Zimbabwe’s Command agriculture – a political gimmick
Michelle Chifamba – Fifty- six year old Christopher Danga- a retired civil servant was sent on an early retirement after the government of national unity ceased to exist four years ago.
Now a pensioner, Danga retired to his communal lands in Goromonzi. His paltry pension earnings over the years have however prevented him from harvesting enough to even feed his small family.
This year, Danga is a happy man- he expects to reap more as a result of the government introduced Command Agriculture scheme.
“I thank the government for introducing this scheme. I had no money for farming inputs and the government provided some of those inputs which include seed, fertilizer, fuel and herbicides. However some of the promised inputs like fuel, top dressing fertilizer and herbicides were not delivered on time.”
Danga who spent half his working life in the city with no expertise in the farming industry like many small scale farmers who are thanking the government for the inputs- forgets to mention that although it may be a noble idea by the government to supply inputs- he may fail to get the desired outputs that may sustain his farming carrier.
As a result of the heavy rains and the delays that were experienced during the distribution of the inputs many will fail get the desired quality of maize as some of the maize was leached.
Many small scale farmers like Danga – unable to hire tractors, had to do most of the tillage manually, a reason that may also affect the outcome of the maize quality and quantity.
“Of the five hectors that I have. I had to till with two hectors my helper who works for me. I had no money to hire a tractor or any labour. We had to do everything manually,” said Danga.
Zimbabwe- a former bustling agricultural economy, with vast tracts of evergreen land under agricultural plantation throughout the country’s four seasons was regarded as the bread basket of Southern Africa as agriculture provided 30 percent of the gross domestic product.
Throughout the past decade, there has been a shift in production capacity- the country transformed from commercial to small- scale farming and has been failing to feed its population, surviving on maize imports from neighbouring countries and food aid from the international food aid agencies.
The government of Zimbabwe introduced Command Agriculture during the 2016-17 farming season. An initiative planned by government, implemented through the private and public partnership. It is aimed at having a positive impact on maize productivity as more than 2 million tonnes of maize are expected to be harvested this year.
As the country fast paces towards the 2018 elections. The rural vote constitutes 67 percent of the voting population. Analysts maintain that the government’s scheme is an aid for it to retain political expedience.
James Murehwa- a Bindura based small-scale farmer maintains that councillors, chiefs and headmen in his rural area monopolized the distribution process.
“The distribution of tractors and other inputs was being abused by those who are in positions of authority like chiefs and headmen.”
“Chiefs are monopolizing these inputs, using the tractors and fuel to themselves.”
“There is too much corruption and politicization in the manner in which some of the farming inputs are being distributed. The government should investigate on what is happening to the inputs,” added Murehwa.
MDC- T shadow minister of Agriculture, Ziswa notes that his office carried out a fact finding mission on the conduct of the Command Agriculture input distribution and observed the process was marred with a lot of loopholes.
“As an office we noted that most of inputs came late, many farmers across the country in some instances received wrong inputs- ammonium nitrate was distributed first and compound D followed. The herbicides, fuel and tractors were never received by the farmers. While the total number which benefitted to the inputs was less than the number of people who registered.”
“We also noted that the scheme does not have a system of collection, no security or record- in terms of those farmers who were loaned for the inputs, as there is no collateral between the farmers and the government. There is no clear route which states what happens when the farmers harvest but fail to deliver to the government.”
Analysts maintain that Zimbabwe’s agriculture which was once commercial gradually become small- scale. It has transformed from being an economic assert into a political assert.
Commercial Farmers Union observes that the expectations in the scheme are very high and there is concern when the farmers fail to reach the desired expectations.
“Zimbabwe’s agriculture has been suffering over the years because small-scale farmers were failing to access credit from banks as a result of lack collateral. It is noble that the government has stepped in. However, the expectations are too high and there is concern if the farmers fail to reach the desired expectation,” said CFU.
According to Alex Magaisa on his blog, agriculture has direct impact on the rural population which is the biggest voting constituency in the country and any success of the scheme is bound to be exploited for political benefits.
Although there seems to be no direct link between the conduct of traditional leaders and the government in the implementation and distribution of inputs, within Zimbabwe’s political dispensation- the conduct of traditional leaders has become a cause of concern as they are perceived to be aligned to the ruling party acting corruptly to the service of the government.
The role of traditional leaders as recognised in the 2013 Constitution- they control and influence rural areas. Ruling political leaders in their quest to gain political mileage use the institution for political expedience.
“Traditional leaders, both in colonial and independent Zimbabwe have been used to influence rural areas by narrowing political interests of the ruling government.”
A HealZimbabe latest report on Peace and Tolerance ahead of the 2018 elections notes that village heads, councillors and headmen are the major perpetrators in unfair aid distribution in most rural Zimbabwe.
“Community members note that unfair aid distribution remain prevalent with the major perpetrators being village heads, councillors and headmen,” read part of the report.
According to Magaisa- Command Agriculture could be regarded as a flagship that forms populist political campaigns.
Therefore, it can be noted that the government unveiled the scheme for political mileage, although according to the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture- “there is no politicisation of the inputs, as people were not forced to join.”
Although in some instances reports of the politicisation of the scheme by the government are being dismissed – politicising, monopoly and corruption comes in various forms. The government controls the implementation process, allocation of resources and the prices making the process political.
Magaisa argues that- “Command economies are associated by authoritarian regimes. Within the framework of Command Agriculture the economy is centrally planned by the government. Allocation of resources and prices of goods and services are set and controlled by government.”
Michelle Chifamba – Fifty- six year old Christopher Danga- a retired civil servant was sent on an early retirement after the government of national unity ceased to exist four years ago.
Now a pensioner, Danga retired to his communal lands in Goromonzi. His paltry pension earnings over the years have however prevented him from harvesting enough to even feed his small family.
This year, Danga is a happy man- he expects to reap more as a result of the government introduced Command Agriculture scheme.
“I thank the government for introducing this scheme. I had no money for farming inputs and the government provided some of those inputs which include seed, fertilizer, fuel and herbicides. However some of the promised inputs like fuel, top dressing fertilizer and herbicides were not delivered on time.”
Danga who spent half his working life in the city with no expertise in the farming industry like many small scale farmers who are thanking the government for the inputs- forgets to mention that although it may be a noble idea by the government to supply inputs- he may fail to get the desired outputs that may sustain his farming carrier.
As a result of the heavy rains and the delays that were experienced during the distribution of the inputs many will fail get the desired quality of maize as some of the maize was leached.
Many small scale farmers like Danga – unable to hire tractors, had to do most of the tillage manually, a reason that may also affect the outcome of the maize quality and quantity.
“Of the five hectors that I have. I had to till with two hectors my helper who works for me. I had no money to hire a tractor or any labour. We had to do everything manually,” said Danga.
Zimbabwe- a former bustling agricultural economy, with vast tracts of evergreen land under agricultural plantation throughout the country’s four seasons was regarded as the bread basket of Southern Africa as agriculture provided 30 percent of the gross domestic product.
Throughout the past decade, there has been a shift in production capacity- the country transformed from commercial to small- scale farming and has been failing to feed its population, surviving on maize imports from neighbouring countries and food aid from the international food aid agencies.
The government of Zimbabwe introduced Command Agriculture during the 2016-17 farming season. An initiative planned by government, implemented through the private and public partnership. It is aimed at having a positive impact on maize productivity as more than 2 million tonnes of maize are expected to be harvested this year.
As the country fast paces towards the 2018 elections. The rural vote constitutes 67 percent of the voting population. Analysts maintain that the government’s scheme is an aid for it to retain political expedience.
James Murehwa- a Bindura based small-scale farmer maintains that councillors, chiefs and headmen in his rural area monopolized the distribution process.
“The distribution of tractors and other inputs was being abused by those who are in positions of authority like chiefs and headmen.”
“Chiefs are monopolizing these inputs, using the tractors and fuel to themselves.”
“There is too much corruption and politicization in the manner in which some of the farming inputs are being distributed. The government should investigate on what is happening to the inputs,” added Murehwa.
MDC- T shadow minister of Agriculture, Ziswa notes that his office carried out a fact finding mission on the conduct of the Command Agriculture input distribution and observed the process was marred with a lot of loopholes.
“As an office we noted that most of inputs came late, many farmers across the country in some instances received wrong inputs- ammonium nitrate was distributed first and compound D followed. The herbicides, fuel and tractors were never received by the farmers. While the total number which benefitted to the inputs was less than the number of people who registered.”
“We also noted that the scheme does not have a system of collection, no security or record- in terms of those farmers who were loaned for the inputs, as there is no collateral between the farmers and the government. There is no clear route which states what happens when the farmers harvest but fail to deliver to the government.”
Analysts maintain that Zimbabwe’s agriculture which was once commercial gradually become small- scale. It has transformed from being an economic assert into a political assert.
Commercial Farmers Union observes that the expectations in the scheme are very high and there is concern when the farmers fail to reach the desired expectations.
“Zimbabwe’s agriculture has been suffering over the years because small-scale farmers were failing to access credit from banks as a result of lack collateral. It is noble that the government has stepped in. However, the expectations are too high and there is concern if the farmers fail to reach the desired expectation,” said CFU.
According to Alex Magaisa on his blog, agriculture has direct impact on the rural population which is the biggest voting constituency in the country and any success of the scheme is bound to be exploited for political benefits.
Although there seems to be no direct link between the conduct of traditional leaders and the government in the implementation and distribution of inputs, within Zimbabwe’s political dispensation- the conduct of traditional leaders has become a cause of concern as they are perceived to be aligned to the ruling party acting corruptly to the service of the government.
The role of traditional leaders as recognised in the 2013 Constitution- they control and influence rural areas. Ruling political leaders in their quest to gain political mileage use the institution for political expedience.
“Traditional leaders, both in colonial and independent Zimbabwe have been used to influence rural areas by narrowing political interests of the ruling government.”
A HealZimbabe latest report on Peace and Tolerance ahead of the 2018 elections notes that village heads, councillors and headmen are the major perpetrators in unfair aid distribution in most rural Zimbabwe.
“Community members note that unfair aid distribution remain prevalent with the major perpetrators being village heads, councillors and headmen,” read part of the report.
According to Magaisa- Command Agriculture could be regarded as a flagship that forms populist political campaigns.
Therefore, it can be noted that the government unveiled the scheme for political mileage, although according to the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture- “there is no politicisation of the inputs, as people were not forced to join.”
Although in some instances reports of the politicisation of the scheme by the government are being dismissed – politicising, monopoly and corruption comes in various forms. The government controls the implementation process, allocation of resources and the prices making the process political.
Magaisa argues that- “Command economies are associated by authoritarian regimes. Within the framework of Command Agriculture the economy is centrally planned by the government. Allocation of resources and prices of goods and services are set and controlled by government.”
