Back To Top

Lancaster House Agreement Zimbabwe Land Reform

Lancaster House Agreement Zimbabwe Land Reform

The three-month conference was virtually unable to reach an agreement due to differences on land reform. Mugabe was put under pressure to sign, and the country was the most important stumbling block. [Citation required] Both the British and American governments proposed to compensate white citizens for each country sold to support reconciliation (the “Willing Buyer, Willing Seller” principle) and to create a fund to operate from 1980 to 1990. [Citation required] Zimbabwe`s land reform officially began in 1980 with the signing of the Lancaster House Agreement as an anti-racist desire to distribute land more equitably between subsistence black farmers and white Zimbabweans of European descent, who traditionally enjoyed higher political and economic status. The stated objectives of the program were to change the ethnic balance of land ownership. [1] Large-scale agriculture was quickly seen as a means of raising funds. To exploit this resource, BSAC had to retake the country. In 1894, a regional commission was set up, which entrusted the main country within the country to British citizens. The Africans, the 10 million hectares that were before the arrival in Europe, were forced to the drier periphery, on about 2.5 million hectares (Floyd 1962) “At the time of independence in 1980, population densities were more than three times greater than in white areas” (Palmer 1990, 165), Africans had little choice but to work for European farms inland to earn a living , whose work was in high demand (Rowe 2001). Conflicting reports on the impact of Mugabe`s land reform programme have emerged. In February 2000, the media liaison service of the African National Congress reported that Mugabe had given himself 15 farms, Simon Muzenda 13.

The cabinet minister held 160 farms among them, ZANU-PF 150 parliamentarians, and only 2,500 veterans. Another 4,500 landless farmers received three. [2] The programme has also driven away an additional 200,000 agricultural workers and become homeless, with just under 5% compensation in the form of a country expropriated by their displaced employers. [59] Cecil Rhodes and his British South Africa Company (BSAC) arrived in the 1880s on the land of present-day Zimbabwe. In the area there was lush mineral richness, especially the mashonaland gold fields (Galbraith 1974). The British government, which decommissioned the company, encouraged mining companies and ordinary citizens to set up shop (Galbraith 1974). Originally, the company intended to finance the management of the colony solely through its mining exports, but when gold and other mineral discoveries did not meet expectations, the administration was forced to find another source of income. . With its own costly military and police force, the company would have gone bankrupt if it had not been for the enormous agricultural potential of Rhodesia (Galbraith 1974).

The foundation stone of the controversy of Zimbabwean society was laid at the beginning of the European settlement of the region, which has long been the scene of mass movements of different Bantu peoples. In the 16th century, Portuguese explorers had attempted to open Zimbabwe for commercial purposes, but it was not until three hundred years later that it was permanently colonized by European immigrants. [14] The first great Zimbabwean kingdom was the Rozwi Empire, founded in the 11th century.