‘Rooted Back Home’: Exploring Linkages between Small-Scale Land Reform Beneficiaries and their Communal Areas of Origin in Zimbabwe

Abstract

This article examines why land reform beneficiaries maintain linkages with their communal areas of origin two decades after Zimbabwe’s Fast Track Land Reform programme (FTLRP). This is done by investigating the extent to which and the ways in which beneficiaries of the FTLRP are connected to their communal areas of origin, as well as the implications of maintaining their belonging. Studies of the FTLRP have paid insufficient attention to the importance of understanding linkages with places of origin. Thus, using empirical qualitative insights from Zvimba district, Mashonaland West province, I argue that belonging, even in the case of land reform, links people despite their physical relocation. The findings illustrate that the need to belong makes people maintain their links with their place of origin. The article concludes that land reform programmes should consider social elements such as belonging which are embedded in the social fabric of people’s lives.

Keywords:

• belonging
• land reform
• A1 villagised settlements
• communal areas, Zimbabwe

Introduction

This article examines why beneficiaries of land reform on small-scale farms maintain linkages with their communal areas of origin. Linkages in this article are explored as social, political and economic factors that connect people or places to each other. A case study of Zvimba district in Mashonaland West province is presented. The article argues that people who were resettled, based on a sense of belonging, maintain ties to either the land or place of origin for a range of social, economic, political and spiritual reasons. By belonging, I mean a sense of attachment to a place, being an indigene, or having roots in a location.¹ In several belonging debates, the focus is on citizenship,² migration³ and refugees.⁴ For the most part, studies that focus on belonging have been limited to the maintenance of ties to places of origin by people who move to different areas, such as in the case of migration and the diaspora, or the move from rural to urban areas, with a limited focus on land reform. Land reform debates focus mostly on factors such as undoing colonial injustices,⁵ agrarian livelihoods,⁶ property rights,⁷ redistribution of land⁸ and agricultural production and labour.⁹ While these studies provide us with critical insights into understanding land reform, few studies offer insight into belonging and land reform from a linkages perspective. Using a framework of belonging, this article therefore seeks to contribute to these debates by illustrating the importance of maintaining linkages by beneficiaries of land reform to their communal areas of origin.

Linkages and Land Reform Context

The Fast Track Land Reform programme (FTLRP) of 2000 was a state-led land reform programme that received considerable attention from both the media and academia. The FTLRP emerged because the land question in Zimbabwe had remained unresolved. Sam Moyo and Paris Yeros argue that the state’s failure to address the land question led to increased demands for the redistribution of land.¹⁰ Mostly white-owned commercial farms were occupied in 2000: people from communal areas, who were led by war veterans, largely provided the social base for the occupations.¹¹

The FTLRP redistributed land mostly owned by white farmers using two settlement models: the A1 (villagised and self-contained) model and the A2 model. The A2 model was a commercial farming land-use model intended to empower indigenous black farmers.¹² However, this article focuses on the villagised A1 model, which sought to provide land to people in communal areas.¹³ The A1 villagised model comprises small-scale farms in resettlement areas, with an average of six arable hectares for farming, ‘a translocation type of resettlement with the villagised type of settlement. Settlers are allocated individual residential and arable plots but share common grazing, woodlots and water points, social infrastructure, and services’.¹⁴

The A1 villagised model sought to resettle people by encouraging mainly people from communal areas to relocate, with official support, to formerly white-owned commercial farms and ranches.¹⁵ This is therefore the context within which links with communal areas or rural areas will be examined. Communal areas were created by the colonial settlers and administered in terms of customary law and statutory law. Black people were resettled on arid and impoverished land, called tribal trust lands or reserves; after independence in 1980, these areas were renamed communal areas.¹⁶ Communal areas function as residence, home, fallback and food production areas for most Zimbabweans, who hold the land in terms of a usufruct.¹⁷ This means that while private use land and shared common lands are provided, the land remains in the hands of the state.¹⁸ Communal areas and A1 villagised settlements are administered according to both customary and statutory law.¹⁹ Effectively both communal areas and resettlement land are owned by the state. Statutory law institutions such as rural district councils, ward development committees and village development committees administer both areas. Customary law institutions such as chiefs, headmen and village heads mostly have overlapping duties and responsibilities. The parallel structures offered by customary and statutory law present a challenge for people in communal and resettlement areas as these parallel structures tend to overlap and clash in the governance and management of resettlement farms.²⁰

With regard to the FTLRP, several debates have emerged about farm occupations,²¹ livelihoods²² and agrarian labour.²³ However, these studies provide limited in-depth analysis of linkages between beneficiaries of the FTLRP in resettled areas and people in communal areas of origin using a framework of belonging. The relationship between people in resettlement areas and communal areas of origin has been interpreted in different ways by scholars. Godfrey Kanyenze argues that ‘the fast-track land reform programme contributed to the disruption of society and brought fear, anxiety, and uncertainty to community life in Zimbabwe. Apart from the social disruptions associated with the programme … families were separated, as men and boys occupied farms, leaving women behind in the communal areas’.²⁴ These sentiments are further echoed by Allison Goebel, who argues that families were disrupted as men moved to resettlement areas, and women lost social capital in some resettlement areas.²⁵ Vongai Zvidenga Nyawo argues that the FTLRP swiftly transformed the communal areas as young people left for A1 settlements.²⁶ These scholars mainly argue that the FTLRP disrupted family cohesion by relocating people from communal areas to resettlement areas. This article challenges these claims using an in-depth analysis to demonstrate the importance of linkages for beneficiaries of the FTLRP.

As has been stated earlier, linkages are an important issue that few studies have explored exhaustively. The maintenance of connections before the FTLRP is not a new phenomenon. It has been noted that the movement of people to resettlement areas and the maintenance of old communal areas has been common since the opening of the former wildlife areas in the 1970s and 1980s in Gokwe, Zimbabwe.²⁷ Likewise, Bill Kinsey, Abigail Barr and Marleen Dekker have noted that land reform beneficiaries maintained connections with communal areas after independence.²⁸ These pre-FTLRP studies focus on the importance of kin networks for most rural families to strengthen their social capital and resource-pooling strategies. Some studies after the FTLRP acknowledge the existence and maintenance of connections between communal areas and A1 villagised settlements such as those by Tendai Murisa and Ian Scoones et al.²⁹ A survey conducted in 2007 across six districts in Zimbabwe indicated that 16.6 per cent of the households in resettlement areas were maintaining linkages with their customary area homes.³⁰ The documented reasons for this connection include the uncertainty of tenure on A1 farms³¹ by beneficiaries of the FTLRP and their wish not to lose land in the communal areas.³² However, further analysis of these linkages using the framework of belonging is required; hence the importance of this article.

This case study is mainly limited to the importance of belonging to communal areas of origin for beneficiaries of the FTLRP. This is particularly important as a large number of the beneficiaries of the FTLRP originated from communal areas.³³ In a study of Masvingo province, Scoones et al. state that, in Masvingo, ‘59.9 per cent of households that came from rural areas were almost exclusively from nearby communal areas’.³⁴ Scoones et al. further note that some of these land beneficiaries maintain links with communal areas. Moyo concurs, stating that about 62.1 per cent of A1 beneficiaries come from communal areas.³⁵ As a result, several beneficiaries who originated from adjacent communal areas continue to straddle the two places to aid their social reproduction and the maintenance of familial links. Moyo explains that ‘most of these beneficiaries have relatives and friends in the communal areas and retain associational links with these areas’.³⁶ In addition, Murisa notes that ‘[the] most (57.5%) commonly cited reason for the maintenance of a customary area homestead is because it is still home to other members of the extended family’.³⁷ These insights affirm that most of the beneficiaries maintain connections with their places of origin. Therefore, the importance of belonging as a factor in the maintenance of links between communal areas and resettlement areas needs to be examined.

Land allocated through land reform has different meanings for different people: it can be a source of private accumulation, livelihood, security and a family asset. Although land reform was driven by the state in the case of Zimbabwe, land has multidimensional political, economic, social and cultural functions. This article argues that a land reform programme should provide an axis for people to build and maintain relationships at various levels with their places of origin. This is mainly because the benefits of the FTLRP are not limited to resettlement areas but spill over to places of origin through the maintenance of connections. Redistributive land reform programmes should break down the territorial and social segregation of communal areas from the former white farming areas and allow for the free movement of livestock, people, goods and services.³⁸

Given this background, what is missing is an exhaustive analysis that focuses solely on the importance of belonging in enabling linkages between people in resettlement areas and their communal areas of origin. This article illustrates the diverse factors that enable linkages for beneficiaries of the FTLRP who left communal areas. This is done by exploring the extent to which beneficiaries of land reform are connected to, or disconnected from, their communal areas of origin. This study thus broadens the discussion on land reform, using the case of beneficiaries of the FTLRP and communal areas of origin in Zvimba district in Mashonaland West province, Zimbabwe. The article specifically presents a case study of Machiroli Farm, an A1 villagised settlement, and the Zvimba communal areas (Ward 6) in Zvimba district. The next section discusses the conceptual framing of this article.

Belonging: Some Conceptual Issues

Land is central to the formulation and shaping of belonging and relations.³⁹ Belonging is a multidimensional concept and cuts across several disciplines. Historians, political scientists, sociologists and critical theorists engage with belonging. Despite its use across various studies, belonging remains a contested term.⁴⁰ Belonging is a contested terrain in Africa, and many of these debates are located within the ‘autochthons and strangers’ dynamic.⁴¹ More often, belonging is applied within migration, mobility and translocation studies and incorporates ethnicity, gender, nationhood and citizenship. Belonging is conceptualised as people sharing values, relations and practices, and is about being part of the social fabric, and the social bonds and ties that are manifested in the practices, experiences and emotions of inclusion. I adopt Joseph Mujere’s conceptualisation of belonging, which ‘entails rootedness or being attached to a place’. This involves ‘an attachment to place, being an indigene or having roots in a certain place as opposed to being a stranger’.⁴² This definition makes it possible to analyse the nature of linkages.

People’s shared values, relations and practices are important in the case study to understand the linkages between communal areas and resettlement areas.⁴³ Marco Antonsich emphasises that belonging refers to a place where a person feels at home.⁴⁴ In this study, the notion of home is not limited to a physical space; it is an attachment to graves, mountains, groups, religions, places, rivers, old homes or other local experiences. This is particularly important in this article as a home is manifested in numerous ways, such as in language, physical space, practices, memories, food, religion and history.⁴⁵ The idea of a home involves one’s experience at the family, individual and cultural levels, accumulated over time.⁴⁶ As people straddle two areas, they reinforce their bonds with their places of origin (communal areas) while residing in A1 villagised settlements.

Belonging, in most cases, is about experiences of being part of the social fabric and the social bonds and ties manifested in the practices, experiences and emotions of inclusion.⁴⁷ This will be important in illustrating the various social bonds that enable the maintenance of links in Zvimba district. Most of the social bonds and ties are based on land, which is connected to future, present and past generations.⁴⁸ Equally attached to land are funerals and gravesites, which are also important components of defining belonging. Parker Shipton and Mitzi Goheen note that graves are symbolic places of human attachment which are important in defining ties.⁴⁹ This is particularly useful for beneficiaries of land reform: links with places of origin (land) play a key role in maintaining kinship relations, as the insights from this case study have shown. Patrick Chabal notes that ‘[k]inship, therefore, is not the (negative) burdens or (positive) opportunities it implies, which are real enough, but how it contributes to a sense of socially meaningful belonging’.⁵⁰

For this article, this framework highlights the importance of relationships, which occur more often in various types in the household (nuclear and extended) and at village level (communal relations, that is neighbours, religious and social groups), which play a key role in revealing connections between communal areas and resettlement areas. Furthermore, belonging demonstrates how elements such as religion, social relations, labour exchanges, family and friendships, funerals (burial sites) and socio-cultural gatherings enable linkages. These insights are important for analysing linkages. Belonging is therefore viewed not in the abstract, but actively, through relationships and interactions, which emerged through the history of households in both communal areas and on Machiroli Farm. Belonging in this study therefore examines the diversity of relationships to place, not just across individuals, but for individuals across space: it entails the multifaceted relationships that an individual might hold with different spaces or places. I will build on this concept by showing other components of belonging, such as graves, land and familial relations. As people move between two areas, they strengthen their bonds with their places of origin (communal areas) while residing in A1 settlements.

Land Reform, Belonging and Linkages: Insights from the Case Study

Methodology and Overview of the Case Study

To capture the linkages between beneficiaries of the A1 villagised model and their communal areas of origin, a case study of Zvimba district, Mashonaland West was used, with a focus on Machiroli Farm (Ward 21 and A1 villagised settlement) and the adjacent Zvimba communal areas (Ward 6). One A1 villagised farm was selected for the study. While many A1 villagised settlements border communal areas, Machiroli Farm was chosen as it is easily accessible for people in both the communal areas and the A1 settlements. Multiple forms of data collection were used, such as interviews, life histories and participatory observations, as well as a review of Government of Zimbabwe reports and policies as secondary sources of data.

Thirty-three people were interviewed, which included Ward 6 communal areas residents, Machiroli Farm A1 villagised farm residents, chiefs, headmen, village heads and government officials. Participants on Machiroli Farm referred people in communal areas to be interviewed. Machiroli Farm has 28 beneficiaries, 12 of whom were purposively selected for interviews. The selection of respondents on Machiroli Farm was purposively made based on availability, with an emphasis on the need to balance gender, age and class. Similarly, Ward 6 in the communal areas was selected, and several respondents on Machiroli Farm originated from Ward 6. Ward 6 in Zvimba communal areas is adjacent to Machiroli Farm and other formerly white commercial farms. Pseudonyms are used in this article to maintain the anonymity of the respondents.

Ward 6 communal areas are between 10 and 25 kilometres away from Machiroli Farm. Communication with Machiroli Farm is maintained through visits and phone calls. It is important to note that Ward 6 is diverse and has a mixture of on- and off-farm activities, ranging from smallholder agriculture to mining, manufacturing, transport, commerce and agricultural processing. Similar to most communal areas in the country, Ward 6 is overpopulated, with infertile and sandy land, in contrast to the resettlement areas. Respondents in Ward 6 indicated that the issue of land with a lot of physical and spiritual meaning is important. Land in communal areas belongs to the dead, living and future generations. In addition, social relations are important in communal areas; these are manifested through social and familial relations which are strengthened through events such as funerals, marriages and other social activities. These often extend to labour-sharing initiatives such as nhimbe.⁵¹

Traditional authorities play an important role in the administration of communal areas. Traditional authorities, in this case, played an important role in encouraging and mobilising people to occupy farms on Machiroli Farm in November 2000, when the FTLRP started. The farm occupations were led by war veterans with mostly people from communal areas. Most beneficiaries on Machiroli Farm occupied land initially through a process of invasion, which was later recognised by the office of the District Administrator and formalised by the Ministry of Lands. On Machiroli Farm, there were several reasons for land occupation; however, the desire to acquire land and to return to ancestral land was dominant. The next section provides insights from the case study.

Land Reform and Belonging in Zvimba District

In Zvimba district, households maintain links between communal areas and A1 settlements for various reasons. Several insights from the case study illustrate this. As this section will show, factors that enforce connections and belonging are varied. Burial sites and funerals are two of the ways in which households establish belonging. One reason why beneficiaries on Machiroli Farm maintain links between A1 settlements and communal areas is to ensure that, once they die, they are still recognised as being part of the clan. It is important to note that although a small number of respondents wished to be buried in the A1 settlements, most of the respondents indicated that being buried in their communal areas was critical for them. One respondent echoed the sentiments of others: ‘[w]hen a person dies, it is a matter of personal preference, and some believe that family graves should be in one place. However, here in Machiroli over time, I realised that generally many people want to be buried back home in the communal areas of origin’.⁵²

One respondent commented that he was ‘not comfortable burying my family member there in that common gravesite, gravesites are sacred places. Burying my relative there might make it difficult to find rest. Besides, former farmworkers have different customs, which might anger our ancestors’.⁵³ Another respondent concluded by saying ‘[w]hen a person dies, they should be reconnected with their ancestors. Here in the resettlements, it’s a farming area. When I die, I will be buried in the communal area’.⁵⁴

These narratives highlight the importance of belonging to a communal area, as the respondents noted the significance of the place where a person is buried. Peter Geschiere and Francis Nyamnjoh also note that, in Cameroon, even people in the urban areas are emphatic about where they wish to be buried, with most preferring to be buried in the villages.⁵⁵ Therefore, although households were allocated land in A1 settlements, links through burial in communal areas play an important role in belonging.

The holding of funerals is one reason why households maintain links. Insights from the study indicate that beneficiaries on Machiroli Farm attend funerals in adjacent communal areas and some of the A1 beneficiaries are buried in communal areas. This highlights that, although people are relocated to resettlement areas, they stay connected with kin by attending funerals. Geschiere argues that funerals are, in most cases, conducted in places where a person was born rather than where they lived.⁵⁶ Maintaining these linkages through burials in communal areas and attending funerals indicates that households in resettlement areas need to belong, as the insights above have shown.

Familial relations are an important aspect in ascertaining belonging. Familial relations can be found at various levels and include extended and totemic family ties.⁵⁷ Narratives from my case study indicated that households still maintain familial relations. In most cases, these relations are reciprocal between familial networks. Familial links are maintained in various ways, such as weddings (the paying of bride price), ceremonies, rituals and social visits. Households indicated that they use these links to take advantage of their relatives in resettlement areas to address some of the challenges in communal areas, such as shortages of firewood. Totemic and familial relations have allowed households to share livestock across both communal areas and Machiroli Farm: ‘[o]ur cattle face acute grazing shortages; here in Kutama village grazing areas are a challenge. We thought that the land reform would give us a designated grazing area, but this has not been adequately addressed’.⁵⁸

Most respondents in the communal areas highlighted that there are limited grazing areas for the livestock. They had hoped that the FTLRP would have addressed this overcrowding and made more grazing land available. Through these familial and totemic links, access to grazing land has been made possible. This concurs with findings by Lionel Cliffe, who notes that kinship networks provide important support in times of need and for agricultural activities.⁵⁹ Thus, maintaining links with the family and friends in communal areas by beneficiaries of the FTLRP reinforced belonging.

Households keep cattle, goats, chickens and sheep both in communal areas and on Machiroli Farm. These animals are kept for different reasons and benefit the household. Households in both areas place great emphasis on cattle production. In the communal areas, limited grazing areas are available, and cattle often stray into other people’s fields, resulting in conflicts. The connection that exists between households in the communal areas and A1 settlements enables those in the communal areas to benefit from the proximity by sending their livestock across for better grazing. This accords with the findings of Grasian Mkodzongi, who states that in Mhondoro Ngezi some households were straddling the two areas (resettlement and communal) as a way of diversifying their livelihoods.⁶⁰ One interviewee commented that ‘[w]e are privileged that, in some cases, we can take our cattle across to the resettlement areas to some of our relatives. This helps us to access grazing. This would have never happened when the white farmer was still around on Machiroli Farm’.⁶¹ Such arrangements are mostly based on kinship ties. Before the FTLRP, cattle that strayed onto the commercial farms were captured or the cattle owners would have had to pay a fine. This was explained by one respondent:

Since we are close to the A1 settlements, our cattle now move to the Machiroli Farm. We normally ask for permission from our relatives, after harvesting, to allow our cattle to graze. It is different from the times when Sean used to own the farm [and] when our cattle strayed into his farm, we would pay a fine. Now, this has ceased to happen.⁶²

After the FTLRP, households, through kinship ties, were able to send their cattle for grazing to the A1 settlements.

The reasons for these households straddling areas are varied. My fieldwork revealed that households straddle for social, political and cultural purposes. Observations of A1 settlements revealed that A1 villagised areas tend to be socially isolated and, as a result, there is a desire to belong and remain connected and relevant in the broader social fabric with families and friends in communal areas. Thus, households participate in and maintain friendship networks also known as sahwiras. Within sahwira networks, households help each other during weddings, funerals and social and cultural events in either communal areas or A1 settlements. The case study showed that these sahwira networks have given people access to savings groups and burial societies, membership of which is maintained by A1 households that have left communal areas. Participating in these networks maintains the links between households in communal areas and resettlement areas. These networks affirm the need to maintain belonging by the beneficiaries of the FTLRP.

Religion plays a significant role in providing interconnections between A1 households and communal area households. Religion is one of the contributing factors for households to straddle communal areas and resettlement areas. People in Zvimba practise mostly Christianity and traditional African religion, with former farmworkers mainly practising the Muslim religion. The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is the most prominent in the area due to the long history of the church in Zvimba. The RCC built schools, hospitals and churches in the communal areas in Zvimba. Many beneficiaries came from the communal areas that had strong ties to the RCC. Most of the respondents on Machiroli Farm and communal areas belong to the RCC due to the role of the institution in education and health. Although some respondents belong to other churches (such as the Methodist, White garments (mapostori) and Pentecostal churches), the RCC was the most common church.⁶³ Links with their churches were a source of maintaining belonging among the beneficiaries of the FTLRP.

The RCC remains a source of connection in the case study area. Most churches are in the communal areas, and households in A1 settlements travel to attend church on most Sundays. A respondent noted that ‘[w]e grew up in the Roman Catholic Church. Even though we moved to the A1 farms, every Sunday we make sure that we go to the communal areas’.⁶⁴ While the church is the source of spiritual upliftment for its adherents, I observed that the church also provides materials, such as farm inputs and food, wherever necessary, for its members in both communal areas and A1 settlements.

In addition, the church is a social network as it transcends geographical boundaries, and its members are from both A1 settlements and communal areas. Church members assist each other and share their knowledge on social, economic and political issues. Some of the A1 farmers belonging to the same church networks lend each other money and farm inputs, such as seeds. This is done to uphold the Christian ethos of love and unity. One of the respondents in the A1 settlements said:

When we moved to the resettlement area, one of the things that pained me was leaving my family behind. What provided me comfort was that the church was close so we could meet often. The church is another family which gives me advice and love. I do get seeds and borrow money from my people in the church.⁶⁵

Even though some members of households moved to Machiroli Farm, families remain connected through churches such as the RCC. There are also new Pentecostal churches known as ‘mapostori’ or ‘white garments’. The white garments churches also accommodate households in both the communal areas and A1 settlements, with most of their churches in the communal areas. These denominations on Machiroli Farm have created and maintained a sense of unity among the members of the study area. Through religion, households maintain links as well as show their belonging by attending church.

Traditional practices play a key role in connecting households both on Machiroli Farm and in the Zvimba communal areas. Belonging has been emphasised by maintaining traditions such as Chisi (traditional rest day). This practice is regarded as sacred in the Zvimba district, as described by one interviewee:

Traditional rest day (Chisi) is regarded as a sacred day in Zvimba district, in both Machiroli Farm and the communal areas. Every Thursday, households are prohibited from working in their fields. On these sacred days (Chisi), households engage in tasks like thatching huts, cleaning the homesteads and fixing the kraal. Some of the activities done on Chisi include visiting Mazunzanyika Bottle Store, a familiar leisure spot in Zvimba for drinking alcohol. Due to the fact [that] households are not engaged in agricultural activities, people that have relatives take time to visit relatives in either area. Chisi is predominantly a practice conducted in communal areas in Zvimba and now [also] practised on Machiroli Farm.⁶⁶

Respondents from communal areas on Machiroli Farm acknowledged that they observed these traditions. The concept of Chisi is a spiritual connection to the land and belonging, and respondents stated that it signified being at one with the soil. Hence, it was the people’s role to take care of the land. In essence, a person is connected to the land from the day of their birth and, when a person rests, so should the land. Thus, as indicated here, belonging as a process is dynamic and, in most cases, it is multi-layered, as Zvimba district has shown.⁶⁷ This article notes the implications for policy on land reforms, and lessons from the FTLRP indicate that it is difficult to separate people from their places of origin since people maintain links with those places.

However, I acknowledge that not all beneficiaries value maintaining relationships with their places of origin; some have established relations on Machiroli Farm. The FTLRP has developed the nature of social networks, such as burial societies, and new burial societies have emerged in A1 settlements to deal with limited access to family as well as the direct costs of death and risks when away from close family members. One respondent stated:

Our families are not always here; in the event of death, my neighbours will be the first people to come and provide assistance. We decided to start our burial society. We have a few former farmworkers but mostly it is us, the A1 farmers in Machiroli, who assist and contribute money which we give to our members or their family in the event of death.⁶⁸

While some households have established other social networks in resettlement areas, I argue that belonging, as in the case of Zvimba, is much more fluid. Maintaining links with communal areas allows households to articulate their belonging despite participating in social networks in resettlement areas. It becomes evident that belonging includes people’s physical relationship with the land and other physical material. Although belonging is socially constructed, households construct their meaning through linkages, particularly when it comes to the importance of land.

Close to two decades after the FTLRP was established, insecurity of tenure was common among several respondents, despite infrastructural development on Machiroli Farm. Straddling Machiroli Farm and communal areas was aligned to insecurity of tenure as well as the lack of concrete assurance from the government about the ownership of the land. All the A1 settlers in Machiroli have received offer letters; however, none has yet received a 99-year lease. An official at the Ministry of Lands in Zvimba stated that a 99-year lease ‘is a legally binding document/agreement between the Government of Zimbabwe through the Ministry of Lands and Rural Resettlement and the A1 settlement beneficiary or farmer. The 99-year lease agreement is issued to the land beneficiary as a form of the long-term leasehold of tenure’.⁶⁹

Lack of tenure security has resulted in some of the households maintaining their homesteads in communal areas. Respondents on A1 settlements who had land in communal areas stated that they were no longer using their fields in communal areas. However, these beneficiaries indicated that they were constantly in touch with their extended family members in communal areas in case other people should want to take over their homesteads.

Emotional attachment to rural homes was common among respondents, combined with a lack of trust in the FTLRP’s A1 villagised model. As a result, although people relocated to the resettlement area, not much land has been made available on Machiroli Farm. This research coincided with the November 2017 removal of the late former president Robert Mugabe through military intervention in Zimbabwe. The removal of Mugabe from power created anxiety and panic for the beneficiaries of the FTLRP on Machiroli Farm. One respondent acted as follows:

When Mugabe was removed from power, we heard that white farmers were coming back to take their former farms. I heard my nephew say that, on nearby farms, some white farmers were spotted visiting their farms after hearing of the removal of Mugabe from power. That is the reason that I maintain my claim to my homestead in Kutama village. With these farms you are never guaranteed; anything can happen.⁷⁰

Another respondent stated:

These offer letters that we were given are not a guarantee that we will not be removed [from] here. Our elders say ‘Natsa kwaunobva kwaunoenda husiku’ [Leave in good standing, for the path ahead is dark]. So, we make sure, just in case this goes otherwise, [that] we are in good standing with our relatives back home.⁷¹

On Machiroli Farm, A1 settlers have built permanent structures, such as brick and asbestos structures, but there is still uncertainty about tenure. An explanation for the insecurity of tenure is the fact that the conditions in an offer letter stated that the District Lands Committee had the right to withdraw or change the offer. Thus, ties need to be maintained with places of origin in case an offer letter is withdrawn.

It is important to note that not all respondents on Machiroli Farm maintain links with communal areas of origin. A few responded that connections were not important, as there are conflicts between some communal and A1 households. This study noted that these fluid boundaries have resulted in conflicts between communal areas and Machiroli Farm settlers. The fluid boundaries are also a source of conflict for the new beneficiaries that are on Machiroli Farm but who do not originate from Zvimba district. These fluid boundaries mean that livestock crosses onto Machiroli Farm, in most cases damaging or eating crops and vegetables. Households on Machiroli Farm also accused people from communal areas of trespassing on woodlots and grazing areas without consent. There were several reasons for these weak ties, such as misunderstandings with either parents or in-laws, or accusations of witchcraft. This was explained by a respondent as follows:

One of the most difficult and painful things to be called is a witch. This was life before we moved here with my wife. I can tell you that my brother suspected me of witchcraft after finding my herbs, which were normal herbs that people use. Since then, I was called a witch. For me, coming here was breaking free from the stigma I was suffering.⁷²

This narrative illustrates that some respondents have disconnected from communal areas of origin due to family conflicts and misunderstandings. It also illustrates that belonging is not fixed, as these beneficiaries indicated that they now belong to Machiroli Farm. Despite these insights about disconnection with places of origin, most respondents indicated that they maintain links with communal areas of origin based on belonging. It is important to state that there are also new forms of belonging in the A1 villagised settlements.

New Forms of Belonging Observed in the Case Study

While the insights above illustrate that linkages with their places of origin based on belonging have been maintained by people on Machiroli Farm, there are new forms of belonging on Machiroli Farm. In some cases, new social networks have emerged between A1 farmers, and these extend to former farm workers. This was evident through savings clubs which incorporate both A1 farmers and former farm workers. A respondent explained this as follows: ‘[w]e have a saving club, or “rounds” as we call them here [Machiroli Farm]. We help each other to buy pots and other agricultural [supplies] such as fertilisers and seeds in some cases’.⁷³

As the narratives from this case study show, belonging is not constant: some households that do not maintain links with communal areas have established new relations with other A1 farmers. This was evident when some A1 farmers stated that they regard Machiroli as their home and would be buried on the farm. As a result, some burial clubs have been established to cater for people on the farms. One respondent explained as follows: ‘this is now our home; I will be buried here. We have a burial society here to help each other in times of death’. These new forms of belonging are evident through labour transactions: some of the households on Machiroli Farm provide labour to each other. Mrs F confirmed this situation:

In the communal areas, I do not have many friends; however, my late husband had many friends in the communal areas. I have strong relations with other farmers that are on this farm, who have a white garments church here. These are those that I regard as my family. In most instances, they assist with tasks like tobacco production.

On Machiroli A1 settlement, as in the case of Mrs F’s household, social networks are emerging with a focus on sharing labour. This has been strengthened by the fact that Machiroli Farm has a significant proportion of households from the same ward locality. When the FTLRP commenced in Zvimba, people from different districts were perceived as ‘strangers’. However, over the years relationships with other A1 farmers have been established on the farm. The relations on Machiroli Farm have produced multiple initiatives such as irrigation schemes. The Farm chairman explained the development of the irrigation scheme:

The Irrigation scheme was an initiative led by the Department of Irrigation and the BMFA [Brazil More Food for Africa] project. The Department of Irrigation gave us the irrigation pipes and BMFA offered to give us a tractor on credit. At that time, we did not have a tractor on this farm, [and] the people on the farm agreed to buy the tractor that is owned by all the beneficiaries on the farm. We are paying back the debt. At the same time, a committee was formed to oversee the operations of the irrigation. The Ministry of Lands then came and officially allocated to us this irrigation place. An official event was held to hand over the pipes and tractor to the people of Machiroli. That is how this irrigation came into existence.⁷⁴

Furthermore, kinship networks are based on totems that are emerging on the A1 farms. In an informal conversation, one respondent stated that ‘there is one man who shares the same totem as me on this farm that lost his family; he lost his wife and sons and is now only left with his daughter. We have pledged to give him seed and fertiliser to help him’.⁷⁵ This form of assistance reveals that there are new forms belonging on the farm. However, a large number of respondents indicated that they maintain ties with communal areas of origin. I argue that, for beneficiaries of land reform, the ability to maintain links illustrates a lack of sense of belonging in resettlement areas; people therefore maintain linkages with places of origin.

Linkages, Land Reform and Belonging

This section discusses the implications on people’s sense of belonging, which is connected to economic, social and cultural life. More than 20 years after the FTLRP, belonging allows beneficiaries who left communal areas to maintain their material and social ties. Evidence from this case study demonstrates that belonging is equally relevant for land reform. As illustrated in this case study, people can belong to, and maintain links with, two or more different places. This view illustrates that the FTLRP has also brought about dual belonging, as beneficiaries of the FTLRP straddle resettlement areas and communal areas physically, emotionally, socially and socio-culturally. This is different from the villagisation land programme of the late 1970s in Tanzania, which was ‘neither voluntary nor redistributive’.⁷⁶ This insight is reflected in immigration and translocation studies where ‘most rural-urban migrants maintain significant ties with their communities of origin in Africa south of the Sahara. Contrary to “modernist” assumptions that these ties would fade away, they often continue to be strong’.⁷⁷ This case study shows that links are maintained despite the translocation of people to urban areas; thus, belonging occurs in various spaces concurrently.

The linkages in the case study are emphasised through funerals and burial sites. This accords with the findings of Geschiere, who states that where one is buried is a crucial test of someone’s belonging.⁷⁸ Part of maintaining linkages is ensuring that this sense of belonging by being buried in places of origin is maintained. As the evidence in the case shows, a burial site is seen as a powerful way of determining where people belong. The very essence of social relations is through obligations based on land.⁷⁹ Despite African governments’ attempts to regulate land, land is accessed through social relations.⁸⁰ Therefore, land, which is the ultimate sign of belonging, is maintained through social relations, as this case study has shown. The very essence of social relations is through obligations.

Evidence from this study shows that, in most cases, relations are reciprocal among familial networks. Familial links are maintained in various ways, as described above, and generate many benefits, especially for those in the communal areas who are challenged by household shortages. This outcome adds to the findings of Patience Mutopo, who notes that links with communal areas are maintained by the sharing of resources, such as firewood, by households in resettlement areas through their social relations.⁸¹ Similarly, it can be argued that some people in resettled areas use natural resources to maintain social relations.⁸² In this case, the importance of belonging is an avenue to strengthen social relations and links, which are a means of accessing resources from resettlement areas and labour from communal areas of origin.

The study found that families in communal areas have maintained links with A1 settlements through belonging: family, friendship, sport and religious networks. The analysis of data revealed that although beneficiaries of land reform have established permanency through building and investing in resettlement areas, linkages are maintained based on attachment to communal areas. While permanency has been established on Machiroli Farm, belonging manifested through family ties is still important for the connection with places of origin. Therefore, it can be noted that belonging is a bond between people and places. This study illustrates that, while permanency is established by building on Machiroli Farm, ties with communal areas are important. This view is also discussed in other fields, such as rural-to-urban migration, where urbanites maintain links with communal areas of origin, which, in certain instances, provide a fallback option for urban households that lose employment in the city.⁸³

It is important to note that after the FTLRP, new forms of belonging in resettlement areas have emerged, such as social networks between beneficiaries of the FTLRP. New forms of belonging have emerged in the case study, comprising friends and neighbourly networks (sahwira) in A1 settlements. Respondents indicated that belonging to these networks was important to ensure connections. Within sahwira networks, households help one another, including through ongoing savings groups and burial societies, as described above. These friendship networks are useful for borrowing money and seed. This resonates with the findings of Mutopo, Murisa and Manase Kudzai Chiweshe.⁸⁴ However, the maintenance of linkages between communal and resettlement areas illustrates the plurality of belonging. This view is expressed by Antonsich, who asserts that belonging is often visible beyond territorial or boundary limits.⁸⁵ This study on linkages brings to the forefront the importance of belonging for people in resettlement areas and communal areas by showing how belonging connects people in different locations. Seen as such, belonging in Zvimba enables the flow of images (memories), goods and people between two places.⁸⁶ This view is emphasised by Ben Cousins et al., who note that networks of kinship, such as relational connections, are important as a source of co-operation and support in times of need.⁸⁷ Thus, belonging, specifically for beneficiaries of land reform, enables the benefits of the FTLRP to extend to places of origin. In this case study, belonging was key in maintaining ties between institutions, such as churches, burial societies and familial relations.

Belonging is not confined to physical boundaries or territories, as shown by the evidence from the Zvimba case study. This is noted by Antonsich, who states that belonging is often visible beyond territorial or boundary limits.⁸⁸ The narratives from Zimbabwe indicated that, despite the two settlement models, belonging transcends boundaries. Mkodzongi, however, argues that autochthony and a new sense of belonging that has been created in resettlement areas redefine the notion of belonging.⁸⁹ Insights from this case study indicate that, for beneficiaries of land reform, belonging is plural and not limited to a single area in which they reside, as households straddle different areas. There are multiple forms of belonging between places of origin and places of relocation.⁹⁰ Thus, belonging for beneficiaries of land reform is a catalyst for spillover benefits towards places of origin such as increased investment, improved social ties or enhanced economic opportunities in their places of origin, enabled by the sense of belonging and security gained from the land reform.

Land reform has created dual belonging for beneficiaries of land reform. This case study has highlighted how households maintain links in both places of origin and new places of residence. Despite contestations over boundaries and the reclamation of lost ancestral lands, land reform has also led to dual belonging, as some beneficiaries straddle communal and resettlement areas.⁹¹ The maintenance of these interconnections, which manifest in different forms, follows customary social patterns and relationships.⁹² This case study highlights the benefits that have spilt over from A1 households to households in communal areas, such as access to natural resources and food, as households straddle two areas. In this case study, I argue that land reforms provide multiple benefits to non-beneficiaries through land-based livelihoods and address the colonial imbalance of land distribution. This article has shown that land reform is attached to belonging; the narratives from Zvimba indicate that most household beneficiaries of the FTLRP were keen to maintain linkages.

The evidence generated in this case study demonstrates that programmes which relocate or resettle people should consider the fact that people wish to maintain links with their places of origin. Furthermore, for policy-makers, insights from this case study illustrate that, beyond production, land has different meanings for the people who live and work on it. People seek to maintain ties with places of origin at various levels and networks; these ties often provide social, emotional and physical support. Despite the location of land, whether in communal areas or resettlement areas, people depend on broader social units, such as nuclear families, extended families, kinsmen, village heads, chiefs and friends.

Conclusion

This article demonstrated that, in cases of land reform, beneficiaries of the FTLRP and households in communal areas still maintain linkages. The fundamental notion of belonging, as shown in Zvimba district, indicates that although beneficiaries willingly left communal areas, they are still connected to their places of origin. This article acknowledged that various groups benefited from the FTLRP and that even though beneficiaries have established themselves in A1 settlements, communal areas provide significant attachments for A1 beneficiaries. Valuable insights clearly indicated that most beneficiaries wished to be continually connected to their places of origin. This was evident through graves, religion and familial connections.

This article also illustrated that while land reform debates tend to focus on the redistribution of land, agricultural production and livelihoods, they tend to pay less attention to elements such as belonging, which is important for the social fabric of people. Land reforms have to do with people’s social, cultural and economic life through resettlement. Maintaining links between communal areas and resettlement areas reveals the role of belonging in the social fabric of societies, even agrarian societies. Overall, important lessons can be drawn from the case study: the translocation of people often has an impact on belonging for households that relocate to faraway places through the process of land reform; there could be a negative impact on their social fabric. Furthermore, the narratives in this article highlight that a programme which relocates people voluntarily should note that people wish to maintain linkages with their places of origin. These key insights indicate that belonging is much more nuanced and can be understood in different ways. While land has mostly been assumed to be a productive asset, this case study shows that its value goes beyond production: it reaffirms personal identity and is a source of belonging.

Malvern Kudakwashe Marewo
Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Centre for African Studies, Harry Oppenheimer Institute Building, Level 3, Engineering Mall Road, University of Cape Town, Upper Campus, Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa. Email: [email protected]

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7071-6771

Acknowledgements

The writing of this paper was funded by the A.C. Jordan Chair in African Studies at the Centre for African Studies, University of Cape Town.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Malvern Kudakwashe Marewo

Malvern Kudakwashe Marewo Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Centre for African Studies, Harry Oppenheimer Institute Building, Level 3, Engineering Mall Road, University of Cape Town, Upper Campus, Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa. Email: [email protected]

Notes

1 F. Anthias, ‘Belongings in a Globalising and Unequal World: Rethinking Translocations’, in N. Yuval-Davis, K. Kannabirãn and U. Vieten (eds), The Situated Politics of Belonging (London, Sage, 2006), pp. 17–31.

2 P. Geschiere, The Perils of Belonging: Autochthony, Citizenship, and Exclusion in Africa and Europe (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2009).

3 D.H. Potts, Circular Migration in Zimbabwe and Contemporary Sub-Saharan Africa (Woodbridge, Boydell & Brewer, 2010).

4 L. Malkki, ‘National Geographic: The Rooting of Peoples and the Territorialization of National Identity among Scholars and Refugees’, Cultural Anthropology, 7, 1 (1992), pp. 24–44.

5 A. Mafeje, The Agrarian Question, Access to Land, and Peasant Responses in Sub-Saharan Africa (Geneva, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 2003).

6 I. Scoones, N. Marongwe, B. Mavedzenge et al., Zimbabwe’s Land Reform: Myths and Realities (Woodbridge, James Currey, 2010).

7 B. Cousins and A. Claassens, ‘More than Simply “Socially Embedded”: Recognizing the Distinctiveness of African Land Rights’, keynote address at the international symposium ‘At the Frontier of Land Issues: Social Embeddedness of Rights and Public Policy’, Montpellier, 17–19 May 2006.

8 S. Moyo and P. Yeros, Reclaiming the Land: The Resurgence of Rural Movements in Africa, Asia and Latin America (London, Zed Books, 2005).

9 T. Shonhe, I. Scoones and F. Murimbarimba, ‘Agricultural Commercialisation and Changing Labour Regimes in Zimbabwe’, Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 40, 1 (2022), pp. 78–96.

10 Moyo and Yeros, Reclaiming the Land.

11 Ibid.

12 Government of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe’s Land Reform Programme (Harare, Government Printers, 2001), p. 2.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid., p. 11.

15 B.H. Kinsey, ‘Forever Gained: Resettlement and Land Policy in the Context of National Development in Zimbabwe’, Africa, 52, 3 (1982), pp. 92–113.

16 Government of Zimbabwe, Communal Lands Act (Harare, Government Printers, 2002).

17 G.G. Paradza, ‘Single Women’s Experiences of Livelihood Conditions, HIV and AIDs in the Rural Areas of Zimbabwe’, in A. Niehof, G. Rugalema and S. Gillespie (eds), AIDS and Rural Livelihoods: Dynamics and Diversity in Sub-Saharan Africa (Abingdon, Routledge, 2010), p. 78.

18 S. Ncube, ‘Fast-Track Land Reform, Politics and Social Capital: The Case of Rouxdale Farm in Zimbabwe’, The Africa Governance Papers, 1, 1 (2021).

19 M.K. Marewo, S. Ncube and H. Chitonge, ‘Land Governance and Displacement in Zimbabwe: The Case of Chilonga Communal Area, Chiredzi District’, The Africa Governance Papers, 1, 1 (2021).

20 Ibid.

21 S. Moyo, W. Chambati, T. Murisa et al., Fast Track Land Reform Baseline Survey in Zimbabwe: Trends and Tendencies, 2005/2006 (Harare, African Institute for Agrarian Studies, 2009).

22 Scoones et al., Zimbabwe’s Land Reform.

23 W. Chambati, ‘Restructuring of Agrarian Labour Relations after Fast Track Land Reform in Zimbabwe’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 38, 5 (2011), pp. 1047–68.

24 G. Kanyenze, Beyond the Enclave: Towards a Pro-Poor and Inclusive Development Strategy for Zimbabwe (Oxford, African Books Collective, 2011), p. 105.

25 A. Goebel, ‘Zimbabwe’s “Fast Track” Land Reform: What about Women?’, Gender, Place & Culture, 12, 2 (2005), pp. 145–72.

26 Z.N. Vongai, ‘Families Divided: The Place of the Family and Women in Zimbabwe’s Fast Track Land Reform Programme’, in 4th Global Academic Meeting, GAM 2015, 10–11 October 2015, Dubai, UAE, p. 18.

27 P.S. Nyambara, ‘Immigrants, “Traditional” Leaders and the Rhodesian State: The Power of “Communal” Land Tenure and the Politics of Land Acquisition in Gokwe, Zimbabwe, 1963–1979’, Journal of Southern African Studies, 27, 4 (2001), pp. 771–91.

28 Kinsey, ‘Forever Gained’; A. Barr, ‘Kinship, Familiarity, and Trust: An Experimental Investigation’, in J. Henrich et al. (eds), Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 305–34; M. Dekker, ‘Risk, Resettlement and Relations: Social Security in Rural Zimbabwe’ (PhD thesis, University of Leiden, 2004).

29 T. Murisa, ‘An Analysis of Emerging Forms of Social Organisation and Agency in the Aftermath of “Fast Track” Land Reform in Zimbabwe’ (PhD thesis, Rhodes University, 2010); Scoones et al., Zimbabwe’s Land Reform.

30 T. Murisa, ‘Social Organisation in the Aftermath of “Fast Track”: An Analysis of Emerging Forms of Local Authority, Platforms of Mobilisation and Local Cooperation’, in S. Moyo and W. Chambati (eds), Land and Agrarian Reform in Zimbabwe: Beyond White Settler Capitalism (Dakar, African Institute for Agrarian Studies, 2013), pp. 251–90.

31 P.B. Matondi, Zimbabwe’s Fast Track Land Reform (London, Zed Books, 2012).

32 G. Mkodzongi, ‘Fast Tracking Land Reform and Rural Livelihoods in Mashonaland West Province of Zimbabwe: Opportunities and Constraints, 2000–2013’ (PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2013).

33 Moyo et al., Fast Track Land Reform Baseline Survey in Zimbabwe.

34 Scoones et al., Zimbabwe’s Land Reform, p. 53.

35 Moyo et al., Fast Track Land Reform Baseline Survey in Zimbabwe, p. 21.

36 Ibid., p. 127.

37 Murisa, ‘Social Organisation in the Aftermath of “Fast Track”‘, p. 270.

38 S. Moyo, ‘Changing Agrarian Relations after Redistributive Land Reform in Zimbabwe’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 38, 5 (2011), pp. 939–66.

39 P. Shipton and M. Goheen, ‘Introduction: Understanding African Land-Holding: Power, Wealth, and Meaning’, Africa, 62, 3 (1992), pp. 307–25.

40 Anthias, ‘Belongings in a Globalising and Unequal World’, p. 19.

41 P. Geschiere and F. Nyamnjoh, ‘Capitalism and Autochthony: The Seesaw of Mobility and Belonging’, Public Culture, 12, 2 (2000), pp. 423–52.

42 J. Mujere, ‘Land, Graves and Belonging: Land Reform and the Politics of Belonging in Newly Resettled Farms in Gutu, 2000–2009’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 38, 5 (2011), p. 1126.

43 Anthias, ‘Belongings in a Globalising and Unequal World’.

44 M. Antonsich, ‘Searching for Belonging – An Analytical Framework’, Geography Compass, 4, 6 (2010), pp. 644–59.

45 Ibid.

46 A. Njwambe, M. Cocks and S. Vetter, ‘Ekhayeni: Rural–Urban Migration, Belonging and Landscapes of Home in South Africa’, Journal of Southern African Studies, 45, 2 (2019), pp. 413–31.

47 Geschiere and Nyamnjoh, ‘Capitalism and Autochthony’.

48 H. Chitonge, ‘Trails of Incomplete Decolonisation in Africa: The Land Question and Economic Structural Transformation’, African Study Monographs (Supplement), 57 (2018), pp. 21–43.

49 Shipton and Goheen, ‘Introduction’, p. 309.

50 P. Chabal, Africa: The Politics of Suffering and Smiling (London, Zed Books, 2013), p. 47.

51 Nhimbe is when village members work co-operatively to address a household’s development needs, usually regarding food security.

52 Interview with Mr TS, Machiroli Farm, November 2017.

53 Interview with Mr ZK, Ward 21, January 2017.

54 Interview with Mrs PM, Ward 21, December 2017.

55 Geschiere and Nyamnjoh, ‘Capitalism and Autochthony’, pp. 434–8.

56 Geschiere, The Perils of Belonging, p. 55.

57 Totems serve as spiritual symbols or connections for related groups like clans or tribes, encompassing natural or mythical elements such as plants, animals, birds or insects. In communities like the Shona, they foster social bonds among members of the same totem, often implying mutual support during times of need. Despite lacking blood ties, individuals sharing the same totem in Shona societies are considered kin.

58 Interview with Mr BP, communal areas, September 2017.

59 L. Cliffe, Policy Options for Agrarian Reform: A Technical Appraisal (Harare, FAO, 1986).

60 Mkodzongi, ‘Fast Tracking Land Reform and Rural Livelihoods in Mashonaland West Province of Zimbabwe’.

61 Interview with Mrs LL, Ward 6, September 2017.

62 Interview with Mr BN, Ward 6, November 2017.

63 White garments churches are Zimbabwean churches whose religious dress code is white.

64 Interview with Mr T, Machiroli Farm, January 2018.

65 Interview with Mrs VV, Ward 21, May 2018.

66 Interview with Mr EM, Machiroli Farm, May 2018.

67 Antonsich, ‘Searching for Belonging’.

68 Interview with Mrs RR, Ward 21, December 2017.

69 Interview with Lands Officer, December 2018.

70 Interview with Mrs GG, Machiroli Farm, December 2017.

71 Interview with Mr ZG, Machiroli Farm, December 2017.

72 Interview with Mr HH, Machiroli Farm, December 2017.

73 Interview Mrs GD, Machiroli Farm, March 2019.

74 Interview with farm chairperson, Machiroli Farm, 18 September 2017.

75 Informal conversation, Machiroli Farm, 19 November 2017.

76 B.H. Kinsey, ‘Land Reform, Growth and Equity: Emerging Evidence from Zimbabwe’s Resettlement Programme’, Journal of Southern African Studies, 25, 2 (1999), p. 177.

77 J. Gugler, ‘The Son of the Hawk Does Not Remain Abroad: The Urban–Rural Connection in Africa’, African Studies Review, 45, 1 (2002), p. 21.

78 P. Geschiere, ‘Autochthony and Citizenship: New Modes in the Struggle over Belonging and Exclusion in Africa’, Forum for Development Studies, 32, 2 (2005), pp. 377–8.

79 Chabal, The Politics of Smiling and Suffering, p. 47.

80 S. Berry, No Condition is Permanent: The Social Dynamics of Agrarian Change in Sub-Saharan Africa (Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1993).

81 P. Mutopo, Women, Mobility and Rural Livelihoods in Zimbabwe: Experiences of Fast Track Land Reform (Leiden, Brill, 2014).

82 A. Mandondo and W. Kozanayi, ‘A Demand-Driven Model of Decentralised Land-Use Planning and Natural Resource Management: Experiences from the Chiredzi District of Zimbabwe’, Africa Development, 31, 2 (2006), pp. 103–22.

83 Potts, Circular Migration in Zimbabwe.

84 Mutopo, ‘Women, Mobility and Rural Livelihoods’; Murisa, ‘Emerging Forms of Social Organisation and Agency’; M.K. Chiweshe, ‘Farm Level Institutions in Emergent Communities in Post Fast Track Zimbabwe: Case of Mazowe District’ (PhD thesis, Rhodes University, 2012).

85 Antonsich, ‘Searching for Belonging’.

86 Geschiere and Nyamnjoh, ‘Capitalism and Autochthony’.

87 Cousins, Weiner and Amin, ‘Social Differentiation in the Communal Lands of Zimbabwe’.

88 Antonsich, ‘Searching for Belonging’.

89 G. Mkodzongi, ‘“I Am a Paramount Chief, This Land Belongs to My Ancestors”: The Reconfiguration of Rural Authority after Zimbabwe’s Land Reforms’, Review of African Political Economy, 43, supp.1 (2016), pp. 99–114.

90 P. Ehrkamp, ‘Placing Identities: Transnational Practices and Local Attachments of Turkish Immigrants in Germany’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31, 2 (2005), pp. 345–64.

91 Mujere, ‘Land, Graves and Belonging’.

92 Matondi, Zimbabwe’s Fast Track Land Reform.