WI: Zimbabwean land reform in the 80's?

What would be the major differences if Mugabe had initiated land reform in the 80's rather than the late 90's?

On one hand he would have at least some sympathy from the USSR and its likeminded states, and so wouldn't be as isolated.

On the other hand South Africa under Apartheid is a lot less cordial to Zimbabwe than South Africa post-Apartheid, and would have fewer reservations about reducing economic ties that Zimbabwe particularly depends on.
 
What would be the major differences if Mugabe had initiated land reform in the 80's rather than the late 90's?

On one hand he would have at least some sympathy from the USSR and its likeminded states, and so wouldn't be as isolated.
QUOTE]


USSR like minded states

I suppose your referring too, Tanzania, Mozambique, Angola and Zambia or are you thinking outside of Africa?

He would probably lose the support of most of what’s left of the old Rhodesian military.


South Africa

90% of Zimbabwe’s exports still pass through South Africa’s transport system in the 80’s, so cutting off interaction could really hurt them. On the other hand South Africa’s exports pass through Zimbabwe in order to get to Zaire and Zambia, so they would be hurt too. On another note there was also still some infighting, in Zimbabwe, against Super ZANU from 81-87. Super ZANU may or may not have been supplied by South Africa.

source

The Rhodesian War by Paul Moorcraft
 
Well he did. It just was not particularly effective

On the key point of buying White owned land to redistribute to rural Black populations, there were moves to do this, funded by the British at the least (and probably others too I suspect), however not much effort or money was put into it.

It seems that this was in part due to fear that the new regime was using the process/funds to reward friends.

So if ZANU somehow either did not get this reputation or better still did not use it as a system of rewarding friends, then perhaps we would have had a lot more land given back to the Black population by the time the wider economy collapses/frays in the late 1990s, when the current wave of crazy started.
 
I suppose your referring too, Tanzania, Mozambique, Angola and Zambia or are you thinking outside of Africa?
Those count as well. Back then Mugabe actually styled himself as a "Marxist-Leninist" and wanted to form a single-party system, although he kept on wavering between "hardline" rhetoric and... not.
 

Ancientone

Banned
Well he did. It just was not particularly effective

On the key point of buying White owned land to redistribute to rural Black populations, there were moves to do this, funded by the British at the least (and probably others too I suspect), however not much effort or money was put into it.

It seems that this was in part due to fear that the new regime was using the process/funds to reward friends.

So if ZANU somehow either did not get this reputation or better still did not use it as a system of rewarding friends, then perhaps we would have had a lot more land given back to the Black population by the time the wider economy collapses/frays in the late 1990s, when the current wave of crazy started.

There was plenty of money available for Land redistribution under the Willing seller-willing buyer" scheme. The UK had provided £44 million specifically for land purchases in 1979 and total aid pledged (by various countries) was £630 million. By 2000 Britain had donated £500 million in total aid out of which a tiny fraction was used for Land reform.
The big condundrum is why the take over of large, efficient, established, commercial farms that provided hundreds of jobs, homes and security for farm workers to be turned into uneconomic subsistence plots and the original farm workers evicted could make sense to anyone. Investment in the tribal trust lands would have been an intelligent move, but why build when you can steal?
 
Those count as well. Back then Mugabe actually styled himself as a "Marxist-Leninist" and wanted to form a single-party system, although he kept on wavering between "hardline" rhetoric and... not.

He did that because he knew that in the early 80s he could just as easily have ended up back at war and didn't want that. By the end of the 1980s, with the white seats out of Zimbabwe's Parliament and Gukurahindi having crippled his political opposition, he could do what he wanted. Before then, being a hardliner had serious risks.
 
He did that because he knew that in the early 80s he could just as easily have ended up back at war and didn't want that. By the end of the 1980s, with the white seats out of Zimbabwe's Parliament and Gukurahindi having crippled his political opposition, he could do what he wanted. Before then, being a hardliner had serious risks.
Yes but there was a whole decade between the defeat of ZAPU and the beginning of land reform.
 
part of the hand over of power was that Mugabe couldn't do major land redistribution (lets not call it reform, but thats not what it is) or get rid of the white seats in Parliament for at lest 10 years, and of course when the 1980s was up he ditched the minority seats and started land confiscation and Zimbabwe started its nose dive
 
There was plenty of money available for Land redistribution under the Willing seller-willing buyer" scheme. The UK had provided £44 million specifically for land purchases in 1979 and total aid pledged (by various countries) was £630 million. By 2000 Britain had donated £500 million in total aid out of which a tiny fraction was used for Land reform.
The big condundrum is why the take over of large, efficient, established, commercial farms that provided hundreds of jobs, homes and security for farm workers to be turned into uneconomic subsistence plots and the original farm workers evicted could make sense to anyone. Investment in the tribal trust lands would have been an intelligent move, but why build when you can steal?

Well I didn't mean to imply that it was purely a lack of money, if that is what you took from my comment.

Re your last question? Well land is a bit emotive than it being just a matter of sticking to people who run the farms in an efficient manner. Mugabe, for all his ills (and there are many), did knowingly tap into an undercurrent there, he didn't create it.
 
"Land reform" as practised by mugabe wasnt. It was, instead, a scheme to take efficient, white run, farms and hand the land to his supporters and cronies, whether they knew how to farm or not.

If he had actually done real land reform, zimbabwe would be exporting food now, not importing it.
 
"Land reform" as practised by mugabe wasnt. It was, instead, a scheme to take efficient, white run, farms and hand the land to his supporters and cronies, whether they knew how to farm or not.

If he had actually done real land reform, zimbabwe would be exporting food now, not importing it.
This is a good point.
What form of "land reform" are we talking about? The willing-seller-willing-buyer scheme? Because that did happen in the '80's; as indicated. If we're talking about what Mugabe did later, (as in: forcing people off, using intimidation and violence, out-right seizure, etc), then we'd have a lot earlier expatriation of Zimbabwe's white population (not that there were many left anyway).

Interestingly, I wonder how this would have effected the end of Apartheid in South Africa. If we have a much earlier (and harsher) example of what happens to a White run nation turned Black-African/Majority ruled nation along with all the financial fun-time of gutting your own economy, then perhaps we might have seen more resistance to the end of White rule in South Africa, or at least, a more gradual, controlled hand-over of power.

After all, in '94 things weren't really all that bad (yet) in Zimbabwe, and there wasn't really anything to keep the National Party from totally caving in the way it did. But, give it a solid example of just how quickly and badly things could go down hill...
 
This is a good point.
What form of "land reform" are we talking about? The willing-seller-willing-buyer scheme? Because that did happen in the '80's; as indicated. If we're talking about what Mugabe did later, (as in: forcing people off, using intimidation and violence, out-right seizure, etc), then we'd have a lot earlier expatriation of Zimbabwe's white population (not that there were many left anyway).

Interestingly, I wonder how this would have effected the end of Apartheid in South Africa. If we have a much earlier (and harsher) example of what happens to a White run nation turned Black-African/Majority ruled nation along with all the financial fun-time of gutting your own economy, then perhaps we might have seen more resistance to the end of White rule in South Africa, or at least, a more gradual, controlled hand-over of power.

After all, in '94 things weren't really all that bad (yet) in Zimbabwe, and there wasn't really anything to keep the National Party from totally caving in the way it did. But, give it a solid example of just how quickly and badly things could go down hill...

I don't think it would have made much of a difference. Africa was in a much worse state, generally, in the late '80s and early '90s than it is today. We had the one-party states in Zambia and Kenya, civil wars in Angola and Mozambique, and the various weekly coups.

I don't see this having much of an effect on the end of apartheid on South Africa to be honest. Perhaps there would be a slightly bigger white Zimbabwean expat population in South Africa in the early 1990s than there was then, but not enough to really have much of an impact.
 
I don't think it would have made much of a difference. Africa was in a much worse state, generally, in the late '80s and early '90s than it is today. We had the one-party states in Zambia and Kenya, civil wars in Angola and Mozambique, and the various weekly coups.

I don't see this having much of an effect on the end of apartheid on South Africa to be honest. Perhaps there would be a slightly bigger white Zimbabwean expat population in South Africa in the early 1990s than there was then, but not enough to really have much of an impact.
Agreed on the less-significant population change over OTL. I was thinking more the closer-to-home example of a state rapidly falling apart, rather than demonstrating an ability to continue functioning relatively well in a post-minority rule situation.

Either way, it doesn't really change the situation into any less of an ugly problem.
 
Top