For once the effluvious mouthpiece of Zanu(PF), the Herald, has actually printed something that has a ring of truth to it: "The land revolution that was sparked in Zimbabwe is likely to eat like cancer at most governments in Africa and beyond if not addressed in time". The chaotic and nepotistic manner in which the "fast track" land reform programme has been executed has effectively killed the economy in Zimbabwe, and like a cancer, is in danger of metastasizing to neighbouring regions of the continent. From much of the commentary thrown Zimbabwe's way, it seems that South Africa and Namibia are viewing Zimbabwe with much interest, to see the long term results of this campaign. We must certainly address this potential hazard "in time", for there is a great danger for the entire region should it follow in Mugabe's devastating footsteps.

The sympathy and approbation for the Zimbabwean land reform programme expressed by the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nkhosana Dhlamini-Zuma, and by her Namibian counterpart, is worrying in the extreme. The short term effects of our "jambanja" exploits are undeniably famine and anarchy, compounded by an economic collapse second to none in recent history. How then can any sane politician view it as "a model that can be the answer to other African countries' problems", as the secretary general of the Land Access Movement of South Africa puts it. Obviously the cancer is already spreading..

And at first glance one might consider the recent Scottish land reform bill as symptomatic of a longer distance metastasis. However, despite the apparent similarities, there are a number of crucial differences that make this something else entirely. Certainly, nobody can question the importance of agrarian reform in a society where there is an inequality of land distribution. And this is more the case in Scotland than in Zimbabwe--some 50% of all rural land in Scotland is owned by just under 400 people or bodies. This represents the highest level of private land ownership in the world, and none of it has changed hands within the last fifty years.

In contrast, only 18.5% of the land area of Zimbabwe was encompassed by white commercial farmland in 2000. In 1980 this was pegged at 28.2% represents a decrease of 10% over the course of twenty years. Furthermore, despite government's lamentation at the slow rate at which the "willing-seller, willing-buyer" policy was progressing, 82% of the land in Zimbabwe under commercial agriculture changed hands after 1980. This means, had the government not passed up the opportunity to buy land (considering they have the right of first refusal on all land offered for sale), white commercial land ownership might have been as low as 5%. Furthermore, land is made fertile through years of careful maintenance and husbandry--there is no innately fertile soil in Zimbabwe, as we are led to believe. Had the government made available the facilities for communal farmers to undertake small-scale commercial or market gardens, (as with ARDA farms in "marginal" areas,) many more people would have access to fertile land.

In Scotland, the reform bill calls for those who are currently working the land at the behest of the owners to buy the land from them, the argument being that they are entitled to ownership of the land that they have worked for years. They are seen as holding a legitimate claim to the land by virtue of the fact that they have kept and maintained the land for generations. In Zimbabwe, this might be equated to farm labourers purchasing plots directly from the commercial farmers. It is not uncommon for farmers to grant plots of land to those farm labourers who retire, and that when the farms change hands, one of the conditions of sale is that they retain these plots. However, the current "fast track" land reform programme has not provided many ousted farmers with any compensation for the land that has been taken, and has furthermore evicted the majority of those people that actually worked the land in preference for more "politically acceptable" tenants. The only way that any reasonable

comparison could be made with Scotland is if Blair were evicting all tenants from the farms and putting Tony's cronies in their place.

It is hard under Zimbabwean law to subdivide plots--a fact that is being used to excuse the government's failure to facilitate the provision of title deeds for the new "owners". A more realistic reason for this failure is that title cannot be obtained without purchase - unless the land is paid for by the government, they will be unable to get the title. It can be argued that Zanu(PF) is happier with peasant farmers who retain no title for their land, since they cannot obtain loans and economic independence, but must rather rely on the government to provide the necessary inputs. This makes it easier to "keep them in line", to make them toe the party line. Under the Scottish system, the tenant farmers will obtain title for the land that they have been farming, and will compensate the current owners of the land. It is not a case of theft as has been seen in Zimbabwe, but rather a case of enforced purchase.

Land reform is undeniably a sticky problem, and it is guaranteed that people will be unhappy with any solution that is settled on. But at least the Scottish land reform programme is somewhat equitable, in that people with a legitimate claim to the land are empowered to purchase it. In Zimbabwe, the chaotic process of "jambanja" has failed to empower those who have been allocated land, because they have no inputs, tillage, or facility to obtain these things for themselves. It is odious for any group to deal with a government that has so wantonly destroyed the agriculture of a country, especially in the midst of a drought cycle. And in this light, the recent meetings of the CFU with government ministries must be seen as a betrayal of faith of the highest order. The CFU can hardly claim to represent its 1200 members when it is pledging to assist the government in an agricultural recovery programme that excludes them from participation. Until a complete return to the rule of law is observed, any dealing with an illegitimate and corrupt government betrays a dangerous and wanton naivete.

Where the Scottish programme might progress at a more sedate pace, closer to the willing-seller, willing-buyer programme, it will at least avoid the horrific destruction of agricultural infrastructure, and the concomitant breakdown of law and of the economy that Zimbabwe has suffered. We can only pray that the rest of the region will be spared the cancer of Zimbabwe's agrarian reform programme, because it will result in more deaths than could ever be justified. Like any cancer, we need to treat it, and fast.