Zambezia (1999), XXVI (i).BIG MEN AND CAMPFIRE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OFTHE ROLE OF EXTERNAL ACTORS IN CONFLICTS OVERLOCAL RESOURCES1V. DZINGIRAI AND E. MADZUDZOCentre for Applied Social Science (CASS), University of ZimbabweAbstractThat conflicts over natural resources occur among interest groups is a pointgenerally agreed upon by researchers. Often these conflicts arise because ofthe scarcity of resources. What scholars usually neglect are the strategiesthat threatened groups take to ensure continued access to these resources. Inthis article we show that interest groups look for support from actors whoare external to their community. We use the example of Binga where theNdebele, a minority group threatened with eviction from their area ofsettlement, solicit the support of regional politicians. In addition, we use theexample of Bulilimamangwe where powerful cattle owners who arethreatened by Campfire, approach the partly leadership Š the elders, forsupport against the local Council.INTRODUCTIONTHIS IS A COMPARATIVE study of conflict of interests between social groupsover access to natural resources. We show that social groups within acommunity have divergent perceptions of how resources should beutilised, which might result in conflicts. In resolving the conflict, disputantsinvoke the help of external actors 'the big men' who they perceive to bemore powerful than their adversary. This choice of outsiders for conflictresolution shows that the disputants are not driven by a desire for justicebut by a need to win. To illustrate these points we use examples fromBinga and Bulilimamangwe District's Communal Areas ManagementProgramme for Indigenous Resources (Campfire) programmes.Campfire seeks to engender community resource management inZimbabwe. This is through devolving natural resource management rolesto local communities. Natural resource management at the local levelinterfaces several stakeholders (Murphree, 1992; Agrawal, 1997).Interaction of actors with varying and at times discordant interests is' Comments and criticisms from Professor Michael Bourdillon and an anonymous reviewer,are gratefully acknowledged.7778BIG MEN AND CAMPFIRELOCATION OF STUDY AREASZIMBABWEScale of kilometrestŠ Major RoaaŠ linnet Bounaary.. _ tmerncrtional PoundaryB Study AreaV. DZINGIRAI AND E. MADZUDZO 79sometimes conflictual. In this study we discuss a conflict betweenimmigrant Ndebele agriculturists and subsistence Tonga farmers in Binga.The Ndebele view agriculture as the major indicator of success. They feelthat the Campfire programme, which is supported by the Tonga, allowspotential arable land to be used for wildlife management and by so doingincreases cases of crop destruction by wildlife. The Tonga, with theassistance of the local authority, seek to expel the immigrants. InBulilimamangwe district, we give an example of a conflict between ownersof large herds of cattle and the rest of the community. The cattle ownerswant the range for their cattle. They view the Campfire programme andthose who support it as obstacles because of the proposed use of part ofthe area for wildlife. Those supporting Campfire want to forcibly removethe cattle from the range. We also give an example of a conflict betweenthe Tsholotsho Rural District Council and a community over relocationfrom an area designated for wildlife.In all these conflicts, external actors play an important role in resolvingthem. Relations of a patron-client nature between remote localcommunities and outsider politicians are the basis of this involvement(Berry, 1980). Because their interests are at stake, disputants seek thesupport of those actors who ensure that their interests are protected. Forexample, in Binga, we show that the immigrants who were threatenedwith expulsion made use of the politicians. In Bulilimamangwe, owners oflarge herds of cattle who felt that Campfire threatened their access topastures sought the support of a national politician. In Tsholotsho also,relocated households sought the help of the politicians and seniorgovernment officials to protect their interests.BINGABinga is situated in the Zambezi Valley, nearly 500kms west of the capitalof Zimbabwe, Harare. The Zambezi River in the west and Chizarira NationalPark in the north bound it. The area is very hot, with summer temperaturessometimes reaching 48'C. The rainfall is generally poor with some lowlying areas receiving as little as 500mm per annum.Until recently Binga was heavily infested with tsetse fly. The country'sVeterinary Department has rid most of the area of the fly, which is nowconfined to narrow belts along the Zambezi River. However, malariaremains a serious problem. Mosquitoes continue to populate the areanotwithstanding intensified campaigns by anti-malaria spraying teamsfrom the Ministry of Health. Each year some people die of cerebralmalaria. The mosquito and the tsetse fly have largely contributed to thevalley being an inhospitable place.Binga still has abundant wildlife notwithstanding previous efforts bythe Veterinary Department to eliminate it in pursuit of tsetse eradication.80 BIG MEN AND CAMPFIREAmong the animals found in the area are elephants, most feared by thepeople on account of their destruction of property and human beings.There are also lions, which occasionally prey on the Tonga and theNdebele, the inhabitants of the area.The Tonga are a matrilineal people, who have historically lived in theValley and the adjacent highland area. Since colonisation, this group hasbeen the subject of multiple relocations. In the 1950s, the Tonga wereevacuated from the banks of the Zambezi River, their dominant fishingground, to give way to the lake arising from Kariba Dam, a hugedevelopment project aimed at solving industrial problems for dominantethnic groups located outside the Valley (Colson, 1971). The colonialstate resettled the Tonga in the semi-arid areas of the escarpment andbeyond and promised them social services, including a supply of water(Trimmel, 1994). The Tonga were evacuated in the late 1960s from thesenew homes to give way to tsetse eradication. And recently there havebeen attempts to resettle some Tonga to give way to a hunting concession.All these movements have contributed to the Tonga's being suspicious ofdevelopment projects (Reynolds, 1991, xxv).Although they were acephalous in times past (Gielgud, 1898), theTonga are now organised in chiefdoms. The chiefs, together with theirvillage heads, constitute a popular political system. Efforts by thegovernment to abolish this traditional leadership soon after theindependence of Zimbabwe were met with resistance by both chiefs andtheir people. For the local people, traditional leadership is linked to thefertility of the area (Dzingirai and Bourdillon, 1997) and any replacementof them is thought of as likely to cause a disaster of some kind.While the entire Council is Tonga, all the senior local governmentposts are filled by Ndebele people. The district administrator, provincialadministrator, party chairperson and the provincial governor are allNdebele.The Ndebele who are settled in Binga are recent migrants from thesurrounding Ndebele speaking areas, which include Lupane, Nkayi, Gokweand Bubi. Originally the Ndebele were settled in the high rainfall andfertile areas, which were claimed by White settlers beginning in the 1890swhen they defeated the Ndebele. Generally immigrants come to Binga insearch of land for agriculture and pasture. There are others who come toBinga in search of places free from social tension. While some getpermission to settle from what Council regards as corrupt Tonga leaders,the majority unilaterally settle themselves in places of their choice(Dzingirai, 1994, 167-176; 1996, 19-30). There are also immigrants whoclaim to have been invited to settle in Binga by national politicians whoinclude a Member of Parliament who is based in the province.V. DZINGIRAI AND E. MADZUDZO 81Immigrants, who are effectively Ndebele, generally have a widercontact with the changes that have been taking place in the country, andunlike the Tonga, are often Christians (Alexander and Ranger, 1997, 6-7)and educated. They have large herds of cattle, modern farming implementsand generally acquire a good income from agriculture. Immigrants usethe Tonga as servants and a source of cheap labour.Although resident in Binga, immigrants rarely acknowledge Tongaleadership. They regard the Council, entirely Tonga, as tribally biasedagainst them and also as inefficient. As evidence of Council's inefficiency,the Ndebele cite the slow rate at which schools and clinics are built in thedistrict. Although they do not have chiefs of their own, these immigrantshave prominent, influential and wealthy men who live among them.Generally, these men, because of their undisputed authority, play a leadingrole in conflict and dispute settlement. These men, in charge of villages,which are all spatially removed from the Tonga, are also used by regionalpoliticians Š also known as 'badala' or 'elders' Š to mobilise the supportof immigrants.These 'elders' are not necessarily old people. In the study area, theyall are middle-aged individuals employed by government in key positionsin the countryside. They include the police chief, district administrator,his assistant, the provincial administrator, and the head of the centralintelligence services, the governor and the Party chairperson. With theexception of the district administrator and his assistant, the elders arelocated outside the district. While we have made no effort to confirmtheir identity, these elders claim to be from the Ndebele ethnic group.The elders also belong to the ruling Party. They claim to be heroes ofthe Chimurenga war that liberated the country from colonial rule. A pointŁthey regularly make is that all local people, including the Tonga, owetheir freedom to them. Because of their role in the war and current statusin the party and government, these men claim to be powerful enough toveto all decisions made at levels below them. In particular, they claim, aswill be shown later, superiority over councils.Immigrants are interested in development issues; they are keen tosee Binga having schools, clinics and major social services. One of theirprivate but widespread allegations is that the district would dramaticallychange if only they became chiefs and headmen in place of the Tonga.Even though they despise the Tonga, whom they say are ignorant andundeveloped, immigrants generally respect the latter's rituals regardingrainfall and fertility of the land (Dzingirai and Bourdillon, 1997). Sometimesthey intermarry with the Tonga.Conflict Over Resources in Binga DistrictThere is a struggle between the Tonga and the Ndebele that centres onland. The Tonga want the land for their own agricultural purposes, and as,82 BIG MEN AND CAMPFIREan inheritance for their children. Recently the Tonga have developed anincreased interest in land on account of Campfire. According to themCampfire, although not providing much household income, provides
revenue needed for economic and social development. When one
understands that the programme has yielded over Z$5m since 1990, theclaims by the Tonga become justified. To date the Tonga have used therevenue to build clinics, schools and grinding mills. The main argumentby the Tonga is that if the land is all taken away by Ndebele agriculturists,the benefits from wildlife will cease.There is another reason, political in nature, why the Tonga opposeimmigration. The Tonga claim that throughout history, they have beenforced to relinquish their resources, which include water, wildlife and
land for use by other powerful groups. According to them, this is veryunfair and unacceptable. Since they perceive migration to be linked totheir deprivation, the Tonga do not readily support it.The Ndebele have a different perspective. They want the land forsettlement as well as for commercial crop cultivation. Since most of them
generally keep large herds of cattle from which they regularly sell, theNdebele also want land for grazing. The Ndebele do not like the Tongawhom they accuse of wasting land. Their argument is that the Tonga put
valuable land to petty indigenous crops like millet. A second criticismthey level against the Tonga is that they want to posses, huge tracts of
land which they are not using and will never be able to utilise.The Ndebele are opposed to the presence of wildlife, which is regardedby the Tonga as a basis for Campfire (Madzudzo and Dzingirai, 1995, 25-
42). Wildlife destroys their treasured crops and livestock. The Ndebeleclaim that this deprives them of thousands of dollars from farming.
Secondly, the Ndebele allege that wildlife occupies land that could bebetter used for commercial agriculture. As a solution, the Ndebele suggestthat all wildlife, including the smallest creatures, be relocated to thecountry's national parks where they won't bother anybody except thestate and its Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management.Alternatively, they suggest a mass slaughter of all the animals, large andsmall, so that the problem of crop and livestock damage is permanently
solved (Dzingirai, 1996, 25-6).In summary, the Ndebele are in conflict with the Tonga whom theyperceive to be an obstacle to their own individual development. In the
next section, we detail some of the strategies used by-the Ndebele to
safeguard their stake in Binga.When confronted by the Tonga and their Council to leave the area soas to give way to Campfire, the Ndebele often approach the big men of the
area. In 1992, the Council decided to evict immigrants who had unilaterally,
and therefore illegally, settled themselves, in the Lusulu area, a traditionalV. DZINGIRAI AND E. MADZUDZO 83safari hunting ground, the Council and the safari operator who hunts inthe district, argued that the Tonga people were being deprived of millions
of dollars by immigrants some of who had settled in the hunting areaswhere he hunted wildlife. When word regarding the eviction reachedimmigrants, they immediately appointed a committee to approach the
provincial administrator resident in Hwange, a small town 300 kms west
of Binga so that he could use his office to protect them. The administratorallegedly told the delegation, upon hearing its full report, to go back, asthe Council had no case. He pointed out that the Council was playingtribal politics, which was against the government policy of nation-building.He also chided the Council for according more importance to wildlifethan was morally acceptable. In addition, he accused the Council of being
used by White commercial hunters, whose long-term plan it was to regain
control of the whole country using the Campfire programme. He promised
to discipline the Tonga Council leadership, in particular the senior officer,who had initiated the move to 'expel people on account of a wildlifemanagement programme'. Such people, he said, needed to be humbledsince they wrongly thought they were now powerful enough to makedecisions regarding the land. He told the delegation to relay the messageto other immigrants back in Binga that his office would not allow suchinjustice to go on.The discourse by the administrator instilled further courage amongthe once ruffled immigrants. It also endowed them with the belief thatCouncil and its people had no case. When asked what would happen if
Council resuscitated the plan to evict them, Malls,2 a prominent Ndebele
farmer, refused to entertain any possibility of that happening.I tell you npthlng of this sort will ever happen since our elder hasspoken. No Whites, will be allowed to regain control of the country.That is something past. Who shall fear when the elders and big men, have spoken? !Through this intervention, then, immigrants were temporarily able towin the battle over land.A few years later, the Council took advantage of a transfer of theprovincial administrator from the province, and renewed its decision to
evict all immigraiits. the Council stated that it was not against any otherethnit?.grdvip settling in the area. It claimed that it was concerned withthe immigrants' manner of settlement. Immigrants, Cduncil alleged, wererandomly settled, the manner of settlement resulted in the Council finding
it difficult to provide social services for people, including immigrants.
Cduncil alsb stressed that it valued huriiart life more than wildlife. Ithis real name,84 BIG MEN AND CAMPFIREclaimed that it was taking this decision to evict immigrants only toprevent its area from being turned into a desert by people who illegallysettled themselves. When alerted, immigrants deliberated on the matterand resolved to approach the supreme leader in the province, theGovernor, based in Bulawayo some 300kms away. A detailed report wasalso sent to the head of the intelligence services based at Lupane town,some 150kms away. The meeting appointed men who would take theissue to the Governor. When falsely informed that it wanted to evictNdebele farmers on grounds of tribe and of a White man's huntingconcession, the Governor immediately contacted the Council by telephonewith a message to suspend the planned relocation. The Governorinstructed the delegation to tell others to proceed with growing cropsand keeping cattle since nothing would happen to them. He also assuredthem of total protection from any form of racism and tribalism.When the Council and the safari operator ignored the ruling, andissued immigrants with eviction orders, immigrants beat up scouts fromthe Council, and vandalised the safari operator's camp and equipment.They shouted abuse at Council and the safari operator for trying to startanother war for land. Immigrants also hurled insults at them for trying toreverse the decision of war heroes and current elders. The attacks on theCouncil and on the property of the safari operator and their resolve toremain in the disputed territory suggests that the immigrants were nowconfident that the politicians would support them in the struggle forland.In the next case, of the alleged witch, Ncube, immigrants used thepolice in arguments over resources. Perhaps disappointed that the Councilwould never succeed in controlling and preventing further immigration, agroup of Tonga decided to expel a powerful and wealthy immigrant,Ncube, who had been migrating from one district to another all his life.For the Tonga, Ncube was a difficult, arrogant and greedy person, whowanted to deprive them of their own resources, particularly land. Theyaccused Ncube of being a 'mighty sorcerer' and the cause of drought inthe area. Traditional leaders, including chiefs, diviners and village heads,argued that as long as Ncube and other immigrants remained in the area,droughts would recur. When Ncube defied the decision that he shouldimmediately leave the area, taking his cattle and donkeys with him, thevillage-head promptly summoned a few youths to deal severely with him.Startled, immigrants held a prompt informal meeting to see how theycould deal with this challenge. Some said this was bad precedent, whichneeded to be checked before other dreadful things occurred. A decisionwas made that the matter be reported to the chief of police in the area.The Ndebele officer, upon hearing the details of the story, promptlyintervened and ordered the immigrant to stay. The officer also orderedV. DZINGIRAI AND E. MADZUDZO 85the arrest of all who had taken part in the illegal expulsion of Ncube.Those arrested were charged under an Act, which forbids witchcraftaccusation and other related practices. Thus through their resort to aNdebele police officer, the Ndebele were able to secure their stay.What comes out in the case of Binga is that a conflict has risenbetween the Tonga and the Ndebele based on land. In this struggle forland, the Ndebele immigrants successfully utilise externally based agentsto secure a victory over the Tonga. This utilisation of external agents toresolve conflicts over natural resources can be seen in our second casestudy of Bulilimamangwe, where an elite group perceived Campfire to bea threat to its wealth based on animal husbandry.THE PROCESS OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN BULILIMAMANGWEDISTRICTBulilimamangwe's Campfire programme is focused on an unsettled rangein the western part of the district (see map). This range is a habitat toseveral resident wildlife species and those that move in from the nearbyHwange National Park. Private safari operators hired by the local authorityhunt some of this wildlife. Safari operators are important to localauthorities for making hunting, and therefore tourism revenues, apossibility. Local communities use this unsettled range for seasonalgrazing, locally known as lagisa (Madzudzo and Hawkes, 1996). Theabsence of cultivated land in this area increases available pasture andreduces the herding effort, an attraction to owners of large livestockherds (Madzudzo and Hawkes, 1996). These cattle owners are suspiciousof Campfire. They feel that it impedes their access to this frontier withabundant pasture. Original Campfire designs for Bulilimamangwe gavecredence to this suspicion. This range was to be divided into wildlife andlivestock areas. An electric fence would separate these two areas. Localcommunities were supposed to decide on the position of the electricfence.As mentioned above Bulilimamangwe's Campfire programme entaileddividing up the lagisa area into zones for wildlife and livestock. Owners oflarge herds were opposed to this because it limited their access to extragrazing. Challenging the project at meetings was ineffective, as it wasproceeding despite their protests. Construction of water points for wildlifewas already underway. These cattle owners were labelled by projectproponents as people who were against development, i.e. against themanagement of wildlife. Council and Zimbabwe Trust officials, a non-governmental organisation in Bulilimamangwe which assists in theimplementation of Campfire, argued that most other people (presumablythose without cattle) had already agreed to the proposed partition. The86 BIG MEN AND CAMPFIREonly delay in implementing the project had come from the owners oflarge herds. These officials labelled cattle owners as enemies ofdevelopment meant for the people.Determined to safeguard their interests, cattle owners drove theirlivestock into the proposed wildlife area. They also infiltrated the newlyformed wildlife committees, the local institutions created to manageCampfire. One cattle owner campaigned for and won the position ofchairperson on the ward wildlife committee. In this position he ensuredthat he blocked the project. Project implementers were anxious to getthe local community to accept the positioning of the electric fence, whichwould separate the wildlife from the livestock areas in the range. Thewildlife committee chairperson did not discuss the issue with hiscommunity at all. It became apparent to the Council officials that thewildlife committee under such leadership would not make the desiredprogress.These events worried project officials, who devised a plan to get ridof the chairperson for the sake of 'progress'. Project officials held ameeting with the community where he was absent, and mobilised thecommunity against the chairperson of the wildlife committee. Theirargument was that people's private interests should not derail thecommunity's quest for development. For development to come to thearea, the officials argued, the community had to replace the chairperson.At that meeting a new chairperson was elected who would supportCampfire initiatives. Thereafter the proposals to erect the electric fencewere adopted. It was located in an area that in the opinion of the cattleowners provided very little pasture for their cattle. The Campfire projecthad managed to overcome an obstacle for erecting the fence.Local authority officials demanded that livestock be removed fromthe wildlife area of the range. In defiance cattle owners instructed theircattle herders to continue using the wildlife project area. In the end, theRural District Council sought police assistance and forcibly removed thecattle herders. In the process, temporary shelters belonging to the cattleherders were burnt down. Cattle owners challenged their expulsion,arguing that they were heeding government's call for people to remain inthe communal area and engage in income-generating activities. One ofthe large herd owners argued that they were helping the government tomeet its quota of beef exports to the European Union. They argued thatthis beef exporting initiative had come under threat from the Whitefarmers who were turning to wildlife management. They alleged thatRural District Council and Campfire had now joined this conspiracy.Owners of large herds banded together as an income-generating clubbased on cattle fattening, as they said, 'in response to government's callfor co-operative initiatives'. Cattle from this club grazed on communityV. DZINGIRAI AND E. MADZUDZO 87pastures. Sometimes they even allowed their animals to stray into theproject area from where they had been evicted. However, there was stillthe threat from the Rural District Council and the Campfire project. As astrategy, the cattle owners organised a field day for their club. Theyinvited a leading politician to be guest at this occasion and presented himwith a beast as a gift. In public speeches the cattle herders said that theytook heed of government's call for people to stay and make a living in therural areas. The cattle owners' major problem was the hindrance fromthe Campfire project. To the cattle owner's delight, the politician rose tothe occasion and castigated the Campfire project for championing theinterests of outsiders (supposedly foreign, White hunters, the majorclients for safari hunting) at the expense of the locals. As mentionedabove and observed elsewhere (Berry, 1980), in the communal areas thepoliticians, with their wider networks and influence, are more powerfulthan the functionaries. A speech castigating Campfire weakened the projectofficials vis a vis cattle owners. Thereafter the idea of complete separationof wildlife and livestock was shelved. The electric fence was erectedclose to settled areas to protect arable areas from wildlife. Owners oflarge herds continued to access the pastures as before. An outsider hadplayed a crucial role by enabling a local elite survive a threat to theirinterests.Below we show another dynamic in conflict resolution between acommunity and a local authority over project implementation.TSHOLOTSHOA foot and mouth disease (FMD) cordon fence marks the boundarybetween Tsholotsho and Hwange National Park. Immigrant householdsinhabit the western half of Tsholotsho. These families came to Tsholotshoafter being evicted from those areas that had been designated as Whitecommercial farming areas. Households were ordered to settle in linesnear boreholes, which are the only source of water for humans andlivestock (see Hawkes, 1992, 39). A line made up of several households isthe lowest unit of settlement in Tsholotsho. Usually two to six lines makeup a village. There is no fixed number of households that make a line andneither are there a fixed number of lines making a village. Each line hasits traditional leader, sabuku or kraal head. Several villages make up award. Some lines like Solobhoni, Korodziba, Lubanji, Ziga and Zandile areless than three kilometres from the Hwange National Park fence.Department of National Parks regulations prohibit hunting within fivekilometres of a park boundary.To enhance safari hunting, Tsholotsho's Campfire programme soughtto create a buffer area between settled areas and the FMD fence. As in88 BIG MEN AND CAMPFIREBulilimamangwe an electric fence would separate settled areas from thebuffer zone. This buffer would create ample space for local authoritysponsored safari hunting. Ostensibly the local authority argued thatthese activities would reduce the effects of problem animals, like elephantsdestroying fields and lions predation of livestock. Therefore those linesof settlement along the area designated as the buffer zone had to berelocated away from the proposed buffer zone (see map).Tsholotsho Rural District Council had long thought of removing thepeople of Solobhoni and Korodziba (Murphree, 1989, 12). As far back as1982 the Rural District Councillor, who later became Member of Parliamentfor the ward, mooted the idea of moving the people from the two lines tothe interior of the ward. However, apart from the affected community'sopposition to the idea, there were not enough resources at that time toundertake the exercise. Furthermore, 1982 marked the beginning ofpolitical disturbances that resulted in the paralysis of all government anddevelopment activity in Tsholotsho and Matabeleland in general(Werbener, 1991). For these reasons the plan for relocation was shelved.In the meantime people continued to build houses, grow crops, clearmore fields and fence their homes.RELOCATION OF KORODZIBA AND SOLOBHONI IN TSHOLOTSHODISTRICTTsholotsho Rural District Council stated the aims of the relocation ofKorodziba and Solobhoni lines to Gwabazabuya line as follows:0) To justify the staff complement at the primary school. The school atKorodziba had 31 pupils and three teachers from grades one toseven. Another school, Gibixegu near Gwabazabuya line, had 40pupils from grades one to seven with three teachers. TsholotshoRural District Council argued that both schools were over-staffedand thus there was a need to combine the schools to satisfy therequirements of the Ministry of Education on staffing,(ii) To reduce poaching and boost safari hunting. Local hunting is believedto hamper species diversity in the Tsholotsho area. The Council feltthat relocating human settlements away from wildlife areas wouldreduce local hunting (poaching).(iii) To provide more area for wildlife by providing a buffer zone.(iv) To take advantage of the availability of funds from donors. USAIDfunded the relocation exercise.Relocation was mooted at three meetings between the community,Council staff and Zimbabwe Trust officials. The Council made it clear toeveryone present that this relocation was not by fiat. However, theconsequences of refusing the relocation were also spelt out: the CouncilV. DZINGIRAI AND E. MADZUDZO 89would not be in a position to undertake any borehole repairs or introduceany other social services in the two lines because the area was remotefrom other settled areas. This meant that, for example, a boreholebreakdown would imply disaster for the communities and their livestock.At the last meeting Council officials were accompanied by police,intelligence agents, visitors from Botswana, and Zimbabwe Trust staff.What were significant were the eight vehicles, and the diversity of thepeople present around the villagers. Villagers' experience of the violentconflict between 1982 and 1987 instilled fear of officialdom and strangers.This meeting was an epitome of these past experiences. The community'spowerlessness becomes apparent.In this conflict, Korodziba and Solobhoni residents invoked 'theweapons of the week' (Scott, 1985), where powerless actors engage inresistance that denies the powerful actor justification for violent reaction.To demonstrate their unwillingness to be relocated the communitiesrequested to stay on for another year while they built houses inGwabazabuya. In a bid to delay the relocation some women argued thatthey needed time to consult their husbands who were away working intowns or in South Africa. For one thing they did not want to give up theirhomes for the benefit of what they called, 'wild animals belonging toGame'3. The Council tried to convince the residents of these two linesthat they would benefit from Campfire. The community was not convincedand argued that hunting had been done in the past with no benefit to thelocal community. Despite the community's protests the local authoritysent a lorry and a tractor to transport the community to the new line. BySeptember 1991 Korodziba and Solobhoni had been relocated toGwabazabuya.This relocation disappointed the Solobhoni and Korodzibacommunities. They went to the Provincial Administrator and to the pressto complain about their relocation. One of the reports in the press read:A four-man delegation sent to the Sunday News by the disgruntledvillagers said their belongings and families had been dumped in theopen . . . The delegation, which was led by (the) kraalhead, said: 'Weare inviting the Minister of State for Local Government, Rural andUrban Development. . . and the Provincial Administrator ... to visit usso that they can see for themselves the conditions under which we areliving' (Sunday News, 27th October, 1991).The provincial administrator castigated the Rural District Council forits high handedness. The donor, USAID, expressed concern over thismatter that was seemingly done on behalf of a project it had sponsored.Game is the local name given to the Department of Parks and Wildlife Management.90 BIG MEN AND CAMPFIREResearchers and the press censured the Rural District Council for theseforced relocations. As a consequence the local authority was forced toassist the relocated communities with building materials. A piped waterscheme, the first one in this part of the district, was also constructed forthe community, which emerged from the conflict with benefits as aconsequence of the involvement of external powerful groups. Thisinvolvement of external groups had far-reaching effects as we showbelow.Ziga and Zandile lines benefited from the protests against forcedrelocations mentioned above. Tsholotsho Rural District Council requestedthe local councillor to approach the communities of Ziga and Zandilelines to discuss their relocation in order to make way for the electricfence. The usual benefits of wildlife management were mentioned to thecommunities. They were also told that the Rural District Council hadresolved not to use force in relocating people. It was up to the people todecide for themselves.The communities did not deliberate over the issue for a long periodof time. One respondent had this to say about the meeting: 'In our areawe refused relocation, we said that the electric fence should go on top ofthe veterinary (FMD) fence. Any area given up for wildlife would havereduced our grazing land'. The community's sentiments were summarisedby the following comment made at a meeting: 'We want the project, but ifthe project only works through the fence I would like to point out that wedo not want the fence and the Campfire project.'As a result the electric fence was constructed close to the existingFMD fence. The community had been empowered to impress their interestsupon the local authority through the help of outsiders.CONCLUSIONThis comparative study has shown two related points. The first isthat where social groups meet in a particular locality, conflicts occurover how natural resources should be utilised and who exactly must beentitled to them. In Binga, conflict arose between the local Tonga and theNdebele immigrants. The Tonga did not want immigrants to remain ontheir land, affecting their newly found Campfire programme. On the otherhand, immigrants wanted not just to remain on the land, but to take itfrom the Tonga whom they claimed were both under-using and misusingthe land. In Bulilimamangwe, conflict immediately arose between cattleowners and those without cattle who generally supported the Campfireprogramme. The cattle owners wanted to use the wilderness for animalhusbandry, their major source of income. In contrast, those who did notown cattle wanted to use the wilderness for Campfire activities, whichV. DZINGIRAI AND E. MADZUDZO 91brought income to them. Finally conflict arose between the TsholotshoRural District Council and the locals. The development community wantedthe locals to vacate their land to give way to safari hunting. On thecontrary the locals had different aspirations regarding this land. Theywanted to remain on their land in pursuit of agriculture, their majorsource of livelihood. Conflict, then, seems to be the natural outcomewhere different interests interface. The desire to see one's interestsprevail brings in a role for external actors. This brings us to the otherpoint.The second and main point is that when disputes break outcompetitors approach outsiders. The disputants rarely make use of localinstitutions to resolve their conflict. In Binga, the Ndebele immigrantssourced the services of regional politicians when their claim to the landwas questioned. Similarly, in Bulilimamangwe, the cattle owners sought,amongst others, the services of senior national politicians when Campfirethreatened to put an end to their unregulated use of the range. Likewise,in Tsholotsho locals approached the provincial administrators and themedia when their stake to land became threatened by Campfire. Socialgroups, then, tend to make use of external people and institutions as astrategy to ensure entitlement to natural resources.But why should competitors almost always look to outsiders forconflict resolution? Why don't they make use of local institutions? In ourview it is likely that competitors enlist the services of external agentsbecause they perceive them to be capable of furthering their sectionalinterests and not because they are impartial. The immigrants sought theservices of the regional politicians because they believed these to wieldpower enough to overrule the Tonga, their local opponents. Similarly, inBulilimamangwe the wealthy cattle owners approached the media andsenior state functionaries because they regarded them as very powerfulto overrule and overhaul Campfire. Our point therefore is that socialgroups make use of external actors because they perceive them to havethe power to guarantee their interests. But since the study is based onone region of the country, the proposition we advance may be one thatneeds further research.ReferencesAgrawal, A. (1997) 'Community in Conservation: Beyond Enchantmentand Disenchantment' CDF Discussion Paper, Gainsville, Conservationand Development Forum.Alexander, J. and Ranger, T. (1997) 'Competition and integration in thereligious history of north-western Zimbabwe', Journal of Religion inAfrica, XXVI, (iv), 1-29.Berry, S. (1980) 'Social institutions and access to resources', Africa , LIX,(i), 41-55.92 BIG MEN AND CAMPFIREColson, E. (1971) The Social Consequences of Resettlement: The Impact ofthe Kariba Resettlement upon the Gwembe Tribe (Manchester,Manchester University Press, Kariba Studies 4).Dzingirai, V. and Bourdillon, M. F. C. (1997) 'Religious ritual and politicalcontrol in Binga District, Zimbabwe', African Anthropology, IV, (ii), 4-26.Dzingirai, V. (1994) 'Politics and ideology in human settlement: Gettingsettled in the Sikomena area of chief Dobola', Zambezia, XXI, (i), 167-176.Dzingirai, V. (1996) 'Every man must settle where he wants': The politicsof settlement in the context of Campfire' Zambezia, XXIII, (i), 19-30.National Archives of Zimbabwe, Harare, NB/6/2/2, Gielgud, V. (1898) Reportby the Native Commissioner on his Patrol to the Zambezi.Hawkes R. K. (1992) The Socio-Economic Base of Communities (Harare,Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe).Madzudzo, E. and Dzingirai, V. (1995) 'A comparative study of theimplications of ethnicity on Campfire in Bulilimamangwe and Binga',Zambezia, XXII, (i), 25-42.Madzudzo, E. and Hawkes, R. (1996) 'Grazing and cattle as challenges incommunity-based natural resources management in Bulilimamangwedistrict of Zimbabwe', Zambezia, XXIII, (i).Murphree, M. W. (1989) Wildlife Utilization in Tsholotsho Communal Lands,Nyamandlovu District (Harare, Centre for Applied Social Sciences,University of Zimbabwe).Š (1992) Wildlife Management in Sanyati and Gatshe Gatshe: InstitutionalIssues and Guidelines (Harare, Centre for Applied Social Sciences,University of Zimbabwe).Reynolds, P. (1991) Dance Civet Cat: Child Labour in the Zambezi Valley(Harare, Baobab Books).Scott, J. C. (1985) Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of PeasantResistance (New Haven, Yale University Press).Trimmel, M. (1994) The People of the Great River (Gweru, Mambo Press).Werbner, R. (1991) Tears of the Dead: The Social Biography of an AfricanFamily (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press).Sunday News, 18 August, 1991, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.Sunday News, 27 October, 1991, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.