Zambezia (1996), XXIII (i).EVERY MAN MUST RESETTLE WHERE HE WANTS':THE POLITICS OF SETTLEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OFCOMMUNITY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMMEIN BINGA, ZIMBABWEV. DZINGIRAICentre for Applied Social Sciences, University of ZimbabweAbstractOver the years there has been, in Southern Africa, a steady flow of populationsfrom the overcrowded communal areas into those marginal zones whichpreviously were sparsely populated. Usually it is post-independent leadershipwhich encourages and facilitates settlement into these marginal areas currentlyoccupied by minority ethnic groups which have failed to secure politicalrepresentation since independence. The influx of people into these marginalareas affects the development of existing programmes aimed at sustainableutilisation of natural resources. This article shows how politicians in Zimbabwefacilitate the resettlement of people into the previously sparsely populatedZambezi Valley. In addition, it shows that the huge influx of people into thevalley has tended to affect the development of a community-based naturalresource management project which was starting to benefit the Tonga people.IT IS FREQUENTLY the case that post-independent leadership instigates, forpolitical reasons, the movement or migration of thousands of rural peoplefrom the dominant ethnic groups at the centre of the state into theformerly marginal frontier zones (Herbst, 1990, 70). In Zimbabwe, forexample, perhaps as many as a million rural people have relocated fromthe overcrowded communal areas of southern and eastern Zimbabwe Šwhat Beach (1994) has called the 'great crescent', in which the majority ofZimbabwe's people have lived for the last millennium Š into the ZambeziValley, Gokwe and Binga, which previously were sparsely populated. Theseareas were previously settled by a variety of small ethnic groups, mostlythe Shangwe and Tonga people, who have failed to secure politicalrepresentation since independence.In recent years a new twist to this dynamic has emerged: CAMPFIRE(Communal Area Management Programme for Indigenous Resources),which is a form of commercial partnership between safari operators andrural communities in wilderness zones, has started to generate considerableincomes for these formerly marginalised people from sustainable andother tourism Š as much as $11 000 000 between 1993-1994 (four districtswith a population of 641 186 were involved in this income). Despite someteething difficulties and the long history of conflict between the state and1920 THE POLITICS OF SETTLEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF CAMPFIRELOCATION OF RESEARCH AREAZIMBABWEScale of kilometres' National Park BoundaryMajor RoadDistrict BoundaryInternational BoundaryBB Study AreaV. DZINGIRAI 21these communities over wildlife, the indigenous communities of northernZimbabwe came to welcome and identify with CAMPFIRE as a major sourceof income and a boost to their self-governance.In recent articles, I have presented details of how migrants acquiredland and how they embarked on lifestyles that were opposed to CAMPFIRE(Dzingirai, 1993, 167-175; Dzingirai and Madzudzo, 1995). In this article, 1discuss how post-independent leadership encourages people from thedominant groups to settle in those marginal areas, already involved inwilderness management. I argue that community-based wildernessmanagement, like any other rural development project, cannot succeed ifit is seen by prominent countryside politicians to be opposing theirinterests.THE CASE STUDY AREA: BINGA DISTRICTThe semi-arid Binga district of the Zambezi Valley is the focus of thisstudy. Binga is historically mostly a wilderness area, with most of the localpopulation of Tonga speakers resident along the Zambezi River and itstributaries until the construction of the Kariba Dam in the 1950s. Theirriverine location was important for cultivation in an area with low rainfall.Even today nearly a third of the area is under state management as anational park and forest reserve, and it includes one of the country'slargest parks, Chizarira. Due to low agro-ecological potential and thepresence of tsetse fly, there was no allocation of land in Binga district toWhite colonial farmers.Most of the population of Binga were forcibly resettled because of theKariba Dam, and remain unable to sustain themselves through agriculture,due to the very limited riverine land in the interior, and the poor soils andlow rainfall. Thus they eke out a living through combining gathering,fishing on the lake where and when government allows, and illegal huntingwith what has become since independence almost continuous faminerelief. In 1989, CAMPFIRE was introduced to the district, and by 1992/3 wasdisbursing to the local population of 87 000 people as much as Z$837 000(US$130 000) per year in cash dividends. It thus contributed to locallivelihoods. In addition and of greater political importance, it provided thelocal council with a significant source of revenue with which to undertakeexpansion of services and other development activities.The district currently experiences an influx of cattle owners and cashcrop farmers from the neighbouring Lupane area. The immigrants speakthe Ndebele language and claim to be of Ndebele ancestry. It is moreaccurate to regard these immigrants, as Ranger (1995) has done, as amixture of both Ndebele and other small minority groups previouslyfound in the area.22 THE POLITICS OF SETTLEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF CAMPFIREThe district is divided into 21 administrative units called wards, eachrepresented by an elected councillor. Together with the executive staff,the councillors make up the rural district council. All the councillors areTonga. At the village level, village chairmen are the leaders. The offices ofcouncillor and village chairman are fairly recent institutions, created afterindependence. Before this, villages were led by village heads and chiefsassisted by an array of informal leaders. Traditional leadership is stillpowerful: chiefs and village heads still command respect from the peoplewho sometimes give them gifts such as money, groceries and livestock. Inpractice, chiefs and village heads allocate land to the people (Dzingirai,1994, 167-175), a function that legally belongs to the district council.Also active in the district are 'big men'. They include twoparliamentarians (because the district is divided into two constituencies),the Matabeleland provincial governor, the district chairman of the ZANU(PF) political party, as well as the provincial administrator. People saythese men, particularly the governor and the parliamentarians, interactwith the president of the country, and that this is one reason why they arefeared and respected by the people. People also say that they fear andrespect these big men because of their role in the liberation war.With the exception of the district chairman, all the big politicians arelocated outside the district. The governor is based in the city of Bulawayo.The offices of the provincial administrator are located in Hwange. Theparliamentarians oscillate between the district and the capital city ofHarare. The provincial party chairman is resident in Lupane. Despite thefact that they are not resident in the district, these officials maintainregular contacts with the people of the district.There are two further significant characteristics of all these politicians:they are members of the ruling ZANU (PF) party in good standing, andsecondly, all claim to belong to the Ndebele ethnic group. Part of theirsupport comes from the Ndebele immigrants whom they have encouragedto settle in Binga.POLITICIANS AND THEIR SUPPORT FOR IMMIGRANTSThere are a number of reasons why these politicians, particularly thosewho are elected to office, actively encourage immigrants to settle in theZambezi Valley and support them once they have settled. First, thepoliticians want political support in the elections. They are aware thatmany people are without good land and that they cannot provide jobs forthe people. Giving people land is one of the ways politicians secure thesupport of the electorate. In addition, it is one of the tangible ways theycan prove themselves in the eyes of the people, to be the truerevolutionaries of the liberation war, in which land was a key issueV. DZINGIRAI 23(Shamuyarira, 1984, 8). Politicians also say they give land because as'kinsmen' of the Ndebele people, they are traditionally expected to do so.One politician1 remarked at a meeting: 'If I do not provide you with whereto build your home I would have failed my role as your father.'To these big men, and politicians in general, land is as important as itis to the peasants. However, whereas peasants need land for survival,politicians see it as a strategic resource that forms the basis of theirleadership. They can use the land to mobilise and remobilise the peasantsto support them (Bratton, 1994, 80).POLITICIANS' ACTIVITIES IN IMMIGRATIONPoliticians do two related things. They tell people to migrate and settleinto Binga. Secondly, they support immigrants against any threat by thecouncil to evict them. Politicians have generally tended to rely on misangano(rallies) to maintain their standing in the district. These are gatheringsheld at a rural venue. Normally they start with prayers and the chanting ofslogans Š such activities do not admit dissent and are no doubt used toprepare people to accept the message of the politicians (see also Mararike,1993, 60; Dzingirai, 1992; Bloch, 1977, 278-291). Usually there are alsodances and other forms of entertainment, such as singing by choirs.Almost always there is food, which is given to the people after the meeting.The fact that the food is given after the meeting means that in order toenjoy the meal people must wait and listen to the political message even ifthey are not interested in it.The politicians themselves do not directly call the mass rallies, partlybecause they do not have the resources to do so. The practice is toapproach chiefs. The chiefs are well known people, who are obeyed andfeared. If they call a meeting everybody must attend. Any person who doesnot attend is threatened with eviction from the land or with a fine. I heardfrom reliable informants of cases where people were expelled from theland for disobeying the chief's orders. During fieldwork I personallyencountered three people who were fined for disobeying the chief's orders.The politicians also make use of the modern leadership such as the villagechairman to call meetings. In return for mobilising people, the politiciansaccord high places to local leaders at these meetings. Secondly, localleaders get prime attention and service at these meetings, and this includesfood and beer. Such preferential treatment supports their status in thedistrict, and generally explains why they readily mobilise the people toattend meetings at which issues relating to land are discussed.1 Owing to the sensitivity of the issues discussed in this article I have left the description ofthe politicians at a general level.24 THE POLITICS OF SETTLEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF CAMPFIRESometimes the big men make use of the newspapers and the radio tospread messages about the land. Through the media they tell the peoplewhere to go if they need to settle. How they get newsmen and reporters tocover messages is difficult to say. In the run up to the 1995 parliamentaryelections, there were numerous televised claims of 'vote-seeking' politicianspaying small fees to journalists who agreed to report on, or broadcast,their political campaigns. It is possible that politicians in this study areause such practices to ensure that as many people as possible get themessage of land availability in Binga. Although there are a few people whosay that they personally read accounts of politicians urging them to migrateinto Binga,2 the majority of immigrants claimed that they heard of thisfrom others who had radios.The members of parliament are careful in the way they use the radioand newspapers to tell people where to settle. They are aware that certainlobby groups and opposition political parties would protest against suchmessages. Thus they rationalise their points by saying that immigrantswho have a long history and experience in agriculture and animal husbandrywould impart their skills to their Tonga counterparts upon settlement.They say that it is the national duty of the immigrants to teach those whohad been neglected by colonial government. Politicians also say that onceimmigrants get land in Binga, they would boost agricultural exports fromZimbabwe. This would make the country the breadbasket of the region.Exports from Zimbabwe would 'glorify the name of the country', and manynations would hear about this. Thus politicians tactfully presentimmigration as a phenomenon that is in line with national goals of self-sufficiency and national identity.In other instances, politicians claim that Ndebele immigration intoBinga brings ethnic groups together, thus fostering genuine unity. At ameeting I attended early in 1995, a senior party official alleged thatimmigration into Binga would result in the Tonga and the Ndebele livingside by side, in unity. The official added that living together pleased thefallen heroes who died for that ideal. In a sense, immigration is presentedas a useful ideological tool in nation-building.Such discourse legitimises the activities of the politicians. It makesprotest appear to oppose national interest (see Kriger, 1995, 139-140).Two examples will help illustrate the point. When the district councilresolved in 1994 to evict the immigrants in the interest of conserving theenvironment, the party chairman based in Lupane township, togetherwith the provincial administrator, condemned the move as pursuingtribalistic policies. Such policies, it was said, did not fit in with the declared2 In a sample of 121 people, 17 (14%) stated that they had been told to settle in Binga bypoliticians through both the radio and newspapers.V. DZINGIRAI 25party ideology of nation-building. For fear of further victimisation thecouncil stopped its plan (Sunday News, 1994, 3).The second example, which I followed during fieldwork relates to asafari operator who was accused by the governor as well as the partychairman of trying to introduce colonialism when he insisted that theNdebele immigrants were settling in safari hunting areas, thus jeopardisinghis and council's income base. The governor alleged that the White safarioperator did not want tribes to live together. In addition, the safari operatorwas accused of having a hidden agenda of wanting to recolonise the ruralareas with a view to placing his own animals. The political discourseemployed in these two examples made it impossible for the Binga ruralcouncil to proceed with its plans without itself loosing credibility with theoutside world.FIELDS IN THE FORESTS: IMMIGRANTS' IMPACT ON CAMPFIREIt has been argued by Rihoy (1992,16) that settlement in the forests drivesaway the animals, which are the basis of CAMPFIRE. In this section, Iexamine the impact on CAMPFIRE of the preparation of fields by immigrants.Once settled, immigrants start to clear large fields. The trees areburnt to the ground. Sometimes immigrants employ Tonga people touproot trees so that ploughing becomes easier. Immigrants share thebelief that a good farmer is one who leaves no tree standing in his field.They also share the belief that land must be cleared because the ancestralspirits and God intend it to be so. Some immigrants clear more land thanthey intend immediately to use in order to establish control over it forfuture use. According to immigrants, any land-seeker who sees clearedland knows that it belongs to somebody. This results in vast expanses ofland being shorn of trees but not put under cultivation.Unlike the Tonga people who are mainly subsistence farmers, theimmigrants clear fields, putting them under cash crops such as maize,sunflower and cotton. Frequently the fields are enlarged, after initialsettlement, and this is done by encroaching into unoccupied land. Theimmigrants also introduce cattle and donkeys to take advantage of theabundant free pasture (Reynolds, 1991, xxii; Murombedzi, 1991). Theimmigrants, unlike the Tonga people, keep cattle mainly for commercialpurposes (Madzudzo and Dzingirai, 1995, 36). The introduction of cattleand donkeys adds competition for pastures, prompting fears that thefragile ecosystem of the valley will be destroyed (Rihoy, 1992, 16). Rihoyhas shown that the competition for natural resources has led wildlife toretreat to the ecologically stressed Chizarira National Park.Tylor (1991) argues that immigrants also threaten CAMPFIRE throughtheir killing of wildlife. His point applies well to Binga, where immigrants26 THE POLITICS OF SETTLEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF CAMPFIP.Eopenly kill wildlife, which they allege to be destroying their crops. In 1993,immigrants openly killed two elephants worth $32 000 each. In 1994immigrants shot down four elephants in one locality. Immigrants also trapsmall game such as impala, bushbuck, buffalo, hare and bush pigs.Immigrants say that they kill only those animals which enter their fieldsand damage their crops. In practice, they kill any animals that they comeacross. Many of the smaller animals are killed in the dry season, whenthere are no crops in the fields. At the time of research, immigrants sellingmeat frequently visited my campsite throughout the year.The major reason immigrants cite for killing wildlife is that animalsdestroy crops, property and in some cases human life. In a sense thisargument is quite tenable: immigrants, unlike Tonga people, do not getprotection from wildlife. The safari operator who in the framework ofCAMPFIRE protects villagers from wildlife, does not want to extend hisservices to immigrants, whom he claims are not interested in CAMPFIRE. Itis against this background that immigrants shoot and kill wildlife. However,some of the targetted animals are not a threat to crops. These include thehare, the impala, the buffalo and bushbuck. When pressed as to why theykill small and 'innocent' animals, some say they kill smaller animals becausethese form a league with the big animals which create havoc in the area.One immigrant farmer remarked that 'the smaller animals must die for thesin of their menacing kin'.Immigrants who kill wild animals share the meat with others or sell it.Almost always there is great joy among the immigrants when an animal,particularly an elephant, dies. Some people sing and dance round thecarcass while others sit on it before finally skinning it. I would agree withHasler (1994, 261) that elephant death seems to symbolize the triumph ofman over nature's powerful and antagonising forces.One of the four elephants that were killed was shot several times inthe leg and at the back. Another was shot in the belly and legs. Whenimmigrants fire at elephants, the aim is not just to kill but to induce deaththrough pain. Indeed many people say that the shooting of legs is meant toconvey to other remaining animals the dangers of interfering with immigrantproperty. As one immigrant farmer who mortally wounded an elephantsaid:Wounding elephants will make them come to have a glimpse of the painthey inflict on the people through damaging their property. The luckyelephants which see one of their members leaping because of pain say tothemselves it is not safe to eat crops belonging to immigrants.The practice of killing wildlife threatens the district's environmentalinitiative and deprives the district of valuable revenue to use in householdand collective development. Without any tangible benefits, council claimsit is not possible to convince locals to conserve wildlife. Secondly, theV. DZINGIRAI 27killings also deprive the Tonga of meat. The Council claims, that sinceCAMPFIRE started it has never been able to harvest wildlife for the purposesof providing people with meat. Each year it has been forced to defer itsintended cropping to a date in the future when there would be surpluswildlife. Whether rightly or wrongly, the" council blames this failure onimmigrants/Today the Tonga people are loosing heart in CAMPFIRE and somefrequently abscond from CAMPFIRE meetings (Madzudzo and Dzingirai,1995). CAMPFIRE requires all people who receive benefits from wildlife torefrain from poaching, a point which Tonga people generally accepted inthe early years of CAMPFIRE. Quite naturally, the Tonga now say that itmakes very little sense to stop killing wildlife when immigrants do sorampantly. As one village leader lamented, 'These immigrants kill buffaloes,selecting the young ones for meat. Every day they eat roasted liver. We theTonga people do not do that.' What is further insulting to the Tongapeople is that these immigrants are not arrested and put in jail.Immigrants often find that killing selected species is not sufficient tosolve problems caused by wildlife. Elephants from the overpopulatednational park and safari areas frequently make return trips for immigrants'maize crops. As an additional solution the immigrants start big fires whichthey let burn through the forest. During fieldwork I frequently came acrossthese fires intended to drive animals away from the area. Another solutionadopted by immigrants is to recruit new people from their area of origin,to whom they allocate land in the wilderness. Immigrants believe thatwiidlife do not like to see dense populations of humans. Some say thatwildlife is scared by the sight of many people and that this causes them toretire into those areas that are without big numbers of humans. Apartfrom destroying the vegetation and the forests upon which wildlife depends,these practices occasionally interfere with the safari operation in thedistrict as the evidence below suggests.IMMIGRANTS AND SAFARI OPERATIONIt is frequently the case that safari operators choose 'wild and uninhabited'areas for their hunting operations (HED, 1994,16). When the safari operatorchose to operate in Binga, he was, like all safari hunters, attracted by itsuninhabited forests and abundant wildlife. For the safari operator, Bingaoffered the overseas clients an opportunity to experience the 'wild andnatural', something that no longer exists in the domesticated landscapesof most parts of the developed world. Good business for safari huntingwould result in cash benefits for the district and this is the reason thecouncil promised to create a 'good' hunting environment. In particular,the district would prohibit human settlement in safari hunting areas.28 THE POLITICS OF SETTLEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF CAMPFIREImmigration and the subsequent settlement of people in wildlife areasangered the safari operator who feared that his clients would no longerenjoy their hunts. At one stage he tried to deal with immigrants directly,serving them with notices of eviction from the concession area. Localsallege that he burnt immigrants' huts. The immigrants approached thepoliticians for support Š first the administrator and later the governor.When told that the operator had issued eviction orders and had alreadystarted to burn homes belonging to those settled in the concession area,both big men were incensed. In their view the safari operator was racistbecause he wanted to take land away from Africans. They pointed out thatin a free Zimbabwe, Whites have no right to remove people from theirland. The two men not only promised that the immigrants would not beevicted; they also promised to 'discipline the recalcitrant White man'.Having acquired the support of the big men, the immigrants wentback to their homes. After some days, they were told by the safari operatorand his men to vacate the land. When the safari operator threatened touse force, the immigrants went on a rampage. They destroyed the safarioperator's camp located near their settlement and property worth half amillion dollars. When council sent its own scouts, accompanied by apolicemen, to identify and round up the culprits, these too were grabbedand beaten, because people said they were conspiring with the White manwho wanted to take away their promised land. After these events, thecouncil kept silent on the issue of immigrants. The safari operator accusedthe council of doing nothing against immigrants. For breach of contractthe safari operator asked for $5 000 000 from the council as compensation.Because the council had no money it gave him another area in anotherpart of the district to hunt, free of charge for the next five years.SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONIn this study area, the politicians' need for land is a common feature. Thepoliticians in the countryside need land to give to the immigrants inexchange for their political support. In addition they give land for ethnicreasons: as representatives of their ethnic group, they feel obliged toprovide for the needs of their fellow men.The CAMPFIRE programme entails setting aside some land for safarihunting. Without doing so, the programme would not be able to generaterevenue and other benefits to use as an incentive to stop the poaching ofwildlife. CAMPFIRE's need for land, then, runs counter to the needs of thepoliticians. Consequently, politicians have opposed CAMPFIRE, or at leasttried to control it.The data from this case study confirms the point made by Mararike(1993, 31) that politicians generally tend to oppose those developmentV. DZINGIRAI 29projects which undercut, or threaten to undercut, their political base. Forrural development projects to survive, they must serve the interests ofpowerful politicians.Projects based on communities' management of resources, such asCAMPFIRE, aim not just to develop rural people, but also to conservenatural resources. The material from this study shows that when suchprojects threaten the interests of politicians in the countryside, they areunlikely to succeed in achieving their goals.BibliographyBEACH, D. (1994) The Shona and Their Neighbours (Oxford, Blackwell).BLOCH, M. (1977) 'The past and the present' in MAN, XII, (i), 278-291.BRANDON, K. AND WELLS, M. (1992) People and Parks (Washington D.C.,WWF, World Bank/USAID).BRATTON, M. (1994) 'Land redistribution, 1980-1990', in M. Rukuni and C.Eicher (eds.), Zimbabwe's Agricultural Revolution (Harare, Universityof Zimbabwe Publications), 70-86.CHEATER, A. (1990) 'The ideology of "communal tenure" in Zimbabwe:Mythogenesis enacted' Africa, LX, (ii), 188-206.DZINGIRAI, V. (1993) 'Accumulation and Response: A Study of PeasantReaction to State Exploitation' (Harare, University of Zimbabwe, Dept.of Sociology, M. Phil, thesis).Š (1994) 'Politics and ideology in human settlement: Getting settled in theSikomena area of Chief Dobola', Zambezia, XXI, (ii), 167-76.HASLER, R. (1994) 'The Cultural and Political Dynamics of Study ofZimbabwean Wildlife Resource Use in the Zambezi Valley: A Case ofChapoto Ward' (Michigan, Michigan State University, Dept. ofAnthropology, D. Phil, thesis).HERBST, J. (1990) State Politics in Zimbabwe (Harare, University of ZimbabwePublications).IIED (1994) Whose Eden? A Report to the Overseas DevelopmentAdministration (London, Russell Press).KRIGER, N. J. (1995) 'The politics of creating national heroes: The search forpolitical legitimacy and national identity', in N. Bhebe and T. Ranger(eds.) Soldiers in Zimbabwe's Liberation War, Vol. One (Harare,University of Zimbabwe Publications), 139-140.MADZUDZO, E. AND DZINGIRAI, V. (1995) 'A comparative study of theimplications of ethnicity on Campfire in Bulilimamangwe and Binga',Zambezia, XXII, (i), 25-42.MAKOMBE, K. (1993) Sharing the Land: Wildlife, People and Development inAfrica (Harare, IUCN/ROSA).MARARIKE, C. (1995) Grassroots Leadership: The Process of Rural Developmentin Zimbabwe (Harare, University of Zimbabwe Publications).30 THE POLITICS OF SETTLEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF CAMPFIREMUROMBEDZI, J. (1991) 'Decentralising Common Property ResourcesManagement: A Case Study of Nyaminyami District Council ofZimbabwe's Wildlife Management Programme' (NED Paper No. 30).RANGER, T. (1995) 'The Moral Economy of Ethnic Identity in NorthernMatabeleland* (Paper presented at a Conference on Ethnicity,University of Edinburgh, African Studies Centre).REYNOLDS, P. (1991) Dance Civet Cat (London, Zed Books Ltd.).RIHOY, E. (1992) 'Community Institutions and Population Movement in theCampfire Programme in Zimbabwe' (Paper presented to the FourthWorld Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas,Venezuela).SHAMUYARIRA, N. (1984) 'Foreword' in H. Moyana, The Political Economy ofLand in Zimbabwe (Gweru, Mambo Press), 7-9.STOCKTON, R. (1978) 'Leadership in context: A public opinion approach',Rural Africana, III, 23-41.TYLOR, R. (1991) 'Ecologists Report for 1990, Nyaminyami WildlifeManagement Trust' (Harare, WWF Multispecies Animal ProductionProject).