe, yet they are not considered “Zimbabwean.”

George wondered if the family should leave, temporarily, or to wait and see if
things got better or worse. He thought many young farmers will relocate to Australia
soon, regardless of how things turn out and he anticipated farmers forming informal
trading groups and selling products outside the normal means, splitting the foreign
exchange, defaulting on bank loans, and running. Why should people pay back their
loans, he asked. George explained that banks aren’t going to loan farmers money on
collateral in the future, so why would a farmer feel loyalty to pay back what they owe.
People will feel pressured to gather foreign exchange by any means and emigrate.
Australia doesn’t appeal to George because of the Rhodesian lifestyles people have
created there. In the UK, you can always find a job, he said. He went to university there,
so he knows a bit about the place, and has friends and relatives who’d help them. He said
he doesn’t know what he’d do there. “Maybe I’d become a housewife, and Nancy could
support us,” he joked, referring to Nancy’s professional degree.

George’s brother in the US reminded him not to be a hero. His brother said that
their family had already lost two members to the conflict in Zimbabwe 20 years ago and
had never gotten over that trauma; they could not face losing another person in such a
way. George noted in one conversation that he was tempted to approach the war vets and
confront them, to challenge them to kill him. He was tempted to offer his own life as a

sacrifice to bring peace. But, he said, “I have a family and I can’t do that.” He wanted so

219

much to build up his farm, and leave it in perfect condition, if he must leave, as a
monument to his life’s work here. He has put everything, his whole life into his farm and
if he must leave it, he wants to leave it pristine, in perfect condition.

In thinking about leaving, George said he’s trying to figure out how to go about it.
One solution would be to leave his farm manager and a few foremen in charge. He
would try to provide them with enough seed and fertilizer for the next season and tell
them to do their best; if things improve, he’ll return in a few years. George wondered if
there will ever be a future for LSCF in Zimbabwe again, if the industry can recover from
this. The lack of confidence of the individuals as well as the finance sector worried him.

Nancy said that when Stevens was assaulted, his black farm manager tried to
intervene. The war vets beat him up, and since then he has been missing. The police
discovered recently that he had been killed the very day of the attack. As punishment for
defending his boss, the thugs cut off his penis in front of the farms’ workers and he bled
to death. She noted that these were the same tactics used during the war.

George noted in a situation of war, there are still rules that govern warring
behavior. He said farmers weren’t the targets as a group, though some individuals were.
The target was the farm workers. During the war, you could contact the police, the army,
and your neighbors. Everyone was armed and would come to your defense if you were
under attack. But in this situation, George said, there are no rules to which the war vets
abide. Farmers can’t call on their government to defend them and can’t defend
themselves.

George and Nancy Loft responded to the invasions in a variety of ways. Despite

the fact that their farm was not invaded and they lived in Manicaland, the province with

220

the second lowest invasion rate (20 percent — see Table 4.4), the Lofts rented an
apartment in Harare for a back-up plan. This survival strategy reflects the routinization
of terror as individuals come to doubt their ability to interpret the world around them, a
theme also consistent in George’s voice. Religion stands out as a survival strategy, as
indicated in George’s suggestion that the invasions were his cross to bear and that he
should offer his life to the war veterans as a sacrifice for peace. Like other farmers
discussed above, George and Nancy felt their identity as Africans, for George in
particular, his unhu, was under attack by the invasions. The couple discussed emigrating
as a survival strategy. In George’s view, leaving his farm for his workers was central to
that plan if it came to that. Finally, George also openly engaged in resistance, promoting
MDC and denigrating ZANU-PF in speeches to his workers, despite the risks of political

involvement.

Conclusion

The survival strategies of farm workers that emerged from the human rights
violation reports represent a small indication of the complexity of farm workers’
experiences with farm violence, and the ways in which farm workers negotiated survival
under routinized terror. In some cases, farm workers acquiesced to invaders’ demands,
under persistent threats, as a survival strategy. In other cases, despite the known
consequences of challenging ZANU-PF, in this small sample of farm workers’
experiences, several cases stand out in which workers do just that, whether it be through
refusing to attend a rally, shouting anti-ZANU-PF slogans, or wearing MDC clothing, or

becoming a local MDC leader. These moments highlight the need for additional research

221

focusing on the moments of resistance in this story of political tyranny. Additionally, the
human rights violations do not include enough examples of women to explore differences
among women and men’s survival strategies. Resistance is multiple and includes both
direct confrontation and acquiescence. In some cases, it was likely a combination of
alternating between the two as the intensity of the violence permitted confrontation on
some days, but not on others.

For farmers and farm women, survival strategies centered on themes of religion,
migration (internal and external), and humor. Resistance ranged from continued
participation in or open support of MDC to harassing invaders. All three families
highlighted here questioned their futures in Zimbabwe and expressed concern over the
government’s inability to recognize their unhu. Women in particular highlighted the
need to prepare to migrate.

The three families presented in this chapter reflected three very different
experiences with farm invasions and violence —— all three responded in different ways.
Mike and Jane, who experienced the highest level of violence, moved off their farm.
While Jane insisted on exploring overseas migration possibilities, Mike refused to
consider it, remained active in MDC, and harassed his farm invaders. Jon Miller
experienced a low key invasion and only moved his family off the farm for a two week
period. Jon thought about leaving Zimbabwe, but felt conflicted because he considered
Africa his home and he was being forced to deny his heritage. He chose to remain silent
on politics and hoped things would improve politically. Finally, although George and
Nancy’s farm was not invaded, they relocated their family to Harare for safety. They

considered relocating overseas, and relied on religion as a survival strategy. The

222

contrasting survival strategies of these three families reflect differing responses to varied
intensities of violence, and highlights the way violence and survival is shaped by racial
privilege and gender.

First, the intensity of invasion experience (high, low, no) did not necessarily
correlate with farmers survival strategies, such as to move off farm. As indicated by
George and Nancy, whose farm was never invaded in 2000 and who moved to Harare
nonetheless, there are no set rule for how individuals cope under situations of extreme
fear and insecurity (Robben and Nordstrom 1995). Second, in all of the three farmer
families, overseas migration had been discussed and possibly applications made. Such
movement was impossible for farm workers whose economic insecurity made migration
to the UK, the US, or Australia to escape the violence and start over an unrealistic
survival strategy. Third, it was predominately women who expressed concern for the
future of their children, while men predominately highlighted different approaches to
open resistance.

As elections neared in June of 2000, violence against farmers and farm workers
quickly spread to other segments of Zimbabwean society. ZANU-PF used the land issue
to justify violence against farmers and farm workers and as a starting point for a broader
campaign of rural terror. Farm violence was a strategic starting point; however, as the
ZANU-PF state felt the marginal positions of farmers and farm workers would alienate
them from the broader Zimbabwean population and bring support to the party’s re-

election campaign based on land.

223

CHAPTER SEVEN:

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

Rather than summarize my findings as they appeared in the dissertation, I return
in this chapter to my major question that I introduced in Chapter One: “Under what
conditions are diflerent people exposed to ditflrent kinds of state terror and violence?”
There, I also explained how I had come to study this issue as a result of events in the
field. My original research plans were cast aside when Zimbabwe’s commercial farming
sector erupted into violence and terror as ZANU-PF regime paramilitary groups invaded
farms to intimidate the electorate. My theorizing of the data, therefore, is post-hoe. In
fact, in Chapter One, I reviewed selected theories on violence, thereby showing how I
formulated the sub-research questions my data could address.

I begin this chapter, by organizing my major findings around a discussion of
conditions that expose different people to different kinds of terror and violence. Seven
conditions emerged from the data: (1) the ecology of the farm, (2) normative social
structures, (3) employment hierarchies, (4) proportional representation within the
electorate, (5) political affiliation, (6) organizational access to resources and (7)
geography. I conclude the findings section by addressing how social location is
implicated in survival strategies. Second, I move to a discussion of implications of my
research for theory. In particular, I address the way theorists address violence, as well as
how we think about agency and resistance. Third, I reflect on the policy implications of

my study for ending the crisis in Zimbabwe. Fourth, I point to future areas of research

224

that have emerged from the dissertation. In conclusion, I discuss the position of

researchers in states of conflict and violence.

Major Findings

Varied conditions affected the kinds of state terror and violence different people
experienced in Zimbabwe in 2000. First, the ecology of the. farm — whether individuals
lived in fenced areas (white farmers’ homesteads) or open, unprotected (black farm
worker villages on farms) made farm workers much more vulnerable to assault than
farmers. Following the defeat of the constitutional referendum in February of 2000,
which many political analysts interpreted as a demonstration of decreasing support for the
ruling party ZANU-PF, the regime embarked on an “anti-farm worker” campaign,
exposing thousands of farm workers to terror by war veterans and ZANU-PF youth
militia. According to the human rights violation reports, black male farm workers
experienced the highest levels of physical forms of violence and terror, whereas the
primary violation against white male farmers was threats. The majority of violence
against black female farm workers and the wives of farm workers involved some form of
sexual assault. There were very few cases (three) of white farm women included in the
human rights violations reports; however, white farm women largely stayed within the
protected space of their fenced homesteads, thereby lessening the likelihood that they
would be assaulted. Thus, the ecology of the farm, living and working in protected or
unprotected spaces, created conditions in which white farm women were least exposed to

violence, followed by white farmers, while black farm workers, male and female, were

225

exposed to greater violence due to the lack of protection offered in the open villages on
farms.

Second, normative social structures were also implicated in the terror and
violence of 2000, exposing Black women to sexual violence. For example, in Shona
culture, women have primary responsibility for child care, especially for young children.
In the case of farm violence when many farm workers may have fled, women with young
children would have been constrained and slowed, possibly unable to flee, thus exposing
them to what was often sexualized forms of violence. White women were less
vulnerable, but their responsibility for the family restricted their use of space and
movement on farms. In addition, in both Black and White cultures in Zimbabwe
masculinity is linked to providing for the family’s livelihood. Therefore, when war
veterans threatened their livelihoods, men responded and became targets of more
violence than women in general.

Third, employment hierarchies also shaped the experience of violence. On
commercial farms, there are several jobs which have a higher status due to a combination
of more responsibility and, typically, employment “perks.” Included in these positions
are foremen (farm worker supervisors), “house girls” or maids, cooks, gardeners, and
farm health workers. These employment hierarchies exposed farm workers in positions
of relative authority and privilege on the farm to greater risk of violence at the hands of '
war veterans than that of farm workers in general. F oremen, “house girls,” cooks,
gardeners, and farm health workers were disproportionately affected by violence. They

were often branded as “sell-outs” and beaten or humiliated in front of other workers.

226

White men, the highest in the employment hierarchy on farms, were also exposed to
threats and often humiliation.

Fourth, proportional representation within the Zimbabwean electorate played a
role in the experience of state organized terror and violence. Whites, representing less
than one percent of the total population, were simply not a major enough voting block to
warrant an “anti-farmer” campaign. They did, however, represent access to farm
workers, transportation, and supplies that facilitated ZANU-PF “electoral campaigning.”
Commercial farms provided ZANU-PF with both the ideological and logistical support to
wage its electoral campaign — the farms were the focus of the key political platform, take
back the land — and farm owners provided food, transportation, housing and often money
for the invaders orchestrating the terror and violence. From the farms, war veterans could
move into neighboring CAs and RAs to “campaign” as well. Farm workers represented a
large voting block and, as noted above, had been blamed for the defeat of the referendum.
The regime was determined to gain farm workers support for the parliamentary elections.
Following four months of nation-wide state terror and state organized violence, support
for the recently emerged MDC opposition party wavered.

Fifth, political affiliation shaped different people’s exposure to different forms of
state terror and violence. Among farmers and farm workers, those aligned with MDC
were more likely to experience violence than those who were not. Only specific farmers
were targeted for physical violence, typically those openly affiliated with the opposition
MDC, although in some cases, violence against farmers occurred due to the eruption of
hostilities. The majority of white farmers killed during the invasion period were

associated with MDC, as were many farmers who received death threats. The two white

227

women who were raped appeared to have been targeted for political motives on two
levels. First, the assailants accused the women of involvement with MDC. Second, the
women were relatives of one of the CFU’s national leaders. In addition, farm workers
were targeted and tortured for their known or suspected association with MDC.

Sixth, organizational access to resources was implicated in the experience of
violence. Farmers and farm workers historically have lived and worked on farms in a
contentious relationship. The invasions and state sponsored violence, however, altered
those relationships as workers and farmers united to defend the farm, albeit briefly. The
CFU developed several survival strategies during the invasion crisis, focusing its
attention on two primary goals, protecting the lives of its members and safeguarding the
future of commercial farming, thus ensuring organizational survival. The CFU relied on
communications technology to keep farmers in touch with nationwide events, court cases,
and discouraged the use of “football teams” to make farmers less vulnerable. While these
efforts may have protected farmers temporarily, the measures increased farm workers’
vulnerability to invasion violence. As GAPWUZ lacked the organizational capacity to
advocate for its clientele, farm workers became increasingly vulnerable as the farm
invasions progressed. Ultimately, farm workers had no one to help them in the crisis.

Finally, seventh, geography affected people’s experience with terror and violence.
In the Mashonaland Provinces, commercial farms are smaller, closer in physical
proximity, and produce labor-intensive crops requiring much larger labor forces than in
other parts of the country. In particular, in the low-veldt (Masvingo and Matabeleland
Provinces), farms are more likely to be cattle or game ranches, occupying extensive

pieces of land, and employing few workers. Farmers and farm workers alike in the

228

Mashonaland Provinces were exposed to more invasions and invasion violence than in
other parts of the country.

Most of these conditions are linked to an individual’s position in the hierarchy of
race and gender within Zimbabwe. The ecology of the farm exposed blacks to more
violence than whites due to the protected spaces within which whites live on farms.
White women were more protected than men in this ecological context, due to their
ability to limit their movement on farms. Normative social structures in which men, both
black and white, held more responsibility for the family’s livelihood exposed men to
more violence than women. While both black and white women had primary
responsibilities for child care and the family, the resultant exposure to violence varied as
black women were unable to flee invaded villages, whereas white women remained in the
protected spaces of the homestead.

Employment hierarchies also exposed farm workers with positions of authority or
privilege, and white farmers, as employers, to risk of violence as well. Further, racial
proportion within the electorate demonstrates the intersection of race with the conditions
exposing individuals to violence. Although whites represented a small proportion of the
electorate, the access to resources on farms that was critical to the ZANU-PF campaign
put them at risk for violence. They became targets of violence, even though they were
not the primary targets; these were the large voting block of farm workers to which war
veterans gained access by invading white-owned farms. Political affiliation with the
MDC, real or suspected, resulted in an individual’s being a target of violence regardless
of race or gender. Finally, white farmers had better access to organizational resources to

protect their interests and themselves than farm workers during the invasions and

229

violence. In short, vulnerability to risk was shaped by Zimbabwe’s hierarchical structure
of race and gender.

Survival strategies also were shaped by an individual’s social location. Farm
workers’ survival strategies took a variety of forms. Some workers gave in to war
veterans’ demands that they join the veterans’ cause, and they aided them in invading
nearby farms. Others resisted by openly shouting anti-ZANU-PF slogans, wearing MDC
T-shirts, becoming active in MDC politics, or refusing to attend ZANU-PF rallies. The
dearth of data, however, made it impossible to explore farm workers’ survival strategies
fully. Nevertheless, because they occupied the lowest position within the hierarchical
structure of race, their options were more limited than those of white farmers and farm
women. Responding to violence from a more privileged position, white families
migrated from the rural to the urban area to escape farm violence and terror. In addition,
white farm women, much more than their husbands, pursued immigrating to other
countries out of concern for their children. Only their deep concern over the firture for
white farmers in Zimbabwe and the continued challenge to their identity as Africans,
induced farmers to reluctantly consider emigration as a possibility — an option that was
impossible for farm workers to envision.

Even my own social location shaped the strategies I devised to cope with violence
and terror. In theory, my position as a “powerful Western researcher” placed me high up
in the social hierarchy during my fieldwork in Zimbabwe. The position of western
researchers is often reified as the more powerful in the dynamics of fieldwork. My
research demonstrates the way in research on violence unpacks the notion of the

“powerful Western researcher.” My identity as a young female US national informed my

230

relationships with informants in the field and shaped power dynamics with informants,
organizations, and in general in the context of fieldwork under conditions of violence (see
Chapter Three). Terror and violence become normalized in fieldworkers’ eyes, as well as

violence survivors, in order to cope on a daily basis.

Implications for Theory

State terror and organized violence is characterized by (1) premeditation, (2)
patterned state violence, (3) fear caused by coercion and life threatening behaviors, and
(4) paramilitary organizations (Pion-Berlin and Lopez 1991, Mason and Krane 1989,
Slone 1984). Lopez (1984: 70) outlines specific methods of terror utilized by the state to
terrorize its citizenry such as information control, law enforcement, economic coercion,
and life threats. Riches (1991) presents a typology of violence including (1) witchcraft,
(2) mental violence, (3) symbolic violence, (4) structural/ institutional violence, (5) ritual
violence, and (6) violence where the victim is not fully human.

Such outlines and typologies of terror and violence, while providing a useful
starting point to think about state violence, assume that terror and violence impact
individuals in similar ways. While there has been some research focusing on gender
differences in the experience of violence (Moser and Clark 2001; Jacobs, Jacobson and
Marchka 2000; Trushen and Tagirarnariya 1998), most of this research is actually
research on women, and very little adopts a comparative approach and examines both
men’s and women’s experiences. Though it is very important to understand women’s
experiences with violence, it is also important to study men’s experiences with violence

as gendered beings as well. Perhaps, more importantly, however, it is crucial to compare

231

men’s and women’s experiences with violence, thereby documenting how and why their
experience may be similar and/ or different.

In addition to gendered differences in the experience of violence, my research
revealed that the experience is mediated by a network of hierarchies. Race, gender, and
even social standing intersect and different methods of torture and terror tactics were
used on different people throughout the invasions. This finding suggests that a much
more nuanced understanding of state terror and organized violence is needed, than
typologies of violence can offer. More specifically, we need to move beyond the notion
of “typologizing” violence and think about the heterogeneity of the experience of
violence. Further, we need to interrogate the way different individuals interpret the
experience of violence. As standpoint theory acknowledges, an individual’s social
location shapes the way she/ he perceives events. Those subjected to the most oppressive
conditions are most able to understand those oppressive conditions, in this case, state
violence. We, thus, need to look at how the positioning in a matrix of oppression creates
differing understandings of state terror and violence.

Just as we need to move beyond typologies, we also need to reconsider the notion
of agency/ resistance. My research shows that these concepts are more complex than
often acknowledged. Agency is usually thought of as one’s ability to act in the world,
and, it is often juxtaposed against the notion of structure. Similarly, power is often
considered a zero-sum game in which one individual is powerful and the other powerless.
Such an approach fails to acknowledge, that, in Foucault’s words (1980:142), “there are

no relations of power without resistances.” As my findings show, people are never

232

completely passive victims. “Rather, power is fluid [Villarreal 1992:256] and it involves
struggle, negotiation and compromise” (Gallin 2002:74).

Throughout this research, during fieldwork and post-fieldwork, I have struggled
with the concepts of agency/ resistance in the face of state terror and violence. I have
acknowledged that resistance exists on multiple levels. Yet, the question remains, what
constitutes resistance in the face of life-threatening violence? Is an act truly resistance
when it is not transformative and can result in violence against yourself, your family and
community? In other words, do actors truly possess agency in the context of state terror
and violence?

Finally, Lifton’s classic work on survivors of violence portrays the survivor as an
individual untouched by social structures of any kind (Das 1990). Recent studies have
demonstrated how class and gender shape an individual’s experience with violence and
survival (Kanapathipillai 1990, Srrrivasan 1990). Differing experiences with terror and
violence lead to different approaches to resistance and survival strategies by individuals
in differing gendered and racial social locations. An important theoretical question

becomes, then, what is the distinction between resistance and survival strategies?

Policy Implications

Throughout the crisis of 2000 (and in the years to date), the US, the UK, and the
UNDP have all at times made attempts to negotiate an end to the crisis in Zimbabwe to
no avail. The solution to the crisis lies in a change in political leadership in Zimbabwe —
in both the Presidential Office and the ruling party. Ultimately, however, the solution lies

with regional leaders and requires the political will to pressure Mugabe to establish law

233

and order and to step down. In 2000, Libyan leader Omar Qdaffai shipped fuel to
Zimbabwe for several months to solve the country’s fuel crisis. South Afiica continues
to provide electricity to Zimbabwe’s electric grid, despite the fact that Zimbabwe has not
paid its bill in years. By bailing Mugabe out, these countries are exacerbating the crisis
in Zimbabwe -- a crisis which has resulted in a massive food shortage requiring food aid
that continues to be insufficient. Such a food crisis will have health implications,
particularly in terms of AIDS. Increased numbers of HIV positive patients with poor
nutrition are more likely to develop full blown AIDS, worsening Zimbabwe’s
catastrophic AIDS crisis. Zimbabwe will require decades of aid to undo the damage
wrought in a short period of time. As the CCJPZ (1997:171) study found, the
psychological effects of violence extend from the individual to community levels --
“Costs must be measured in physical injuries, psychological disorders, economic damage

and social pathology.” Only pressure from regional leaders will solve these crises.

Future Research

This dissertation is a starting point to understanding the state terror and violence
in Zimbabwe in 2000. Several areas of research remain untouched. First and foremost,
as noted in Chapter Three, the research climate did not permit me to gather direct
interviews from farm workers while I was in the field. Narratives of farm workers
experiences of violence and survival are a critical piece to this story.l What are farm

worker perspectives of their futures in Zimbabwe given the dissolution of commercial

 

' l have heard from a colleague that a Zimbabwean researcher has interviewed farm workers on their
experience and written on this, but I have not yet seen the document.

234

farming as an industry? What are their current survival strategies given the majority of
farm workers’ lack of access to land to cultivate?

According to my best information, there are approximately 500 commercial
farmers who have remained on their farms in Zimbabwe. How are these farmers
surviving? Why have they chosen to stay when so many farmers have left Zimbabwe?
Many farmers ultimately made arrangements to migrate to neighboring countries such as
Zambia and Mozambique. What kinds of relationships with workers/ neighboring
communities/ governments are former Zimbabwean commercial farmers establishing to
ensure safer futures? In sum, much more research is needed on the protagonists in the

Zimbabwean crisis before the experience and response to violence is fully understood.

Conclusion

Despite the attempt to characterize the land invasions of 2000 and the associated
violence as the “Third Chimurenga” by the regime and war veterans, my research reveals
a dissonance in such characterizations. The first and second Zvimurenga2 were uprisings
by the people against an oppressive state. Contrary to these legitimately populous
uprising against oppressive states, the so-called “Third Chimurenga ” was quite literally
the opposite - an oppressive state using violence in an attempt to quell populous
uprisings against that very regime. In 2000, the state orchestrated terror and violence
against its own populace and utilized war veterans as paramilitary groups to terrorize
voters either to vote for ZANU-PF or not to vote at all in the parliamentary elections of
June 2000. The regime capitalized on farmers’ and farm workers’ position as the other in

Zimbabwean society in selecting these groups as the first targets of state terror and

 

2 Zvimurenga is plural for Chimurenga in Shona.

235

violence in its electoral campaign. While both farmers and farm workers were subject to
the characterization of the other, they experienced state sanctioned terror and violence
differently.

As a different form of othering, researchers in contexts of state terror and
violence, conflict, and war face enormous challenges. In addition to observing and
studying informants’ responses to the terror, violence and insecurity, the researcher must
also manage her own reactions. Research on violence disrupts our notions of the
“powerful Western researcher” and is shaped by our own identities. Most research on
violence, I have discovered, emerged in a similar context as mine — a researcher in a
position to follow carefully laid out plans crafted before entering the field, was forced to
change plans when the field erupted into chaos. Research methods and questions become
subject to an additional layer of scrutiny -— what is possible and what is safe in this
context? In the context of terror and violence, research often becomes a creative blend of
methodology, risk assessment and the art of what is possible. Finally, perhaps the length
of time it has taken to complete this dissertation is testimony to Linda Green’s (1995:
106) argument that, “The routinization of fear undermines one confidence in interpreting

the world.”

236

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agere, Samuel Takarinda. 1986. "Progress and Problems in the Health Care Delivery
System." Pp. 355-3 76 in Zimbabwe: The Political Economy of Transition 1980-
1986 edited by Ibbo Mandaza. Dakar, Senegal: CODESRIA.

Alexander, Jocelyn, JoAnn McGregor, and Terrence Ranger. 2000. Violence and
Memory: One Hundred Years in the ‘Dark Forests ’ of Matabeleland. Heinemann:
Portsmouth, NH.

Amanor—Wilks, Dede. 1995. In Search of Hope for Zimbabwe ’s Farm Workers. Panos:
London.

Amnesty International. Zimbabwe: Terror Tactics in the Run-up to Parliamentary
Elections, June 2000. Zimbabwe: 8 June 2000.
http://www.amensty.org/ailib/aipub/ZOOO/AFR/l4601400.htm

Asad, Talal. 1996. “On Torture, or Cruel Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment.” Social
Development. 63: 1081- 109.

Azam, Jean-Paul. 2001. “The Redistributive State and Conflicts in Afiica”. Journal of
Peace Research. 38 (4): 429-444.

Balandier, Georges. 1986. “An anthropology of violence and war.” Internation Social
Science Journal XXXVIII (4): 499 -511.

Barkey, Karen and Sunita Parikh. 1991. “Comparative Perspectives on the State.” Annual
Review of Sociology 17:523-49.

Bayart, Jean-Francois. 1993. The State in Afiica: the Politics of the Belly. London:
Longrnan.

Beinart, William. 1992. “Introduction: Political Change and Collective Violence in
Southern Afiican Historiography.” Journal of Southern Afi'ican Studies. Vol. 18.
No.3: 455486.

Bijlmakers, Leon and Mary Basset and David Sanders. 1995. “Health and Structural
Adjustment in Rural and Urban Settings in Zimbabwe. Some Interim Findings.”
Structural Adjustment and the Working Poor in Zimbabwe edited by Peter
Gibbon. Sweden: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.

Bonin, Debby. 2000. “Claiming Spaces, Changing Places: Political Violence and

womens’ protests in KwaZulu-Natal.” Journal of Southern African Studies. June
2000.

237

Bowyer-Bower, T.A.S. Dr. and Dr. Colin Stoneman. 2000. “Land Reform’s Constraints
and Prospects: Policies, Perspectives and Ideologies in Zimbabwe Today.” Pp. 1-
14 in Land Reform in Zimbabwe: Constraints and Prospects. Edited by Dr.
T.A.S.Bowyer-Bower and Dr. Colin Stoneman. Ashgate: Burlington, VT.

Brian Raftopoulos and Ian Phimister (editors). 1997. Keep on Knocking: A History of the
Labour Movement in Zimbabwe, 1 900-9 7. Baobab: Harare, Zimbabwe.

Brinkman, Inge. 2000. “Ways of Death: Accounts of Terror from Angolan Refugees in
Nambia.” Africa. Vol. 70. No. 1: 1-24.

Buenavista, Gladys and Cornelia Butler Flora. 1994. “Participatory Methodologies for
Analyzing Household Activities, Resources, and Benefits.” Pp. 36-44 in Tools for
the Field: Methodologies Handbook for Gender Ananlysis in Agriculture edited
by Hilary Sims Feldstein and Janice Jiggins. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.

Bushnell, P. Timothy, Vladimir Shapentokh, Christopher K. Vanderpool, and Jeyaratnam
Sundram. 1991. “State Organized Terror: Tragedy of the Modern State.” Pp. 3-22
in State Organized Terror: The Case of Violent Internal Repression. Edited by P.
Timothy Bushnell, Vladimir Shapentokh, Christopher K. Vanderpool, and
Jeyaratnam Sundram. Boulder: Westview.

Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace of Zimbabwe (CCJPZ). 1997. Breaking the
Silence, Building True Peace: A Report on the Disturbances in Matabeleland and
the Midlands 1980 — I988. CCJPZ: Harare, Zimbabwe.

Cernea, Michael M. 1991. "Knowledge fiom Social Science for Development Policies
and Projects." Pp. 1-41 in Putting People First Sociological Variables in Rural
Development (Second Edition). New York: Oxford U Press.

Chabal, Patrick. 1992. Power in Afi'ica: an Essay in Political Interpretation. London:
Macmillan.

Chambers, Robert. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. New York:
Longmann.

Chidyausiku Commission. 1998. Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the
Administration of the War Victims Compensation Act [chapter 11.16].
Government of Zimbabwe Printers: Harare.

Cliffe, Lionel. 1982. “Zimbabwe's Political Inheritance.” Pp. 8-36 in Zimbabwe 's
Inheritance edited by Colin Stoneman. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Commercial Farmers’ Union (CFU). 2000a. Eflect of Reducing Commercial Farm Area

by Five Million Hectares. Report tabled at August Farmer Association Meeting,
Agriculture House, Harare, Zimbabwe.

238

CFU. 2000b. Summary of Impact on Agriculture -— Land Invasions. CFU Internal Report.
CF U. 2000c. Report on Invasion Impact Survey. CF U Internal Report.

CFU. 2000d. A flidavit of CF U meeting with Border Gezi on 29F ebruary 2000.

CFU. 2000c. Farm Invasion Updates, March — November 2000 (continuing).

Corbin, J. R. 1977. “An Anthropological Perspective on Violence.” International Journal
of Environmental Studies Vol. 10:107-11.

Coronil, Fernando, and Julie Skurski. 1991. “Dismembering and Remembering the
Nation: The Semantics of Political Violence in Venezuela.” Comparative Studies
in Society and History. Vol. 33. No. 2: 288-337.

Das, Veena. 1990. Introduction: Communities, Riots, Survivors — The South Asian
Experience. Pp. 1 — 36 in Mirrors of Violence: Communities, Riots, and Survivors
in South Asia edited by Veena Das. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Das, Veena and Arthur Kleinman, Marnphela Ramphele, and Pamela Reynolds (editors).
2000. Violence and Subjectivity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Daily News. 3-20-00.

Davenport, Christain. 2000. Paths to State Repression: Human Rights and Contentious
Politics. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.

Degenaar, Johan. 1990. “The Concept of Violence.” Political Violence and the Struggle
in South Africa. Pp. 70-86 edited by Chambani Manganyi and Andre du Toit.
London Macmillan.

Du Toit, Andre. 1990. “Discourses on Political Violence.” Political Violence and the
Struggle in South Africa. Pp. 87-130 edited by Chambani Manganyi and Andre
du Toit. London Macmillan.

Elson, Diane. 1995. "Male bias in macro-economics: the case of structural adjustment."
Pp. 164-190 in Male Bias in the Development Process edited by Diane Elson.
Manchester: Manchester U Press.

Evans, Imogen. 1995. "SAPping Maternal Health." The Lancet. 346:1046.

Feldman, Allen. 1991. Formations of Violence: The Narratives of the boob» and Political
Terror in Northern Ireland. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Financial Gazette. 11 December 1997.

239

Financial Gazette. 13 November 1997.
Financial Gazette. 16 March 2000.
Financial Gazette. 28 August 1997.

Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings
I 972-1977, translated by Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon Harvester Press.

Gallin, Rita S. 2002. “The Politics of Resistance: Working Class Women in Rural
Taiwan.” Pp. 61-78 in Gender Politics in the Asia-Pacific Region, edited by
Bredna S. E. Yeoh, Peggy Teo and Shirlena Huang. New York Routledge.

Galtung, Johan. 1990. “Cultural Violence.” Journal of Peace Research. ” Vol. 27. No.3:
291-305.

Godwin, Peter and Ian Hancock. 1993. 'Rhodesians Never Die’: The Impact of War and
Political Change on White Rhodesia, c. 1970-1980. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ). Inception Phase Framework Plan, 1999-2000.
Government Printers: Harare, Zimbabwe.

GoZ. 1998a. Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Administration of the War
Victims Compensation Act [Chapter 11.16]. Government Printers: Harare:
Zimbabwe.

GoZ. 1998b. Land Reform and Resettlement Programme: A Policy Framework
Government Printers: Harare, Zimbabwe.

GoZ. 2000. Accelerated Land Reform and Resettlement Implementation Plan “Fast
Track” — Draft.

G02. 1997. 1995 Poverty Assessment Study Survey Main Report. Ministry of Public
Service, Labour and Social Welfare: Harare.

Green, Linda. 1995. Fear. Living in Fear. Fieldwork under F ireL Contemporery Studies
of Violence and Surivival. Pp.105-119. University of California: Berkely.

Greenhouse, Carol J. 2002. “Introduction: Altered Stated States, Altered Lives.” Pp. 1-36
in Ethnography in Unstable Places: Everyday Lives in Contexts of Dramatic
Political Change. Edited by Carol J. Greenhouse, Elizabeth Mertz, and Kay B.
Warren. Duke University Press: Durham.

240

Gurr, Ted Robert. 1991. Theories of Political Violence and Revolution in the Third
World. Pp. 153-189 in Conflict Resolution in Africa edited by Francis M. Deng
and I. William Zartman. The Brookings Institution: Washington, DC.

Hale, Charles R. 1997. “CA Forum on Anthropology in Public Consciousness: Violence,
and the Politics of Memory in Guatemala.” Current Anthropology. 38 (5): 817 -
838.

Hanmer, Lucia. 1994. "What Happens to Welfare When User Fees Finance Health Care?
The Impact Gender on Policy Outcomes; Theory and Evidence from Zimbabwe."
Institute of Social Studies (ISS) Working Paper Series, No. 180. The Hague: ISS.

Hayner, Priciscilla B. 2001. Unspeakable Truths. Confronting State Terror andAtrocity.
Routledge: New York.

Hegre, Havard and Tanja Ellingsen, Scott Gates, Nils Peter Gleditsch. 2001. “Toward a
Democratic Civil Peace? Democracy, Political Change, and Civil War, 1816 —
1992.” American Political Science Review. 95(1): 33-48.

Herald. April 3, 2000.

Herald. April 5, 2000.

Herald. April 6, 2000.

Herald. April 7, 2000.

Herald. March 3, 2000.

Herbst, Jeffrey. 1990. State Politics in Zimbabwe. University of Zimbabwe Press: Harare
Zimbabwe.

High Court of Zimbabwe. Case 3544/2000.

Holtzclaw, Heather. 1999. Farm workers and Globalization: Social Change in
Agribusiness F arming in Zimbabwe. Dissertation proposal, Department of
Sociology, Michigan State University.

Human Rights Monitor. April/May 2000. Human Rights Forum: Harare.
Human Rights Commission. 1990. State Violence: A Study of Repression and the links

between Security Legislation, Security Management, Vigilantes and Hit Squads.
Johannesburg: Human Rights Commission.

241

Ingersoll, Jasper. 1990. “Social Analysis in AID and the World Bank.” Pp. 19-36 in
Methods for Social Analysis in Developing Countries edited by Kurt Finsterbusch,
Jasper Ingersoll, and Lynn Llewellyn. Boulder: Westview Press.

International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT). Organized Violence and
Torture in Zimbabwe. Harare and Copenhagen: 6 June 2000.
http://www.irct.org/Zimreport.htm.

IRIN. 1/31/01. ZIMBABWE: Veterans revive anti-opposition campaign.
http:/lwuwrelicfwebint/IRIN . UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs 2000.

 

Jaycox, Edward V.K. 1993. “The World Bank View: The Benefits of Adjustment.” Ceres 25(5):
21-24. ‘

Jenkins, J. Craig and Kurt Schock. 1992. “Global Structures and Political Processes in the
Study of Domestic Political Conflict.” Annual Review of Sociology (l 8): 161-
182.

Jiggins, Janice and Hillary Sims Feldstein. 1994. Tools for the Field: Methodologies
Handbook for Gender Analysis in Agriculture. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.

Johnson, R.W. 2000. Political Opinion in Zimbabwe 2000. Report by Helen Suzman
Foundation.

Joseph, Richard. 1999. State Conflict, and Democracy in Africa. Edited by Joseph.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Kadenge, P. G, H. Ndoro, and B. M. Zwizwai. 1992. Zimbabwe 's Structural Adjustment
Programme: The First Year Experience. Harare: SAPES.

Kanapathipillai, Valli. 1990. July I 993: The Survivor ’s Experience in Mirrors of
Violence: Communities, Riots, and Survivors in South Asia edited by Veena Das.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kanengoni, Alexander. 1997. Echoing Silences. Baobab: Harare, Zimbabwe.

Kanji, Najmi, Nanzeen Kanji and Firoze Manji. 1991. "From Development to Sustained
Crisis: Structural Adjustment, Equity and Health." Social Science and Medicine.
33(9): 985-993.

Kinloch, Graham C. 1978. Racial Conflict in Rhodesia: A Socio-historical Study.
Washington DC: University Press of America.

Kohli, Atul. 1987. The State and Poverty in India: The Politics of Reform. New York:
Cambridge: U Press.

242

1...!" 1.1 l

 

Kriger, Norma J. 1992. Zimbabwe ’s Guerrilla War: Peasant Voices. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge.

Krohn-Hansen. Christian. 1997. “The Anthropology and Ethnography of Political
Violence. Journal of Peace Research. 34 (2): 233- 240.

Lan, David. 1989. Guns and Rain: Guerrillas & Spirit Mediums in Zimbabwe. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Land Tenure Commission. 1994. Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Appropriate
Agricultural Land Tenure Systems, Vols. I -3. Government of Zimbabwe: Harare,
Zimbabwe.

Lennock, Jean. 1994. Paying for Health. Poverty and Structural Adjustment in
Zimbabwe. Oxford, UK: Oxfam Publications.

Loewenson, Rene and David Sanders. 1988. "The Political Economy of Health and
Nutrition." Pp. 133-152 in Zimbabwe 's Prospects: Issues of Race, Class, State,
and Capital in Southern Africa edited by Colin Stoneman. London: Macmilan.

Loewenson, Rene, David Sanders, and Rob Davies. 1991. "Challenges to Equity in
Health and Health Care: A Zimbabwean Case Study. " Social Science and
Medicine. 32(10): 1079-1088.

Lopez, George A. 1984. “A Scheme for the Analysis of Government as Terrorist” Pp. 59-
82 in The State as Terrorist: The Dynamics of Governmental Violence and
Repression. Edited by Micheal Stohl and George A. Lopez. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.

Mail and Guardian. 12 December 1997.
Mail and Guardian. 2 November 1997.

Makumbe, John Mw. and Daniel Compagnon. 2000. Behind the Smokescreen: The
Politics of Zimbabwe ’s 1995 General Election. University of Zimbabwe
Publications: Harare, Zimbabwe.

Mamdani, Mahmood. 1996. Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Afiica and the Legacy of
Late Colonialism. London: James Currey.

Mandaza, Ibbo. 1987. Zimbabwe: The Political Economy of Transition, 1 980-1986.
CODESRIA: Senegal.

243

q_al. H.135. .1... .AI

 

 

Maposa, Isaac. 1995. Land Reform in Zimbabwe: An Inquiry into the Land Acquisition
Act (I 992) combined with a case study analysis of the Resettlement Programme.
Harare: Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe.

Mason, David T. and Dale A. Krane. 1989. “The Political Economy of Death Squads:
Towards a Theory of the Impact of State-Sanctioned Terror.” International
Studies Quarterly. 33 (2): 175 — 198.

Martin, Gerad. 2000. “The ‘Tradition of Violence’ in Colombia: Material and Symbolic
Aspects” in Meanings of Violence: A Cross Cultural Perspective edited by Goran
Aijmer and Jon Abbink. Oxford: Berg.

Mattes, Robert, Michael Bratton, Yul Derek Davids, and Cherrel Africa. 2000. “Public
Opinion and the Consolidation of Democracy in Southern Afiica: An Initial
Review of the Southern Afiican Democracy Barometer.” The Afrobarometer
Series No. 1. Southern African Democracy Barometer.

Maxwell, John W. and Rafael Reveny. 2000. Resource Scarcity and Conflict in
Developing Countries. Journal of Peace Research. 37 (3): 301-322.

May, Rachel. 1999. “Surviving All Changes Is Your Destiny:” Violence and Popular
Movements in Guatemala. Latin American Perspectives 105 (26) No. 2: 68 — 91.

Meldrum, Andrew. 1993. “Investing in Health.” Africa Report 38 (6):34-3 7.

Meldrum, Andrew. 1993. “The Poor Pay‘the Price.” Africa Report 38 (8): 63-67.

Mertz, Elizabeth. 2002. . “The Perfidy of the Gaze.” Pp. 355-378 in Ethnography in
Unstable Places: Everyday Lives in Contexts of Dramatic Political Change.
Edited by Carol J. Greenhouse, Elizabeth Mertz, and Kay B. Warren. Duke
University Press: Durham.

Moore-King, Bruce. 1989. White Man Black War. Harare: Baobab Books.

Moser, Caroline 0. N. 1993. Gender Planning and Development: Theory, Practice &
Training. New York: Routledge.

Moyo, Sam. 1995. The Land Question in Zimbabwe. SAPES Trust: Harare, Zimbabwe.

Moyo, Sam. 1998. The Land Acquisition Process in Zimbabwe (I 99 7/8). UNDP
Resource Centre: Harare, Zimbabwe.

Moyo, Sam. 1999. Land and Democracy in Zimbabwe. Monograph Series No. 7. SAPES
Trust: Harare, Zimbabwe.

244

Nagengast, Carole. 1994. “Violence, Terror, and the Crisis of the State.” Annual Review
of Anthropology 23: 109-36.

National Democratic Institute (N DI). Statement of the National Democratic Institute Pre-
election Delegation to Zimbabwe. Harare: 22 May 2000.

National Employment Council for the Agricultural Industry (N EC). 2000. Farm workers
—- Farmers The Enemy? A preliminary report on the human rights violations on
the farm workers and farmers of Zimbabwe as a result of the recent farm
invasions. NEC: Harare, Zimbabwe.

Nyangoni, Wellington W. 1978. Afi'ican Nationalism in Zimbabwe. Washington DC:
University Press of America.

Palmer, Robin. 1977. Land and Racial Domination in Rhodesia. University of California
Press: Berkeley.

Pion-Berlin, David and George A. Lopez. 1991. “Of Victims and Executioners:
Argentine State Terror, 1975-1979.” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 35, No.
1: 63-86.

Ranger, Terrence O. 1985. The Invention of Tribalism in Zimbabwe. Mambo Occasional
Papers - Socio-economic Series No. 19.

Rejali, Darius M. 1994. Torture & Modernity: Self Society, and State in Modern Iran.
Boulder: Westview.

Renfrew, Anne. 1993. ESAP & Health. Silvera House Social Series No. 3. Gweru:
Mambo Press in association with Silvera House.

Riches, David. 1986. “The Phenomenon of Violence” Pp. 1-27 in The Anthropology of
Violence. Edited by David Riches. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Riches, David. 1991. “Aggression, War, Violence: Space/ Time and Paradigm.” Man.
New Series. 26 (2): 281 — 297.

Rubert, Steven. C. 1998. A Most Promising Weed: A History of Tobacco Farming and
Labour in Colonial Zimbabwe, [890-1945. Ohio University Center for
International Studies: Athens.

Rukuni, Mandivarnba. 1994a. Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Appropriate

Agricultural Land Tenure Systems. Government of Zimbabwe Printer: Harare,
Zimbabwe.

245

Rukuni, Mandivamba. 1994b. “The Prime Movers of Zimbabwe's Agricultural
Revolution.” Pp. 1-10 in Zimbabwe’s Agricultural Revolution. Edited by
Mandivamba. Rukturi and Carl Eicher. University of Zimbabwe Press: Harare,
Zimbabwe.

Rutherford, Blair. 2001. Working on the Margins: Black Workers, White Farmers in Post
Colonial Zimbabwe. Zed Books: London.

Sachikonye, Lloyd. 1997. “Trade Unions, Economic and Political Development in
Zimbabwe since Independence.” Pp. 107-128 in Keep on Knocking: A History of
the Labour Movement in Zimbabwe, 1900—97 edited by Brian Raftopoulos and Ian
Phimister. Baobab: Harare, Zimbabwe.

Schmidt, Elizabeth. 1992. Peasants, Traders and Wives: Shona Women in the History of
Zimbabwe, I870 — 1939. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Scneinder, Cathy Lisa. 2000. “Violence, identity and spaces of contention in Chile,
Argentina and Colombia.” Social Research. 67 (3): 773 - 802.

Sluka, Jeffrey A. (editor). 2000. Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Srinivasan, Amrit. 1990. The Survivor in the Study of Violence. Pp. 305 — 320 in Mirrors
of Violence: Communities, Riots, and Survivors in South Asia edited by Veena
Das. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Standard 3-5-00

Staunton, Irene (editor). 1992. Mothers of the Revolution: the War Experiences of Thirty
Zimbabwean Women. Baobab: Harare, Zimbabwe.

Stephen, Lynn. (1999). “The Construction of Indigenous Suspects: Militarization and the
Gendered and Ethnic Dynamics of Human Rights Abuses in Southern Mexico.”
American Ethnologist 26 (4): 822 -— 42.

Stohl, Michael and George A. Lopez. 1984. “Introduction” Pp. 3 — 10 in The State as
Terrorist: The Dynamics of Governmental Violence and Repression. Edited by
Stohl and Lopez. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Stoneman, Colin Dr. 2000. “Zimbabwe Land Policy and the Land Reform Programme.”
Pp. 47-58 in Land Reform in Zimbabwe: Constraints and Prospects. Edited by Dr.
T.A.S.Bowyer-Bower and Dr. Colin Stoneman. Ashgate: Burlington, VT.

Stoneman, Colin. 1988. "The Economy: Recognizing the Reality." Pp. 43-62 in

Zimbabwe 's Prospects: Issues of Race, Class, State and Capital in Southern
Africa edited by Colin Stoneman. London: MacMillan.

246

Sunday Mail. April 2, 2000.
Sunday Mail. April 9, 2000.
Sunday News. March 26, 2000.

Sylvester, Christine. 1991. Zimbabwe: The Terrain of Contradictory Development.
Westview Press: Boulder, CO.

Tilly, Charles. 2000. “Violence.” Social Research. Vol. 63. No. 3: iii-vii.

Tindale, Christopher W. 1996. “The Logic of Torture: A Critical Examination.” Social
Theory and Practice. Vol. 22: 349-74.

Turshen, Meredith. 2000. “The Political Economy of Violence Against Women During
Armed Conflict in Uganda.” Social Conflict. 67 (3): 803 — 24.

The Lancet. 1990. “Structural Adjustment and Health in Africa.” (Editorial). The Lancet.
335:885—887.

The Lancet. 1994. “Structural Adjustment Too Painful?” (Editorial). The Lancet. 344
(8934): 1377-1378.

Tshuma, Lawrence. 1997. A Matter of (In)justice: Law, State and the Agrarian Question
in Zimbabwe. SAPES Books: Harare, Zimbabwe.

UNICEF. 1994. Children and Women in Zimbabwe: A Situational Analysis. Harare:
United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).

Walter, Eugene Victor. 2001. “Notes on Terror.” New England Review. 22 (4): 32 - 40.

Weeks, John. 1993. “A Critic's View: Credit Where Discredit is Due.” Ceres 25 (5): 17-
21.

Weiss, Ruth. 1994. Zimbabwe and the New Elite. London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd.
Wieviorka, Michel. 1999. “Violence, Culture, and Democracy: A European Perspective.”
Pp. 216 - 243 in Cities and Citizenship edited by James Holston. Durham: Duke

University Press.

Wilson, KB. 1992. “Cults of Violence and Counter Violence in Mozambique.” Journal
of Southern African Studies. Vol. 18. No. 3: 527-582.

Worcester, Kenton, Sally Avery Bermanzohn and Mark Ungar. 2002. Violence and
Politics: Globalization ’s Paradox. New York: Routledge.

247

Vayrynen, Raimo. 1986. “Collective Violence in a Discontinuous World: Regional
Realities and Global Fallacies.” International Social Science Journal. Vol.
XXXVIII. No.4: 513-528.

Villarreal, Magdalena. 1992. “The Poverty of Practice: Power, Gender and Intervention
from and Actor-oriented Perspective.” Pp. 237 — 267 in Battlefields of Knowledge,
edited by Norman Long and Ann Long. New York: Routledge.

Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum (ZHRNF). A Report on Post Election Violence. A
report compiled by the Zimbabwe Human Rights Non-Governmental
Organizations Forum. 7 August 2000.

Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans Association (ZN LWVA). Position of the
Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans Association on the current peaceful
occupation of land by war veterans and the landless masses of Zimbabwe. Paper
presented at Zimbabwe Economics Society — Friedrich Ebert Stiftung seminar
“Socio-economic implications of the current farm invasions in Zimbabwe.” 3-16-
00. Harare, Zimbabwe.

Zimbizi, George. 2000. Scenario Planning for Farm Worker Displacement. Report
prepared for Zimbabwe Network for Informal Settlement Action (ZINISA).
ZIN ISA: Harare.

Zur, Judith. 1994. “The Psychological Impact of Impunity.” Anthropology Today. Vol.
10. No. 3:12-17.

Websites:
www.dailynews.co.zw/dailv/2000/June/June28/1 568.html
www.gt_a.gov.zw/President%20speeches/Statistics

hhtp://news/bbc.co.uk/l/hi/wor1d/Africa/698815.stm (Pressure mounts on Zimbabwe; 4-
2-2000).

248

Appendix A

249

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Appendix A:
Interview with ALB/GAPWUZ

Please describe your position & responsibilities.

From the perspective of workers, please describe what has been happening on
farms.

How are workers being affected by invasions?
What is the impact on

their jobs

their livelihoods

their families

their communities

their children

What has been the responses of farm workers?
Are male and female workers experiencing this differently? Describe.

Do you have a sense of the prevalence of rape among farm worker
women? Girls?

What has been the role of ALB/ GAPWUZ in this crisis?
Do farm workers have any representation at the negotiations? Describe.
In general, do you feel farm workers are supportive of invasions?

What has been the worst case of violence against farm workers (in your region)
that you know of?

If the invasions result in a resettlement program, do you think farm workers will
benefit? Why or why not?

Have members of your organization experienced intimidation or harassment?
Please describe. Why do you think this happened?

What is your organization doing to advocate for farm workers during this period
of crisis?

What do you see as the short term impacts of this on farm workers?

What do you see as the long term impacts of this on farm workers?

250

16. Anything else? Questions for me?

251

Appendix B

252

APPENDIX B:

FARMER INTERVIEW GUIDE
1. Background - age, marital, nationality, kids, education, non-Zim citizenship
2. Farm Name, District, Farm Association
3. Farm Size (HA), crops, no. of workers: Permanent/ Seasonal; Male/ Female
4. How/ when acquire farm? Listed for acquisition? Ever approached to make land

available - describe.

5. Relationships with black farmers - proximity of CA/ RA, assistance (CFU’s “over
the fence” informal assistance)

6. Relationships with workers - land for gardens, fields, Farm Health Worker,
schools, clinic, housing, water source, workers’ committee, other assistance

7. Referendum - did you provide your workers with : information, transportation to
polls, time off to visit polls; election - did you provide your workers with
information

8. Do you think your workers feel free to participate in Zimbabwean politics? (Why/
why not?)

9. Occupations/ squatters — current and any previous occasions: describe
What was the period or length?
What happened?
How did it begin?
Who was involved (squatters)?
How impact workers?
Outside intervention (police, army, other GoZ agencies)?
Negotiations - who involved?
Effects on productivity ?
Losses?
Why were you targeted?
Did your family move off? Why/ why not? Describe.
Did your workers move off? Describe.
How have the invasions impacted your family - your spouse and kids?
How do women and men experience the invasions differently in your
opinion?
Satisfied with CFU response?

10. Other crises - fuel, forex, interest rates, exchange rates - what has been their
impact on your farming business?

253

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

What do you see for your future in Zimbabwe? Do you feel free to participate in

Zimbabwean politics?

Have you ever considered leaving?
How can this be resolved?
Questions for me?

Anything else?

254

 

I;'\.-IE!..-1. .

Appendix C

255

APPENDIX C:
FARM WOMEN INTERVIEW GUIDE

1. Background - age, marital, nationality, kids, education, non-Zimbabwean
citizenship

2. Farm Name, District, Farmer Association

3. Farm Size (HA), crops, workers: Permanent/ Seasonal; Male/ Female

4. How/ when acquire farm? Listed for acquisition? Ever approached to make land

available - describe

5. Please describe your relationship with black farmers - proximity of CA/ RA,
assistance (CF U’s “over the fence” informal assistance)

6. Please describe your relationship with workers - do you provide land for gardens,
fields, a Farm Health Worker, schools, clinic, housing, water source, workers'
committee, other assistance

7. Regarding the Constitutional Referendum -did you provide your workers with:
information, transportation to polls, time off to vote;

8. Do you think your workers feel free to participate in Zimbabwean politics?
9. Occupations/ squatters - ever: describe

What was the period or length

What happened?

How did it begin?

Who was involved?

How did it impact workers?

Outside intervention (police, army, other GoZ agencies)?

Negotiation - who involved?

Effects on productivity ?

Losses?

Why were you targeted?

Did your family move off? Why/ why not? Describe.

Did your workers move off? Describe.

How have the invasions impacted your family - your spouse and kids?
How do women and men experience the invasions differently in your
opinion?

Satisfied with CFU response - why so few women in positions at CFU?

10. Usually what is your role on the farm? What do you do? What else?

256

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

Do you feel your children have a future in Zimbabwe? As farmers? Describe.
Do men and women experience this crisis differently? Describe.
How do you cope with the crisis day to day?

Other crises - fuel, forex, interest rates, exchange rates — what has been their

impact on your business?

What do you see for your future in Zimbabwe? Do you feel free to participate in

Zimbabwean politics?

Have you ever considered leaving?
How can this be resolved?
Questions for me?

Anything else?

257

Appendix D

258

APPENDIX D:
INTERVIEWS WITH CFU REGIONAL LEADERS

Date:

Region:

Total Number of Farmer Associations in Region:
Total Number of Farms in Region:

Total Number of Farms invaded to date:

Total Number of Farms currently occupied:

1. Please indicate if any of the following have occurred and whether most, many, few or
none of the farms in your region have been affected by these activities:

 

Event Most Many Few None

 

damage to crops

 

damage to farm equipment/ property

 

disruption of farm activities

 

violence against workers

 

violence against farmer/ family

 

threats against workers

 

threats against farmer/ family

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

forced political campaigning

 

2. When did the occupations/ invasions begin in your region?
3. What was the first farm invaded/ occupied? What happened? Who was involved?

4. How did the farmer respond? Did the community respond? How? Did CFU
respond? How? Did workers respond? How?

5. Were workers affected? How?

259

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

Why do you think this farm was the first affected in your region?

When did occupations spread to other farms in region? What happened? Who was
involved? How did farmers respond? How did workers?

In the early stages of the invasions, as CFU regional chair, what advice did you give
to farmers?

Has that advice changed? In what ways? Why?
Did you or CFU advise at some point that men, women, or children leave the farms?
Please describe. When/ where/ circumstances/ did farmers comply/ have they moved

back?

Are there/ have there been “football teams” in the region? Please describe. How did
they form? Who was involved? Did workers join? When/ where?

What has been the impact of the actions of “football teams”? Are they still active?
Why/ why not?

Would you say there has been a shift or shifts in the nature of occupations since they
began? If yes, when did the shift/s occur? What happened? How have things been
different?

In your region, is there a relationship between farms invaded and the list gazetted in
1997? Please describe.

Has there been violence in your region? Please describe. When did things turn
violent? What happened?

What has been the worst case of violence in your region?

Do you know the total number of workers who have been assaulted in your region?
Do you know the total number of workers homes destroyed in your region?

How would you describe the feelings of farmers in your region?

How have the deaths of the three farmers affected farmers in your region?

Have you had negotiations with war vets? Please describe. Who initiated
negotiations? Who participated? What kind of understanding/ agreement did the

parties come to? Have parties lived up to the agreement? Were the negotiations
successful?

260

 

1 an .I.g_~:,

‘1

 

 

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

What is the organizational structure of the war vets in your region? Who is in charge?
Are there competing factions within the organization in your region? Are the war
vets in control of the invaders?

Who is directing the invasions in your area? Who has been providing transport?
Food? Water? ,

What has been the response of police in your region?

Do farmers in yourregion feel that CFU is adequately addressing the concerns of
farmers in your region? Why/ why not? What would farmers like to see the CFU do?

What do you see as short term affects of this crisis on commercial farming in
Zimbabwe?

What do you see as long term affects of this crisis on commercial farming in
Zimbabwe?

261

Appendix E

262

 

30m 2 ob ““328 ~85 05 308— 8: cu so.» a oeefimxoanev no.8 So.» 5 Swan 983838 05 En so; A

 

62938
beep—So mg.“ @3808 <m mo c3852 :88.

 

”83
8 332: mace.“ 2382: <m we “38:2 30H

 

5 a weed .8 88:2 ash

 

”apnea: 5 do Baez EB

 

”2n: Seesaw"? beam me 252

 

 

”comwom

 

 

”3mm

 

 

 

«baggage—.0 :25 533983 .882...— "m— 51:09:.

263

w ...I. ...fflnr 3." . .A.‘

 

D 80> 880538: 00:8 0.8 03.88 33: 303833 \30> .83 8055 .m

@838 page see as
58:80“ :38?» 3838 E05 08830 3 38038 28 30> .83 05 382.3800 300.83 Q72 3088.3 .8 9.on < 33>
53:83 =8£o£av >838 805 08830 8 $808 98 30> .83 05 3:03:00 3068.3 mo 98% < ._>
803033 380.50 8: 3 0088.3 05 98 30> .83 533 380.38 808383: 0038800 33.30% <m 05. .>
803033 330038 88 3 808.8.“ 05 28 30> .83 533 388% 08389: 3088.3 we anew < .3
083838 808.8.“ 05 E0: 8 8.8.3 05 9 cm 88 80800—8 08 308.8.“ mo 98% < .5
0838?: 88.8.3 05 20: 9 8.8.3 05 9 800w 98 80:08 3 0033888 33.50% <m 0E. .33
£030: 8 BE .3 30> .83 05 :33 808383: 88.8.3 05. .3

809:5: 0835838 20.30 0880a 80:5 33¢ 05
8.3 80383: 30: 8 3 35088808 80:3 808 So» 3 30.8.8.3 .30 308.38 filmy—~50 05 809300808 809 m£30=8 05 no 3023 .N

264

D 820 80>

D 820 80>

3.003

 

O

O

03>

88838883 mo :88 05 00838 808 So» 83 8838883 308 3 08808808 388 05 8003 35 m8:

888 .33 .8 233

8038003”? 8009 30888 35 883 .c

8383 35 83 8838883 8 $583808 8009 80.8 So.» 88: w8o_ 388 .883 .m

888385898 30: 2 88.8.3 05 8 0880 38:88 00:08 on .V

.w

265

a n «550:: 8 ow 00003 .0: t .3 t 55026 9 ow 0303 .m0» .2

266

qu 4...

_. A:

 

=0500.rv >030 805 000:0 8 88030 0:0 30>
003 05 800.800 38.83 QZ< 80:80.0 .8 98:» <

 

3.8.08 .3880; >030 805 805 9
88000 0:0 30> ..0>> 05 800.800 3085 .8 000% <

 

00202: 50030 8: 3 00800: 05 0:0 30> :03
53> 50030 000389: 0088800 38000 <.: 2:.

 

.00>_0>8 50030 8: 3 00:80.: 05 0:0
30> :03 505 50030 000383: 80800..— .8 98:» <

 

.8383: 00800.0 05 £0:
8 800.: 05 00 cm 0:0 0080.0 000 80:80:00 98..» <

 

.8389: 00800.3 05 0.0: 00 8.0:
05 00 000w 0:0 00:20 3 0088800 308000 <0. 2:.

 

£030:
8 83: .3 30> :03 05 53>» 0000383: 00800: 2:.

 

20: .33 .8 .33

 

 

02

8 00> ...
8:00.002.»
30.0.30.

35 00>»

 

oz 8 00>
...0800
00:2.

05

 

3.003
.8 .02

 

00.:—
80» 8
003. 00>0

a. X 000..—

 

380:0

 

 

.0300? .808 30: .8: 0:0 000: 0003 008000.00 850:0: 05 .8 :03? 0300308 00008 05:08 00.5 000: 05 :3
880 0800 00 0800 00000308 00508 05 :05 b~=0g§0 08: 00:: 05 8.: 8300.83 30: 0 00 0008000.. 00.8 80% 8 808.5 .:

.o

267

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0:02 30.: 080m .802 0002 08800 0000 .5
0:02 .50...— 080m 802 3002 080w 820000 .om
0:02 .50.: 080m 802 0002 000: 8:80 .0—
082 30.,— 080m .802 3002 :05 0.090 .M:
0:02 .50.: 080m .802 3002 309008-85 .8088 8:0: .8 :05 .2
0:02 30..— 080w 802 0002 30:05 80:08:00 .8 8:00.088 .0:
0:02 30.: 080m .802 0002 30:0:0 b08082 00 800888 .2
0:02 .50... 080m .802 0002 308 83:00 .2
0:02 .50... 080m .802 0002 858003 0050 88800 .2
0:02 .50“: 080m .802 0002 :00000 8880 8.: 8:80:08 000:: 020: E 83300 .2
0:02 30“: 080w 802 3002 8:03:00 000:: 020: E wsmma ._ _
0:02 30.: 080m .802 0002 00:0: 32.0.: E mEmwom .o.

 

 

 

3:03
0200: 0000

 

 

28:80 ”830:8
0:. 8 00.00:.“ :00: 0>0: 8:0 <m .50.: 8 8:8 00002: \0080000 .8 8:88 0:: 005.8000 .00: 00:. 038000.. 0:. 29:0 0000..—

 

 

.0805 83.80000 0:55 000: 0.6: 00050000 005 0033.500 .8 0090 0:000:30 05 8080000 00 8388080 80 _ 800000 35 8

 

.200

 

85.5000 0000.3 0050

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.08003

 

{\ll.

 

268

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

269

 

 

 

30... 080m 802 0002 002.808 880.. 0.080.. .00000:0_ 00 00:0. 0.0000,. .00 0.00000 .0380 .2
0:02
.500. 050m .802 0002 0000.000... 0000.003 .3
0:02
30... 080m .802 0002 :0000: 0000.003 .2
0:0 2
30... 080m 802 0002 . 8.000: 000.003 0:00.. 0.0 :000000000 .Nm
0:02
.50“. 080m .802 0002 .800000 .0:00000 000.003 500.0 .00 8.00.5000 .2.
0:0 2
.50... 080m .802 0002 80000880000 00.. 0.500800 08.003 E00,. 00:. w:.>0.: .00
0:02
30“. 080m .802 0002 00003 00.0 00:00:00 dm
0.52
30.”. 080m .802 0002 000.. 00.0 00:00:00 .3
0:02
30... 080m .802 0002 000:0 0000 ...N
9:03 "b.2000 8.30:0.—
0>00$ 0000 0:0 .8 00000000 :00: 02.: 00:0 <0. 0:0» :. 0500.. 0000.8. 00.00000 00 00:50.: 05 3.0080 .8: 00:0 00:00.00 0.: 0.00.0 0000..—
0:0 2 30h. 080m .802 0002 00300000 0.003 .8
0:0 2 30... 080m .802 0002 000008. .8 00000500 E00... 00 00: 00000.. \0000000 .3
0:0 2 300 080m .802 0002 800003 00:00 .00 00:00000 .vm
0:0 2 30... 080m .802 0002 0.5m .00 000000000 .mm
. 000000 .
r 252 00. 280 8.2 082 .0020 00 050:2. as 800000 000000 .50 0 00
. \I‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0:02
30 0 080m .802 0002 000.00 00-DZ<N.:0: :. 0000.003 .00 5000.00.30 00005.? .00
0:0 2
300 080m .802 0002 00...00 .00.0..00 00-32<N-:0: :. 0000.003 .00 :0.000.0.0000 0000000 00000.. .9.
0.503 "000.0000 0.0.32.8
0.000.. 0000 0:0 .8 00000000 :00: 08: 00:0 <0 0:0» :. 0:000.— 0000>:. 000.0300 00 00:50: 0:0 00:.00000 000: 00... 00:00000 0:. 0.00.0 0000.0
, 0:02
30.... 050m .802 0002 00...00 00-DZ<N-:0: :. 0000.003 .00 :0.000.0.0000 8:50.? .3.
0:02
30 0 080w .802 0002 000.00 ...0-DZ<N :. 0000.003 .00 :0.000.0.0000 0000000 00000.. .00
0:02
30 0 080m .802 0002 00.003800: .3028 0000.003 000 00 00:00:00 .9
0:0 2
30 0 080m .802 0002 E00,. 8.80. 500.20 000.003 800.0 ..0
0:02
30... 080m .802 0002 05000 w:.>00. 83808 3.80.. 0.080.. 00 0000.003 E000 0.080.. .00
0:02
30 0 050m .802 0002 008.003 800.0 .00 :0000000 E00385 .3
0:02
30 0 080m 802 0002 0000 02.0 .0. .0306. 00: 0. 0. 0. E0000 .0: 0.0 0:3 0000.003 .00 3.00030 .00.
0:02
30 n. 080m .802 0002 00:00:00 0000. 0:3 0000.003 00 5.00030 Km
0:02
30... 080m .802 0002 0000.003 E000 .00 5000 dm

 

 

 

0:02

 

 

 

 

270

 

0:0 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30 0 080m .802 .002 0000.000... 000800.. .00
0:0 2

30 0 080m .802 .002 00.00: 00800.. .00
0:0 2

30 0 080m .802 .002 08.80.00. .0000000 .000800.. ..0 0000000000 ...m
0:0 2

30 0 080m .802 .002 0000: .0008000 ..0 000000.000 .00
0:0 2

30 0 080m .802 .002 000000880000 00.. 0000: .000800. 08. w:.>08 .00
0:0 2

30 0 080m .802 0002 008003 00:00 ..0 8.80.8.8. 80.0.80 0. 0000.003 .0 00.80.0080 8080.? .00
0002 0000.003

30 0 080m .802 0002 00:00 ..0 00.000.08.00. 80.0.80 0. 0000.003 ..0 00.000.00.00 0000000 000000.. .00
0:0 2

30 ”. 080m .802 0002 008.003 0050 ..0 00.000.00.00. .08? :. 0000.003 ..0 00.000.00.000 8080.? .Nm
0:0 2

30 0 080m .802 0002 0000.003 00:00 .0 00.80.88. .083 0. 0000.003 ..0 00.80.0080 0000000 00000.. ..0
0:0 2

30 0 080m .802 .002 000.008. 0. 0000.003 ..0 :0..00.0.0000 8080.9, dm
0:0 2

30 0 080m .802 .002 000.0008. :. 0000.003 ..0 :0..00.0.t00 0000000 00000.. .00
0:0 2

30 0 080m .802 0002 8.300 0. 0000.003 ..0 00.80.0000 00080.0.» .00
0:0 2

30 0 080m .802 .002 8.300 0. 0000.003 ..0 00000.0..000 0000000 00000.. .0...

 

 

271

D 0 2D 00 > 00000 000.0 0. 000.002.. 0000000000 00w0000000 080.008 ..0.00 00 00.00.00.008 0>0.. .00

 

 

 

 

 

 

272

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.002
300 0800 .802 .00.). 30.00000 0000.0. 000.0 .00
0.002
30... 0800 .80.). .00.). 00.00000 0000.0. 00.00 .00
0.002
30“. 0800 .803. .00.). 90.00000 0000.0. 00.00 ...0
0002
30... 0800 .0002 .002 0000....0 .000800. ..0 0000000>0 .00
0.002
30... 08cm .80.). .002 00>..0.00 ..000 0.080.. .000800.. ..0 0000.50.00 .00
0.002
300 0800 .80.). .002 000800.. ..0 00000005 .00
0.002 0000 .300
30... 0800 .803. .005. .. 0305. .00 0. .. a. 000.00 .00 0.0 003 0000808 0.80.. 00 00800.. ..0 00000000 .00
0007.
30“. 08cm .80.). .002 00000.00 00.0. 003 0000808 0.80.. 00 00800.. ..0 00000000 .N0
0007.
30... 0800 .802 .005. 0.80.. 00 00800.. ..0 ...000 ..0
0.5.... "0.0.0.. 00.30:...
0.50.. 0000 0... .00 0800...... 0000 0.00.. .0... <0 000.. 0. 0800.. 00002.. 00.00000 ..0 00080.. 0... 000.0300 .000 .0... 00000000 0... 0.00.0 0000...
0002
30... 0800 .803. .00.). 0000808 0.80.. 0.080.. .000800.. ..0 ..00000 .0880 .00

 

 

 

 

 

 

D 020 8>

D 020 8>

D
D
D

D

88.83 8.5

9828.. @2838.
3:828“ 88 328.88%
8828.. 8.8 35.8800

”Emma 85 :5 x05 ”85 So» E 8282: E5833 5 8833th on?

.Btomou 0883 .8» b

$on So» 5 8282: \mcoamasooo 38.5088 £020 08:

.3283 8803 .8» .2

28.3 So» 5 8282: \maowasooo vowflsooco £820 gum

dam—8% 882m .8» h

.0»

.m»

.3

.m»

.N»

.K

273

$538580 \m:o_8>5 8.5 85 8 338." 8 wEow Duo 8m 9 8:— :38688 So» 5 888.8.“ 2:03 :33

So: »:>» .8 »§>

D
02 D 8 >
mmcozmgsooo \mcommgfi gm 2: 8 Duo mo 3:38.. 05 £3, vommuwm :ocsmoommm .So» 8 wfichB $08.3 0.8 .3868 5

@8589 85am »§E >3: »_8a8_xo.a% .8» b

D 020 8 .r $8.8m .85 3:62 332853 @8288 as on? 88688 So» 3 mamas—on 888.5 mo 392 so» on

$058» 88.8.» »58 >5: bufimeoaam .8» .2

D 020 8 > $8.3m .85 a2 »_Eo§§oq 26: as? 228688 So» 8 wfiwcofin $08.3 mo 305. so» on

 

baggage—85 883 888:3
265— 8: on

D
D A2588 8828 850
D £38? 8.8.“ 8::8

.mm

.9

Am

.8

.2.

.w»

.2.

274

SO> Kain.

”38888 35:63.. .§

275

Appendix F

276

Appendix F: Farmer Questionnaire

BACKGROUND
Marital Status: CI Married D Unmarried
Male/ Husband Female/
Wife
Age
Were you born in Zimbabwe? 0 Yes D No D Yes C] No

What is your nationality?

 

 

Do you have claim to non-Zimbabwean citizenship? CI Yes D No D Yes D No
Number of Children
Age Sex
Child I
Child 2
Child 3

Child 4
Child 5

Farm Name:
District:

Region:

Farmer Association:
Size (HA):

Please list all crops under cultivation on a typical year:

Number of Permanent Workers: Male Female

Number of Seasonal Workers: Male Female

277

RELATIONSHIPS WITH NEIGHBORING SMALL SCALE FARMERS

The CFU has actively promoted an informal “across the fence” assistance program for
small-scale black farmers through its members. in this section, I am attempting to
quantify this policy of good neighborliness. Please circle the response that best
describes your situation.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

What is the approximate distance from your farm to the nearest communal
area?

1 Share border

2 5 km or less, does not share border
3 6 km - l0 km

4 ll km — I5 km

5 16 km +

What is the approximate distance from your farm to the nearest resettlement

l Share border
2 5 km or less, does not share border
3 6 km - l0 km
4 ll km - l5 km
5 16 km +

What is the approximate distance from your farm to the nearest small-scale
commercial farm area?

1 Share border

5 km or less, does not share border

6 km - 10 km

ll km - 15 km

16 km +

Ul-hWN

How would you characterize your relationship with nearby black farmers?
Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

Not applicable

GUI-$303k)—

How often do you talk with black farmers about farming methods?
Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Seasonally

Yearly

Never

O‘M-hbJN—t

278

Have you provided the following assistance to black farmers:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of assistance Frequency

6. seed for no cost Sometimes Frequently Never
7. seed for subsidized cost Sometimes Frequently Never
8. fertilizer for no cost Sometimes Frequently Never
9. subcontracting Sometimes Frequently Never
1 0. loans Sometimes Frequently Never
1 1. marketing Sometimes Frequently Never
12. farming advice Sometimes Frequently Never
I 3. transport Sometimes Frequently Never
l4. plowing Sometimes Frequently Never
15. other (please describe) Sometimes Frequently Never
16. other (please describe) Sometimes Frequently Never
WORKERS

In this section, I would like to assess the impact of threats to commercial farming on
the livelihoods of farm workers.

9.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

How would you characterize your relationship with your workers?

 

1 Very Good

2 Good

3 Fair

4 Poor

5 Very Poor

Do your workers have access to land for gardens on the farm? D Yes
D No

Do your workers have access to land for their own field crops (ie maize) on
the farm?

D Yes CI No
Is there a farm health worker on your farm? D Yes Cl No
Is she/he trained? D Yes D No

279

14. What is the distance to the nearest primary school for farm workers’ children
from your farm?

l On farm
2 less than 1 km
3 l km — 5 km
4 6 km - 10 km
5 ll km - 15 km
6 16 km +
l5. What is the distance to the nearest secondary school for farm workers’
children from your farm?
I On farm
2 less than 1 km
3 1 km - 5 km
4 6 km - 10 km
5 ll km - 15 km
6 16 km +
16. What is the distance to the nearest clinic/ hospital for farm workers from
your farm?
1 On farm
2 less than 1 km
3 1 km - 5 km
4 6 km - 10 km
5 ll km - 15 km
6 l6 km +

17. Do you have a workers committee on your farm? D Yes D No

l8. If yes, how often do you meet with the committee or its’ members?
1 Daily
2 Weekly
3 Twice a month
I. Monthly
2. As needed

Do you help your workers with the following...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of help Frequency
27. Money for school fees Sometimes Regularly Never
28. Money for funerals Sometimes Regularly Never
29. Money for clinic! hospital Sometimes Regularly Never
30. Subsidized mealie-meal Sometimes Regularly Never
3 l . Subsidized basic food Sometimes Regularly Never
32. Seed Sometimes Regularly Never

 

280

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33. Chemicals Sometimes Regularly Never
34. Fertilizer Sometimes Regularly Never
35. Plowing Sometimes Regularly Never
36. Transport Sometimes Regularly Never
37. Other (please describe) Sometimes Regularly Never
38. Other (please describe) Sometimes Regularly Never
l0. Indicate the number of structures in your compound that are:

ll.

12.

l5.

l6.

LAND
I7.

18.

Brick/ cement houses
Pole/ dagga houses
blair toilets

What is the water source for your workers? Circle.

1 Dam
2 River
3 Tap
4 borehole
9 other (describe)
Did you provide transport (or money for transport) for your workers to visit

polls during referendum at their request? D

Yes [II No
At the request of your workers, did you allow workers time off to visit polls
during referendum? D
Yes D No
At the request of your workers, did you provide information about the draft
constitution? D Yes
D No
At the request of your workers, have you provided information about the
2000 elections? D
Yes D No
Do you think your workers feel free to participate in Zimbabwean politics?

D Yes
D No

When did you acquire this farm?

How did you acquire this farm? Circle

I Bought
2 inherited
3 leased

28]

19. How many farms do you currently own?
20. Was your farm gazetted in I997 for acquisition by government? D Yes
D No
2|. If yes, was it later delisted? D Yes
D No
22. If no, did the government acquire it within a year of listing?D Yes Cl No
23. Have you ever been approached by anyone about making some portion of
your farm available for resettlement?
D Yes CI No
24. I f yes, please describe. (Who, when)
How did you respond?
25. Do you support land reform? D Yes
D No
26. If you answered yes to question 54, what are the critical elements to a
successful land reform program?
27. If you answered no to question 54, please explain.
FARM OCCUPATIONS
28. Has your farm been occupied/ squatted on (Y/N)
this year D Yes CI No
in past 5 years D Yes D No
in past 10 years CI Yes CI No
since independence 0 Yes D No
before independence D Yes CI No
29. When did occupation begin? (ie 12 Feb)

 

282

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. mm“
lg- n

 

30. Has the occupation been
I Continuous presence
2 lnterrnittent presence
3 l. Total number of squatters/ invaders best estimate
32. Have occupations involved:
Activity Extent
6|. damage to crops None Minor Severe
62. damage to farm equipment/ property None Minor Severe
63. disruption of farm activities None Minor Severe
64. violence against workers None Minor Severe
65. violence against farmer/ family None Minor Severe
66. threats against workers None Minor Severe
67. threats against farmer/ family None Minor Severe
68. political campaigning None Minor Severe
69. Other please describe None Minor Severe
85. Did the police intervene? D Yes
D No
86. Did the army intervene? Cl Yes
D No
87. Were there negotiations between farmer and squatters/ occupiers? D Yes C]
No
88. l f so, who initiated the negotiations?
1 Farm owner
2 Farmer Association Chair
3 Local police
4 Representative of squatters/ occupiers
5 Traditional Leader
9 other (describe)

89. What happened with negotiations?

90. Did the invasions affect your productivity? D Yes

283

DNo

91. Best estimate, squatters included (%)
men

women
children

92. Who participated in squatting: (tick all that apply):
D Communal area residents
Cl Resettlement area
D Township residents
El farm workers
0 former farm workers
Cl other
Cl Do not know
Squatters were predominately

 

93. What was the age composition of the group?
0 Mostly 35 years or under

0 Mostly over 35 years

94. Did you or your family move off the farm for safety at any point during this
occupation? D Yes
D No

95. Who and for how long?

96. Did you advise your workers to leave the farm for safety at any point during

this occupation?
D Yes D No

IMPACT OF CRISES ON FARMING
97. Since the fuel crisis began, have you had difficulties acquiring the fuel you
need for normal operations?
D Yes D No
98. Please describe.

99. For the season ending in 2000, did you take out a seasonal loan? D Yes
CI No

100. If yes, what was the interest rate?

284

10].

102.

103.

104.

105.

Do you anticipate being able to pay it afier this selling season?

If no, will you be able to roll the loan over?

Have you applied for loans for the coming season?

If yes, what has been the outcome of that application?

1 Denied

2 Accepted

3 No reply yet

9 Other (describe)

1f unknown, when do you expect to hear?

D Yes
CI No

E1 Yes
D No

D Yes
CI No

Have the crises of this year (fuel, exchange rate, invasions) compromised your

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ability to:
Difficulty Extent
91. pay your workers Not Applicable None Minor Severe
92. pay your monthly bills (non-wages) Not Applicable None Minor Severe
93. pay your loans Not Applicable None Minor Severe
94. pay your credit due on inputs Not Applicable None Minor Severe
(fertilizer, chemicals, seeds...)
95. prepare land for winter crop Not Applicable None Minor Severe
96. prepare land for next season Not Applicable None Minor Severe
97. secure finance for next season Not Applicable None Minor Severe
98. secure markets Not Applicable None Minor Severe
99. Other describe Not Applicable None Minor Severe
100. Are you satisfied with CFU's response to the invasions? C1 Yes D No
101. Why/ why not?

285

 

 

 

FUTURE
102. Have you felt free to participate in Zimbabwean politics? D Yes C] No

103. Why/ why not?

104. Prior to this year, have you ever considered leaving Zimbabwe? D Yes C1
No

105. Why/ why not?

106. Have you considered leaving Zimbabwe this year? CI Yes
C1 No

107. Why/ why not?

108. How do you think this situation could be resolved?

109. Additional comments:

THANK YOU!

286

Please provide the following information for the person who completed this form:
Age

Sex

If you would like to receive information on the progress of my research, please write your
contact details below:

Name:

Address:

Emmh

287

Appendix G

288

Appendix:
Daily Invasion Report Coding
AS OF JUNE 17 2001

Note —

Categories/ variables for which I am coding are called ‘nodes’ by NVIVO. The first set
called ‘tree nodes’ refer to nodes that are hierarchically organized (hence trees). For
example, I am coding by region (1) which is then broken down by communities. The
second set are called ‘free nodes’ which means they stand on their own. For example,
“confrontations” and “abductions” are a couple I have created. At a later date, I can
create tree nodes out of free nodes if I choose. I include descriptions of all free nodes and
tree nodes that need description. Regions and local war vet names don’t have descriptions
as they are self-explanatory. l have 115 tree nodes and 45 free nodes.

1 developed these codes using 10 sample CFU farm invasion reports from various points
in the crisis. I went through and coded these 10 documents, continuously revising the
coding categories to the ones included here. I’m sure that I will continue to refine the
coding as 1 continue. The codes are pretty general and can be further recoded later. For
example, if I call up all data for confrontation, I can recode into new categories for
confrontations with police and confrontations with farmers, if I choose.

NODE LISTING

Nodes in Set: All Tree Nodes
Created: 11/22/00 - 4: 15: 19 PM
Modified: 6/17/01 - 3: ll: 54 PM
Number of Nodes: 115

1(1) /Region
Description: Code by farm region then farm association

2(1 1) Region/Midlands

3(1 1 1) /Region/Midlands/Shurgwi

4(1 1 2) /Region/Midlands/Gweru

5(1 1 3) Region/Midlands/Somhabula

6(1 1 4) /Region/Midlands/Gweru East~ Lalapanzi
7(1 1 5) Region/Midlands/Mvuma

8(1 1 9) fRegion/Midlands/Kwekwe

9(1 2) Region/Matebeleland

10(1 2 I) IRegion/Matebeleland/Nyamandhlovu
11(1 2 2) /Region/Matebeleland/Mzingwane
12(1 2 3) /Region/Matebeleland/Inyathi

13(1 2 4) /Region/Matebele1and/Gwaai

289

14(1 2 5) Region/Matebeleland/Gwanda

15(1 3) Region/Masvingo

16(1 3 1) Region/Masvingo/Chiredzi

17(1 3 2) IRegion/Masvingo/Gutu

18(1 3 3) /Region/I\/Iasvingo/Chatsworth

19(1 3 4) /Region/Masvingo/SAVE Conservancy
20(1 3 5) /Region/MasvingoMasvingo East~Central
21(1 3 6) /Region/Masvingo/Masvingo West
22(1 3 9) fRegion/Masvingo/Mwenzi

23(1 4) Region/Mash West SO

24(1 4 1) /Region/Mash West SO/Selous

25(1 4 2) Region/Mash West SO/Suri Suri

26(1 4 3) /Region/Mash West SO/Chakari

27(1 4 4) /Region/Mash West SO/Chegutu

28(1 4 5) /Region/Mash West SO/Kadoma

29(1 4 6) /Region/Mash West SO/Gadzima

30(1 4 9) /Region/Mash West SO/Norton

31(1 5) /Region/Mash West NO

32(1 5 I) /Region/Mash West NO/Chinhoyi

33(1 5 2) /Region/Mash West NO/Karoi

34(1 5 3) /Region/Mash West NO/Doma

35(1 5 4) /Region/Mash West NO/Banket

36(1 5 5) /Region/Mash West NO/Raffingora
37(1 5 6) /Region/Mash West NO/Mutorashanga
38(1 5 7) /Region/Mash West NO/l'engwe

39(1 5 8) /Region/Mash West NO/Umboe

40(1 6) Region/Manicaland

41(1 6 l) IRegion/Manicaland/Headlands

42(1 6 2) /RegionlManicaland/Nyanga~ Troutbeck
43(1 6 3) /Region/Manicaland/Chipinge

44(1 6 4) /Region/Manicalanledzi

45(1 6 5) /Region/Manicaland/Rusape

46(1 7) /Region/Mash Central

47(1 7 1) /Region/Mash Central/Mvurwi

48(1 7 2) Region/Mash Central/Horseshoe

49(1 7 3) /Region/Mash Central/Shamva

50(1 7 4) [Region/Mash Central/Centenary

51(1 7 5) /Region/Mash Central/Bindura

52(1 7 6) /Region/Mash Central/Glendale

53(1 7 7) /Region/Mash Central/Mutepatepa
54(1 7 8) /Region/Mash CentrallMazowe~Concession
55(1 7 9) /Region/Mash Central/Harare West
56(1 7 10) /Region/Mash Central/Tsatsi

57(1 7 11) /Region/Mash Central/Victory Block
58(1 8) /Region/Mash East

290

59(1 8 l) Region/Mash East/Harare South-Beatrice
60(1 8 2) IRegion/Mash East/Bromley

61(1 8 3) lRegion/Mash East/Ruwa

62(1 8 4) Region/Mash East/Enterprise

63(1 8 5) [Region/Mash East/Marondera So~
64(1 8 6) Region/Mash East/Wedza

65(1 8 7) IRegion/Mash EasWirginia~Macheke
66(1 8 8) Region/Mash East/Marondera

67(1 8 9) /Region/Mash East/Marondera North
68(1 8 10) /Region/Mash East/Marondera West
69(1 8 ll) /Region/Mash East/Featherstone

70(2) /Demands
Description: demands made by invaders on farmers

71(2 1) /Demands/Land
Description: Demand for land by invaders including land for temp/perm settlement and
signing over of farm or portion of farm

72(2 2) Demands/Provisions
Description: Demand by invaders for provisions including (not limited to) food, water,
clothing, housing; excluding money and transport

73(2 3) Demands/Money
Description: Demands by invaders for money

74(2 4) /Demands/Transport
Description: demands by invaders for transportation

75(2 5) fDemands/Equipment Use
Description: demands vy invaders for equipment use

76(2 6) fDemands/Remove Cattle
Description: demands by invaders that farmer removes his cattle

77(2 7) /Demands/Farmer Leave
Description: demand by invaders that farmer leaves farm

78(2 8) /Demands/Meeting
Description: invaders demand meeting with farmers

79(2 9) /Demands/CF W leave
Description: invaders demand farm workers must leave farm

80(3) /Local WV Leaders

291

Description: specific names of war vet/ invasion leaders given

81(3 1) /Local WV Leaders/Hove

82(3 2) [Local WV Leaders/Marimo

83(3 3) /Local WV Leaders/Majuru

84(3 4) /Local WV Leaders/Chigwadere
85(3 5) /Local WV Leaders/Lovejoy
86(3 6) /Local WV Leaders/Mrs~ Rusike
87(3 7) [Local WV Leaders/Rex Jesus
88(3 8) /Local WV Leaders/Chinotimba
89(3 9) /Local WV Leaders/Mr Mawere~
90(3 10) /Local WV Leaders/Captain Zimuto
91(3 1 1) /Local WV Leaders/Prince

92(3 12) /Local WV Leaders/Gunpowder
93(3 13) /Local WV Leaders/Dos Carlos
94(3 14) /Local WV Leaders/Garwe

95(3 15) /Local WV Leaders/Chidnda

96(4) N iolence-CF
Description: Violence against farmer or farmer's family

97(4 1) Niolence-CF/Assaults CF
Description: assault of farmer or family

98(4 2) N iolence-CF/Deaths CF
Description: death of farmer or farmer family

99(4 3) Niolence-CF/Rape CF
Description: rape of farmer or farmer family

100(5) N iolence-CF W
Description: Violence against farm worker or his/her family

101(5 1) Niolence-CFW/Assaults CFW
Description: assaults against farm workers

102(5 2) N iolence-CF W/Deaths CF W
Description: death of farm worker

103(5 3) N iolence-CFW/Rape CF W
Description: rape or sexual abuse of farm worker

104(6) /Activity
Description: Activities of invaders related to settlement

292

 

.\ ‘ ,2. .......'.-....;I

 

105(6 1) /Activity/Cattle
Description: invaders bring in their cattle

106(6 2) /Activity/Selling Plots
Description: invaders or others engaged in selling plots

107(6 3) /Activity/Building
Description: all building by invaders: cattle pens, housing, etc

108(6 4) /Activity/Pegging
Description: descriptions of invaders pegging lands

109(6 5) /Activity/Ploughing
Description: invaders engaged in ploughing

1 10(6 6) /Activity/Poaching
Description: livestock and wildlife

1 11(6 7) /Activity/Gardens
Description: invaders planting gardens

112(7) /Invasion
Description: reports of invasions

1 13(7 1) /Invasion/New
Description: codes all 'new' invasions

1 14(7 2) /Invasion/Re-
Description: codes all 're-invasions' or 're-visits'

115(7 3) flnvasion/Move
Description: movement of invaders on/off

Project: Dissertation
User: Default

Date: 6/17/01 - 3:20:11 PM
NODE LISTING

Nodes in Set: All Free Nodes
Created: 11/22/00 - 4:15:19 PM
Modified: 6/17/01 - 3:10:26 PM
Number of Nodes: 45

293

lAbductions
Description: all person/ cases of abductions; location unknown (ie kidnapping)

2Assaults
Description: physical assaults on any persons excluding CF or CF W

3Attitude of Invaders
Description: Invaders described as hostile or calm

4Break In
Description: break in of any home

5Building
Description: all building by invaders: cattle pens, housing, etc

6CF Mood
Description: any mention of feelings or mood of farmers

7CFU Leaders
Description: Mention of activities of CFU leaders: Grant, Hasluck, Henwood, Cloete,
Amyot, Hughes

8CFW Involvement
Description: farm worker involvement in invasion activity, whether voluntary or coerced

9Children
Description: any mention of children; farmer, farm worker, or invaders

IOConfront
Description: description of confrontation between invaders & others

llDeaths
Description: death of any person mentioned in reports

12Disappear
Description: disapperances; all persons considered missing; not known to be abducted

I3Disrupt
Description: disruptions with normal farming activity; excluding spefic mention of work
stoppages

I 4Election

Description: references to voting, voter registration, anything election related excluding
rallies and campaigning

294

 

15End
Description: mention of belief that end of invasions is near

I 6Evacuations
Description: Farm or Community evacuations of farmers & their families

17Forced Participation
Description: any mention of forced/ coerced participation in rallies or invasion activities

18Forced Sloganeering
Description: forced chanting, singing, shouting slogans

I9Govemment
Description: non-police; includes actions or persons in government

20Hostage
Description: persons prevented from leaving a known location; not abduction

2 1 Hunzvi
Description: report mentions specifically

221ntimidation
Description: specific mention of "intimidation"

23 Land Prep
Description: land prep activities engaged in by invaders

24Legal
Description: legal actions by/against CF U or farmers

25MDC
Description: specific mention of MDC

26Negotiations
Description: any time negotiations ensued, includes police, neg. team, and local units

27Noisy at night
Description: noise disruptions at nighttime that keep people awake

28Non-unity
Description: events suggesting conflict among local invaders, or between local invaders
& national war vets

29Numbers
Description: when given, numbers of invaders

295

 

300ff Farm
Description: Farmers or farmer's family move off farm temporarily.

3IOpportunistic Crime
Description: crimes that arise due to general lawlessness, suspected to not be directly
related to invasions

320wnership
Description: invaders claiming ownership of farm or other property

33Pofice
Description: any police involvement or note of lack thereof

34Property Damage
Description: any damage to farm property including farmer & farm worker property;
excluding crop damage

3Squiet
Description: description of area as peaceful or quiet

36Rally
Description: Political rally for any party

37roadblock
Description: illegal roadblock established in connection with invasions

38searches
Description: illegal searches of person or property

39Summary
Description: Summary of invasions to date

40Thefi
Description: any theft occurring on farm including, crops, livestock, property

41Threats-CF
Description: specifically mentions "threats" aimed at farmer or farmer's family

42Threats-CFW
Description: specifically mentions "threats" aimed at farm workers or their families

43 Weapons
Description: non-gun weapons mentioned

296

 

44Women
Description: specifically mentions women in report

45 Work Stoppage

Description: any disruptions to work on farms

Additionally, every time a farm name was mentioned, it was coded separately so that
activity on specific farms could be tracked. This alone produced additionally hundreds of
codes which will not be provided for anonymity’s sake.

297