The fragility of empowerment: changing gender relations in a Zimbabwean resettlement area

ABSTRACT

This article examines the fragility of women's empowerment in Sovelele, a resettlement area established through Zimbabwe's Fast Track Land Reform programme. Compared to their lives before resettlement, married women have larger plots allocated to them by husbands, exercise a higher degree of control over surplus grain and experience more joint use of resources. Single women can more easily buy and hold land in their own right. Yet, these gains are fragile because they arise out of largely unintended and changing circumstances, including the spatial dynamics of resettlement, permit-based land tenure, limited market integration and labour shortage. While attention to the conditions underlying empowerment reveals its fragility, it is not equally fragile for all women. Some women's gains may prove more resilient than others because they rest upon a deeper renegotiation of gender relations.

RÉSUMÉ

Cet article examine la précarité de l’émancipation des femmes à Sovelele, une zone de réinstallation établie à travers le Programme accéléré de réforme agraire au Zimbabwe. Comparé à leurs vies avant la réinstallation, les femmes mariées ont de plus grandes parcelles de terrain allouées par leurs maris, exercent un plus grand degré de contrôle sur le surplus agricole, et ont davantage recours à l’usage concomitant de ressources. Les femmes célibataires peuvent plus aisément acheter et exploiter des terres à leur nom. Pourtant, ces progrès sont précaires puisqu’ils proviennent de circonstances non intentionnées et changeantes, notamment les dynamiques spatiales de la réinstallation, la titrisation des terres agricoles à base de permis spéciaux, l’intégration limitée au marché et la pénurie de main d’œuvre. Tandis que l’étude des conditions sous-jacentes à l’émancipation révèle la précarité de cette dernière, cette précarité n’est pas la même pour toutes les femmes. Les avancées de certaines pourraient se montrer plus tenaces que d’autres puisqu’elles reposent sur un réagencement plus poussé des relations de genre.

KEYWORDS:

• Land reform
• gender
• agriculture
• Zimbabwe
• labour

MOTS-CLÉS:

• Réforme agraire
• genre
• agriculture
• Zimbabwe
• main d’œuvre

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Note on contributor

Lincoln Addison is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology at Memorial University. His research focuses on the cultural and economic consequences of agricultural intensification in Africa. He has carried out research on migrant farm workers in South Africa, the impacts of land reform in Zimbabwe and peasant perceptions of genetically modified crops in Uganda.

Notes

1 Tseu refers to a piece of land given by a husband to his wife or wives. It is a traditional Shona practice that dates back to the precolonial era, but was eroded in the colonial era by increased land pressure in the Native Reserves (Peters and Peters 1998). Jacobs (1992) and Goebel (1999) describe how tseu allocation became more common among resettled households in the 1980s and 1990s, as men had more land to allocate. Typically, wives will use the plots to grow additional food crops, such as groundnuts, roundnuts and sweet potatoes, both for family consumption and for sale. Groundnuts and roundnuts are understood to be ‘women's crops’, in the sense that women usually control the proceeds from the sale of these crops. Thus, even in households where women do not receive a tseu, they can still earn income from the sale of groundnuts and roundnuts often intercropped with grains (Ibid., 87).

2 The estimate of 4000 households was given to me by the local District Chairperson for the ruling ZANU–PF party. The estimate of 65,000 hectares comes from combining the property sizes of Peregwe, Barberton and Sovelele, found in Goodwin et al. (1997, 112).

3 War veterans remain key authority figures in the resettlement area, occupying most of the ‘village head’ positions in Sovelele. Sovelele is divided into more than 40 separate villages, each with its own village head, responsible for adjudicating land issues and conflicts. I was told by village heads that in the early years of resettlement (2000–02) anyone could qualify for an A1 plot, regardless of criteria such as political affiliation. However, all the households I interviewed identified as supporting the ruling party, ZANU–PF. Thus it seems likely that that party affiliation partly determined eligibility for A1 plots (cf. Zamchiya 2011).

4 The redistribution of land in Sovelele did not displace a significant number of farm workers, as Bubiana employed few people. Goodwin et al. (1997) indicate that Bubiana employed fewer than 100 people, in such positions as game scouts, cooks and domestic workers. Most of these employees left the area at the time of the land invasions, and accompanied the former white owners to other properties. But farm workers were not totally excluded from land allocation: I was told by village heads that fewer than 10 of these former workers received A1 plots and continue to live in Sovelele.

5 Based on Dekker and Kinsey (2011, 1007), I estimate that a family of five requires at least one ton of grain for subsistence.

6 Among most respondents, the categories ‘male’ and ‘female’ refer to husbands and wives. Exceptions include the three de jure female-headed households where there are no adult males present. Child labour was defined as anyone under the age of 18 living at the homestead.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.