TITLE:
Political Economy of Resettlement Planning and Beneficiary Selection in A1 and A2 Settlement Models in Zimbabwe Post 2000
AUTHORS:
Joyce Sifile, Manase Kudzai Chiweshe, Patience Mutopo
KEYWORDS:
A1 and A2 Models, Beneficiary Selection, Resettlement, Land, Politics and Fast Track
JOURNAL NAME:
Open Access Library Journal,
Vol.8 No.8,
August
16,
2021
ABSTRACT: The paper examines the political economy of resettlement planning, beneficiary selection and reasoning behind A1 and A2 in Zimbabwe post year 2000. The Fast-Track Land Reform Programme which was preceded by land occupations led by war veterans and some ruling party members of the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) was based on political imperatives in land allocation with little consideration of sound settlement planning and land use. The purpose of this paper is to have an understanding of the planning, beneficiary selection and reasoning behind the implementation of A1 and A2 models. The paper also examines the political and socio-economic imperatives that influenced beneficiary selection in Mashonaland West, Zimbabwe. The study used the multi-method approach. The study used a case study of Makonde district in Mashonaland West Province, Zimbabwe from A1 and A2 farmers. The study dwelt mainly on qualitative methodologies in order to get farmers’ perceptions and feelings towards the issues around land distribution on the role of politics in resettlement planning and beneficiary selection. The qualitative approach was conducted through focus group discussion, in-depth interviews, key informants and participant observation. The self-administered questionnaires were distributed mainly to A2 farmers who were assumed to be literate. Secondary data were collected from the farmers’ database of the Lands Department, waiting lists for both A1 and A2 farmers and also farmer application forms. The major finding of the study was that politics played a major role in land allocation and selection of beneficiaries. The war veterans and political leadership were part of the district and provincial lands committees responsible for the selection of beneficiaries. Land beneficiaries were passive participants in decision making; they lacked representation and were fearful of political leaders and war veterans.