Land
tenure in Africa is slowly becoming a benign factor to the success of the
economy, Identity and resolving of conflict. To the West of Africa we have
Ivory Coast whose moral economy is referred to as tutorat. This means that one
who has been given a plot of land contracted a permanent and unlimited duty of
recognition toward the giver, usually the autochthonous holder of the land
rights.
This took place without any paper evidence and
there was more value attached to this process than that which takes the form of
using papers as a form of proof. The problems arising here are that the people
who participate in this transaction to act as truth tellers may end up dying
and it will be impossible for future generations to prove identity of ownership
of land. This can lead to the confusion that exists in the present. There is a
confused framework of land but it has a history.
Down to
the south of Africa we have Zimbabwe, a land in which the issues regarding
resettlement have gained international media attention. Robert Mugabe, being
the pioneer, has lead to this country to have the reputation of being one of
the few countries in Africa where Africans own their own land, and in huge
numbers.
The model
that he has employed to give his people ownership has not been popular. This is
because it has been dismissive of international law and lead to a number of
human rights violations towards the white farmers. Studies suggests that the
new settlers will soon reach the potential of the white farmers in percentage
yield and the food basket is going to be more diverse.
Through
the policy of land eviction, he has gained the hero status in most of Africa
and opposition from the West. This, he claims, was not his idea of policy but
that he pursued a possible resolution for 7 years with the Britons. After the
election of Tony Blair, there was dismissal of his proposals and this was the
beginning of the hate and love relationship between the continents. I still
believe he did the right thing but in many ways, but a leader who sees violence
but does not condemn it is not worth leading. This is because he creates a
violent youth who will eventually teach the young nothing but violence.
Violence
is not one of the factors used to measure economic development.
This has
lead to more violence and the opposition from Morgan Tsvangirai devised a ploy
of his assassination. The evidence is out. The fact that an African leader can
threaten the leadership that brought about his independence and freedom of
expression is mind-boggling. Are we still going to kill ourselves even after
independence? To what end? Can there be leaders who care about development of
the people and less about power? We need a resolution that will ensure proper
transition of property rights in this growing population without shedding of
blood.
