From the CIAO Atlas Map of Africa 

email icon Email this citation

CIAO DATE: 3/99

In/security, Life-chances and Conflict: The Significance of Land Rights for Rural Women in Zimbabwe and South Africa *

Susie M. Jacobs

Department of Sociology
Manchester Metropolitan University, U.K.

International Studies Association
40th Annual Convention
Washington, D.C.
February 16–20, 1999

Draft — please do not cite without author’s permission

This paper discusses the role of access to and control over land in lessening rural women’s insecurity/ies and in enhancing their life-chances. It focuses on Zimbabwe and compares the situation of rural women there with that in South Africa. In the piece I pose a hypothetical case: ‘what if?’ poorer rural women in southern Africa had more secure control over land?; I then explore what the implications might be, as well as some of the contradictions and conflicts which might arise. I also raise the question of terminology, in discussing the notion of ‘security’.

 

Security, life-chances and discourses

Before discussing the gendered uncertainties of life in southern Africa, I raise a question concerning differing discourses.

What is security? Sociologists, unlike those working in the field of international relations, do not usually utilise this category, or not centrally. Of course sociologists differ strongly in the approaches they use in analysis. Functionalists (who are rare on the contemporary ground) focus on the analysis of social systems, so tend to assume much stability and perhaps security as well. Variants of structural analysis concentrate on the determinants of social situations of broad groupings — social classes/‘races’-ethnic groups/gender groups — and tend to assume conflict rather than stability. Weberian and neo-Weberian analyses concentrate on the ‘life-chances’ of individuals and groupings of individuals. As is evident in the latter term, security is not assumed; rather, risks and uncertainties are. Postmodernist-influenced analyses stress the discursive construction of meanings and identities. To complicate matters, a number of writers use theories eclectically, as they see fit (Jary, 1988). Nearly all variants of sociological theory — except perhaps for very rigid functionalists and Althusserian Marxists — stress the importance of human agency and action in the construction, reproduction and deconstruction of societies and social systems.

Feminist analyses, particularly within international relations/studies, often mirror sociological ones in their emphasis upon broad factors affecting women’s lives. Additionally, they emphasise the importance of women’s experience and agency. Hence, in discussing notions of engendered security, feminist political scientists/international relations theorists have stressed the import of — for instance — economic insecurity, lack of citizenship rights, conflicts and violence (Enloe. 1989; Peterson, 1992; Tickner, 1992; 1995).

Here I raise some issues concerning the idea of security....While my inclination is to be untroubled by the use of ‘insecurity’ as a category, the idea of security seems to be problematic in some ways, although also having benefits as a discursive category.

If some people/groups/regions are insecure, are others secure? As Tickner has pointed out (1995:183), the idea of ‘insecurity’ is often applied to nations of the South rather than those of the North, implying that the latter are secure. There are additionally, in my view, racial implications which underpin the above stereotypes. Or, to use another example, socio-economic groupings [constructed as] ‘low’ in social hierarchies — the working class/es, urban and rural marginalised, peasants/subsistence farmers, migrant workers — are usually acknowledged to be insecure as opposed to that security of the middle class/es. While there is much truth in this presupposition, globalization means that all but the most well-off find themselves faced with economic and social insecurities of increasing proportions (Bauman, 1998; Gray, 1998). To use an example from the great amount of gender analysis which has been undertaken: women as a gender grouping are, in general, far less secure than men of the same social categories (clssses/‘races’/nations/castes). However, men too face insecurity. And some (although not most) of the insecurities women face come from other women: mothers-in-law (Mukta, 1999); women in powerful class positions (e.g.Young, 1978; S. White, 1992) or women from more socially valued racial/ethnic/national ‘others’. (See e.g Davis, 1982; Feminist Review, 1984; Collins, 1990; Mohanty et.al, 1991; Brah, 1997; Mirza, 1997; Yuval-Davis, 1997 from a wide literature on the subject.) or both (Cock, 1989). Abuse of power inflicted upon women includes violence from other women (Sarkar and Butalia, 1995; African Rights, 1995; Turshen, 1998; Jacobs, Jacobson, Marchbank; 1999).

Is the concept ‘life-chances’ more open and therefore preferable? The idea of life-chances does not easily lend itself to dichotomous thought, and stresses the uncertain nature of the life-course. However, all concepts can be problematic. Difficulties with ‘life-chances’ include a tendency to methodological individualism, and the possibility of overemphasis on the efficacy of human action, playing down the effects of inequalities and social constraints. In the case of rural women in Zimbabwe and South Africa, (many) women act with great energy, perseverance and courage to better their lives and that of their children; yet much exists to constrain them.

An advantage of the term ‘security’ is the assumption that security should be (or at least might be) part of the human condition. The word implies that women and men should have access to certain resources, have the right to bodily integrity, have rights within communities. Held elaborates these features in the idea of autonomy as a prerequisite of democratic participation (1995), particularly applicable in attempts to engender analyses. Thus, although security might not exist, it is something legitimately to be aspired to as part of democratic demands. Such demands might have to be made at different social and political levels: of states, of political parties, of voluntary organisations, in the international arena and within families.

 

Women in rural Zimbabwe and South Africa: sources of insecurity

In this section I move to more concrete analysis, and discuss aspects of society, economy and polity in Zimbabwe and South Africa which cause great risk and uncertainty in women’s lives. I focus on the situation of rural women

Within Zimbabwe, the rural population forms the majority of the population — 70% and women predominate within this. South Africa is more highly urbanised: by 1994 50% or more of the population lived in towns and cities (World Bank, 1996:203-4). In both countries, racial segregation and apartheid policies meant that families could not live together in cities and internal migrant labour is common: women, along with older men and children, predominate within the rural or ‘reserve’ /Communal Area populations.

Land is an important resource in rural Africa, despite the increasing reliance on a range of income-sources. In southern Africa most black people lack access to land; or where they have access, this is to inadequate amounts of poor quality land, due to the colonial/settler pattern of landholding. However, women in general lack direct access — theirs being (nearly) always mediated though husbands/male kin (see later discussion) — and also lack control land as a resource (Bruce, 1993, cited in Lastarria-Cornhiel, 1997).

Lack of land is, however, only one source of detrimental life chances for the majority of rural women. Before discussing the land ‘issue’ at greater length, in the next sections I outline some other sources/aspects of structured insecurities. I first discuss Zimbabwe, then briefly compare sources of insecurity in South Africa.

Zimbabwe:

Factors causing insecurity for rural women in Zimbabwe are many; nearly all of these have gender dimensions. The following mentions some major sources of risk, although it is not comprehensive.

Some of these exist at a very general level and affect the population as a whole: for instance eight years of structural adjustment and IMF-inspired policies have seen wages fall by 30% and diminishing prospects for industrialisation (Stoneman, 1998). The erosion in the value of pay is even greater, 60% in the past two years (Wetherell, 1998). The economy, already hard hit by falls in the price of tobacco, financial mismanagement and corruption scandals, widespread unemployment and — not least — external pressures/drops in confidence due to the government’s statements on land reform, has been thrown into crisis by the military support given by Mugabe to Laurent Kabila in the Congo. In November, 1998, 6,000 troops were committed, pushing the country to the brink of financial ruin (Block, 1998). The year 1998 was marked by riots against rises in the price of grain (in January) and (in November, as a result of the military intervention in the Congo) against 67% rises in the price of petrol (ibid.); the unrest can be seen more generally to be against the political elite’s diversion of public funds. This general situation has ramifications for many, but as elsewhere has affected women particularly through cutbacks in provision in health and welfare provisions such as food subsidies (Aslanbeigui, Pressman and Summerfield, 1994). 1 In general, rural women are more impoverished than are migrant worker/rural men, including adult males in their own households. Although the category ‘rural women’ includes women employed as teachers and local govenment workers; small-medium traders and women engaging in other occupations, most rural women are engaged in subsistence or smallholder agriculture, and lack opportunities. They lack time and may lack energy, due to their obligations in the household and on the husband’s plot, find it difficult to amass capital, and would need the husband’s consent to engage in off-farm activities (Ackeroyd, 1991). Rural women are likely to be affected disproportionately by further economic deterioration.

Drought is another source of risk, especially for farmers; the worst drought in living memory took place in 1991-92 across the region; again in 1997-98 Matabeleland South suffered from drought. As with most social phenomena, the effects are highly gendered: the analysis of Kinsey, Burger and Gunning (1998) indicates (for a sample in Resettlement Areas) that the main ‘way out’ of drought for households in Resettement Areas is through sale of cattle. The authors do not attempt a gender analysis. However, cattle are in the main owned by men, so that the latter exert control over household survival strategies.

Other sources of risk appertain to the political sphere (although, as seen above, this is difficult to disentangle from the economic). The state is undemocratic and extra-state protest and organisation of any sort is suppressed, often violently. The one exception to this is the recent responsiveness to land invasions and other pressures for land reform initiatives. This is less from concerns for equity — the land reform programme, although important, had been static since the mid-1980s — than from the govenment’s concern to retain its one popular power base, in the countryside. Lack of democracy means that it is difficult for any group to have any demands met or indeed to organise to present demands. This observation includes attempts of feminists to organise, although women’s groups have been able to form in constrained circumstances; however, government and the state-backed media have conducted continuous anti-feminist campaigns since shortly after independence (Jacobs and Howard, 1987; Whitworth, 1998).

Zimbabwean women’s legal situation, although improved since independence, still constitutes a great restraint on their lives. The Legal Age of Majority Act (1983), which gave women some basic citizenship rights (e.g. the right to vote; to represent themselves in court; to make contracts), is not fully implemented. In any case, Customary Law still structures women’s lives, especially in rural areas. In Communal Areas, chiefly courts still have jurisdiction over a number of matters (Ncube and Stewart, 1995; Stewart et.al, 1990). Marriages contracted under Customary Law may be polygynous. Within marriages, women should have under Customary Law the right to their own property from certain activities (‘of their own hands’ —e.g. income from midwifery; beer-brewing; from sale of own crops); however it is common for men to claim rights to all women’s property. The majority of women still have not gained inheritance rights to husbands’ property; the exceptions being a small number of women married to men naming them as beneficiaries in wills, and some widows within Resettlement Areas (see below). Divorce and desertion are endemic and constitute a major sources of insecurity in women’s lives (with effects on production: Pankhurst and Jacobs, 1988; Fortmann et.al., 1997).

Divorced and deserted women frequently find themselves without means of support (Mpofu, 1983; Batezat and Mwalo, 1988; Pankhurst and Jacobs, 1988). The 1985 Matrimonial Causes Act partially removes ‘guilt’ clauses in divorce suits; Section 7 also empowers courts to make equitable reallocation of spouses’ property at divorce; however, these clauses apply only to civil and not to African Customary Marriages. More recently, the 1992 Taxation Act stipulates that wives be taxed separately from husbands. However, a proposed Inheritance Act has still not been passed (Jirira, 1995). At present, even African women married in civil (Christian) ceremonies stand to have nearly all marital property appropriated by the husband’s relatives should he die, as most people do, intestate (Stewart and Armstrong, 1990). Even if they are aware of their rights, in rural areas, most women lack financial resources, time and confidence to bring court cases to assert their claims. The practice of the husband’s patrilineal relatives plundering the estate of the deceased and evicting his widow/s has not decreased in frequency, and may have increased (Stewart, 1992; Moyo, 1995b).

Violence within marriage and sexual relationships is common. If the violence is not extreme, then it is considered, at least by many men and some women, as legitimate chastisement of the wife. Such violence may be sparked off by a number of factors such as drink; women’s attempts to assert some control over household expenditure; husband’s dissatisfaction over domestic matters, including cooking; complaints about men’s behaviour with other women; attempts to use child-spacing/birth control; husband’s jealousy; and refusal of sex. Or, as elsewhere, male violence may be without apparent precipitating cause, despite attempts to locate causation in some aspect of errant female behaviour (Dobash and Dobash, 1992; Sen, 1998). However, such personal violence has not for the past decade 2 been exacerbated by the violent state actions against women, or by the violence of wars and military adventures.

Other sources of risk also concern the sphere of the body, in the form of malnourishment and disease. Many people in southern Africa are malnourished, among them many mothers. Arduous hours of work — up to 16 hours or more a day — are common for rural women seeking to help their families to survive, and this takes its toll on health. Major diseases include malaria, tuberculosis and cancer, with malaria being the most common source of death. Approximately 25% of Zimbabwean adults are carriers of HIV/AIDS (Lowensen and Kerkhoven, 1996), with rates of infection in the most sexually active age groups (15-45) even higher. Turshen (1995) notes that women bear the brunt of the disease, constituting 60% of cases in Africa as well as being carers for the ill. They are often blamed for the illness although men in general have access to a wider variety of sexual partners than do men. The spread of HIV/AIDS is exacerbated by lack of strong state action in terms of programmes of education; by lack of knowledge about the cause of disease in both urban and rural areas, and — as elsewhere — by a culture which does not discuss the disease openly, even when it results in death (Davies, 1996; BZS Newsletter, 1998). This can be contrasted with Uganda, where state-sponsored campaigns have dramatically lowered rates of transmission.

South Africa:

Rural African women in South Africa face many of the same risks as obtain in rural Zimbabwe, but a number of differences exist. I write of several general features which differentiate the societies (differences in the agrarian situation are discussed below). Most of these are well-known so I simply outline them briefly.

Firstly, South Africa is a much larger and more complex society. It contains many different linguistic and ethnic as well as racial groupings, and is far more highly industrialised. Class and other social differences are more marked, making generalisations more difficult. Secondly, although both the legacies of apartheid and of the Rhodesian colonial and then settler regimes have been ruinous, the events in South Africa were arguably more widespread and (even) more dramatic than in Zimbabwe. Black peoples in both societies were subject, for instance, to forced removals; however, in South Africa these left millions of people virtually homeless and in barren rural reserves (Unterhalter, 1987). Constant upheaval and migration in the face of ever-changing regulations were a common feature of rural and urban life.

Thirdly, and relatedly, South Africa has become a more violent society than Zimbabwe, particularly in urban townships. This may be in part a legacy of apartheid, exacerbated by male unemployment and reproduced in current urban popular culture. Violent assaults and murder are commonplace, as is rape and sexual assault (D. White, 1993; Fagan, Munck and Nasaden, 1996; Misihairambwi, 1998; Hirschmann, 1998). Police records indicate that rape is the only major crime whose incidence is increasing at present; South Africa has more rapes at gunpoint than any other country (BBC1, 1998). A recent survey in Johannesburg has shown that 565 of women killed by non-natural causes are killed by their husbands, and this pattern is repeated nationally (Amupadhi, 1998). Although levels of violence are heightened within township conditions, this is likely to spill over into rural areas, even though violence may be less openly noted and discussed in the countryside.

The level of violence within marriage accompanied by the relative lack of economic incentives for young women to marry, is such that the phenomenon of opting out of marriage is becoming more commonplace (White, 1993; Chant, 1997:82; Hirschmann, 1998:232). This phenomenon extends throughout the region (Jacobs and Pankhurst, 1988) but is probably more common within South Africa.

Another feature differentiating South Africa from Zimbabwe is that its civil society, including popular organisation, is stronger and more varied (Cobbett and Cohen, 1988; Hirschmann, 1988), although this is more the case in urban than in rural areas (Levin and Weiner, 1997). Again, this is in the main a legacy of the long mobilisation against apartheid, and of the ingenuity of the population. Relatedly, the government, although not immune to charges of mismanagement and corruption (see, e.g. Mail and Guardian from mid-1997 — present) is far more democratic and open to popular pressures.

From 1990, the ANC recognised the gender ‘question’ as a separate form of oppression from class and race, and since then the improvement of women’s economic, legal and political position has been a matter much discussed in the public arena. The Interim Constitution [and later the Constitution] of South Africa declared that gender, as well as other discriminations, should be prohibited (Walker, 1994:350), and provided for a Commission on Gender Equality. Another important step was taken in early November, when three Justice Bills were adopted by the National Assembly. The Bills are: the Recognition of Customary Marriages Bill; the Domestic Violence Bill and the Maintenance Bill. The first Bill provides that women in Customary Marriages (the great majority of rural women) will enjoy, at least in principle, the right to equality in respect of marriage age, consent to marriage, divorce and property rights. If a man wishes to take a second/third wife, he will have to apply to the courts for reassessment of property rights so that the first wife’s and her children’s interests are not prejudiced. This signals an attempt to put an end to the practice, common in both countries, of a husband in a civil marriage instructing his wife to agree to a change of status to customary marriage so that he can take a second wife. The Maintenance Bill seeks to strengthen enforcement of the obligation of parents — in practice, mainly fathers —to support their children in case of divorce, separation or desertion. The Domestic Violence Bill provides that a man can be convicted of raping his wife. The Bill also provides for greater protection against domestic violence (Eveleth, 1998). These rights will not automatically become ‘real’ (Cousins, 1997) but legislation is important symbolically as well as legally. Thus women in South Africa in some respects experience greater risks than in Zimbabwe; however they may also have more cause for hope.

The discussion above has aimed to provide a general context within which rural women’s lack of land rights can be viewed. The following sections discuss some aspects of the agrarian situation in Zimbabwe and South Africa.

 

The Agrarian Situation

There exist broad similarities between the agrarian structures of Zimbabwe and South Africa. Both have been societies in which land was expropriated by European-origin settlers. Agriculture is dominated by large agrarian estates producing for export, and still largely white-dominated. 3 African peoples were dispossessed of ancestral lands and pushed onto ‘reserves’ (now, in Zimbabwe, Communal Areas) — usually with very poor quality land. Whereas in Zimbabwe the black African majority were left with approximately 50% of lands, in South Africa African people were pushed onto 13% on barren, arid lands.

As the century progressed, the ‘peasant option’ (Bundy, 1979; Ranger, 1985) became less viable and many men were forced into or chose migrant labour. The majority population in rural areas consists of women, along with children and, in the absence of a social security system, older men. Overcrowding is a severe problem, particularly in South Africa; many households in both societies are land-hungry and live near (or, at times, below) subsistence level. Within the Reserves/Communal Areas, social organisation is still — in some cases nominally — under chiefly rule, so that Customary Law prevails.

Southern Africa is part of what Boserup (1970) termed ‘female farming areas’. Women were customarily responsible for a majority of agricultural tasks such as planting, weeding, hoeing and much harvesting, and as in most of Africa, were considered responsible for feeding the husband and her own children. Women were entitled to plots of land to cultivate ‘their’ crops. However, women were and are rarely empowered to take agricultural decisions even though they do the bulk of agricultural labour (Meer, 1997a). Additionally, in both societies, contemporary interpretations of customary law mean that men control their wife/ves’ income/s: this is true even for urban, formally employed women (White, 1993).

As Lastarria-Cornhiel points out (1997), although women are not the social equals of men in African systems, nevertheless in the past, customary lineage-based systems usually functioned so that a woman had access to land adequate to feed herself, her children and the husband. Due to a variety of factors — migration; wars; Islamisation; famines; HIV/AIDS, titling, such systems have broken down, or at least operate sporadically in many parts of Africa, so that today many women lack lands adequate for subsistence (Lastarria-Cornhiel, 1997). In Zimbabwe, the most relevant factors are migration, forced population movements during the guerrilla war (e.g. incarceration in ‘protected villages’) and de facto privatisation of land rights. In South Africa, the violence of the apartheid years; massive population movements; and a generally chaotic situation in the countryside (Cross and Rutsch, 1995; Cross, 1997) can be added to the list of factors disrupting ‘traditional’ systems.

The phenomenon of female-headed households is growing worldwide, and particularly across southern Africa. In Zimbabwe, the national rate is 30% but are more concentrated in rural areas, with rates up to 45% (Chant, 1997: 90). In South Africa, similar trends prevail but rates are higher. The main reason for this trend is divorce and desertion, as well as long-term migrant labour and widowhood. A minority of women (see below) choose to opt out of marriage, perceiving few benefits.

In some South African settings, widows have been able to obtain share contracts with agribusiness enterprises (Marcus, Eales and Wildschut, 1996); however, in most instances, women do not have control over the land. Where widows inherit from husbands — by no means always the case — the land is assumed to be held in trust for the eldest son (Siqwana-Ndulo, 1996; Meer, 1997a). Households vary in any system, of course; however, husbands are assumed to have rights to take all agricultural decisions, even in their absence through migration (Pankhurst and Jacobs; 1988). Thus even where women have access due to a man’s physical absence, the land is considered to be ‘his’ and women usually still lack control. Although some researchers report change in this respect, with rural women feeling that they can speak out more freely —e.g. to AGRITEX officers (Weiner, 1987); however, it also occurs that insubordination in this respect is likely to be met with physical punishment. Needless to say, day-to-day lack of control over farming means that running a farm are rendered very difficult.

 

Land Reform

Zimbabwe:

Land reform is an urgent issue in both societies. In Zimbabwe, government has devoted attention to raising productivity in the Communal Areas (e.g. through lifting of previous restrictions; providing adequate extension advice to smallscale black farmers, providing credit; making available higher-yielding seed varieties) and such initiatives have been largely successful (Weiner and Masilela, 1996). A land resettlement (or, reform) programme is also proceeding. Although relatively small by international standards, it has been the largest one in Africa. By 1997, 71,000 families had been resettled on 3.5 million hectares (GOZ, 1998). In 1990, following the end of the Lancaster Agreement, President Mugabe stated that 50% of the commercial farmland not already redistributed might be purchased for resettlement: a Land Acquisition Act was passed to facilitate such a process. This suggestion, and then that the land would be acquired without compensation, repeated over the last two years, has caused a great outcry, particularly from commercial farming interests and overseas donors. In late 1998, 841 commercial farms were earmarked for acquisition; however, acquisition orders have not been carried out. Aside from the fears of threat to commercial farming, the pronouncements were widely perceived as ill-planned and as attempting to deflect interest from increasingly authoritarian domestic policies, including by supporters of land reform (Palmer, 1998). Palmer (1998) also notes that the proposals lacked safeguards of accountability and transparency.

Meanwhile, the land-hungry, do not just exist in populist rhetoric. At least 300,000 households were on waiting lists for resettlement in 1993; real demand for land is even greater than such numbers indicate (Moyo, 1995a:119). Recently, war veterans have successfully campaigned for allocation of 20% of land designated for resettlement. Following this example, landless people have invaded land, including state farms, leased by ministers in several provinces across the country (Sayagues, 1998a; Brandt, 1998), and Mugabe has very recently allocated land to peasants in Marondera and Motobo as a result of such invasions (Ranger, 1998). Such actions illustrate popular feeling concerning the need for land reform, as well as, perhaps, concerns about the wealthier beneficiaries of reform.

The land resettlement programme itself has had many positive features, despite a ‘bad press’. Masilela and Weiner (1996) argue that if quality of farmland and of inputs is taken into account properly, output both of food and marketed crops in Resettlement Areas compares favourably with that from large commercial farms (See also Palmer, 1990). Kinsey (1998) documents a rise in incomes among settlers (but see below). Potts and Mutambirwa (1997) in a sample of 268 rural to urban (ie. Harare) migrants, reported generally positive views of resettlement as well as strongly held views that resettlement should have the purpose of equalising the country’s landholdings (‘everyone should have a share’) and that criteria for resettlement should not be, as they are, increasingly selective.

In the programme, several ‘models’ or types of tenure, including cooperatives, exist; however, the bulk of settlement is along individual family lines. In this type (‘Model A’), land permits are allocated to household heads. ‘Household heads’ are considered to be men unless women are widowed/divorced/deserted and have dependent children. This remains the case despite the proportion of de facto female household heads in the CAs.

A Land Tenure Commission was set up in 1993 to review the state of land tenure and land allocation in Communal Areas; however, no recommendations concerning gender equity were made. Women’s groups such as the Women’s Action Group and the WLSA (Women in Law in Southern Africa) made representations to government concerning the need for allocation of a substantial proportion of land to married women and to female household heads; however, their representations have to date been ignored.

South Africa:

As noted, the agrarian situation in South Africa’s Reserves is, if anything, even more acute than in Zimbabwe although also contradictory. For a variety of reasons outlined above and others — neglect; ‘betterment’ planning; lack of opportunities for black smallholders, reliance on wage labour; arid lands — agriculture is no longer a main activity in South African rural areas; most people rely on a variety of activities — of which agriculture is not necessarily favoured — to survive (Cobbett, 1988; Marcus, Eales and Wildschut, 1996; Razavi, 1998). Nevertheless, much demand for land exists, far more than is available (Marcus, Eales and Wildschut, 1996). Despite the reality that women are the main small farmers, many women view their husbands rather than themselves as the main farmers, and therefore ‘in need’ of land. The most immediate and pressing need, due to widespread homelessness is the building of houses; government has recognised this and has given priority to construction of houses with facilities such as toilets and running water.

Despite these caveats, there also exists need for agrarian reform, although in South African circumstances this might include land in peri-urban areas. There will exist insufficient waged work, urban or rural, in the foreseeable future, so that, regardless of people’s aspirations, agriculture may be the only option for many, including (particularly) many women with dependants.

Agrarian land reform in South Africa is at an early stage, although Pilot Reform Programmes are being undertaken in each of the new provinces. Although as in Zimbabwe, the programme is important symbolically, it forms a minor aspect of government commitments, competing with others such as macro-economic restructuring, provision of housing and education; job creation) (Walker, 1998). This is reflected in the programme’s small budget (Meer, 1997b). The programme is three-pronged, including land restitution, tenure reform and land redistribution; in all three, gender equity is a stated goal. To date it has been a slow process, hindered by many factors including state ‘incapacity’ (Walker, 1998); lack of farmers’ willingness to sell; complex and cumbersome proceedings; complexity of differing claims and personal/political disputes (Jacobs, 1998).

Although nominally of importance, gender issues are not always centralised (Hall, 1998). Walker notes that data presented by the Department of Land Affairs is not usually disaggregated by sex; in policy documents there tends to be slippage between ‘gender issues’ and the category of female-headed households; and, within the Pilot redistributive programmes, subsidies are allocated to households not individuals. Other issues for a (future) gendered land reform include those of the need for infrastructure and services such as access to water, transport and schools to support women’s needs; of the power and jurisdiction of traditional authorities; and the form of land tenure (see Cross, 1992; Walker, 1996; Jacobs, 1998). Nevertheless an enabling environment at policy level is being created, and this can facilitate integration of gender issues (Walker, 1998; see also Cousins, 1997). It should be stressed how radical is such discussion of gender equity within any official land reform programme internationally. Most such programmes have served to sideline the interests of married women.

 

Limitations to ‘land’

Access to and control over land is not a panacea for women in southern Africa. One of the aims of the discussion of risks outlined earlier, was to indicate the great range of insecurities which affect rural women’s life chances. And land, never a sole source of livelihood, is playing a decreasing part.

As noted above, most women in the region who have managed to gain land are widows with dependents or, in a few cases, have never been married.

Examination of the case of widows 4 within Zimbabwean Resettlement Areas provides some guidelines to the types of problems they face. Widows who hold land titles now constitute about 15% of settlers (Gaidzanwa, 1995). They have been able to gain such titles for several reasons. One is that men tend to marry women much younger than themselves, so die before their wives. Recent rulings have meant that Customary Law is deemed not to operate in this respect within Resettlement Areas, and widows are seen as legitimate heirs of land. This has not stopped patrilineal relatives moving in to claim land, but some Resettlement Officers —who have jurisdiction within the Resettlement Areas — have ruled on widows’ behalf. In Allison Goebel’s Wedza study, about one-fifth of settlers overall were widows (Goebel, 1996). The proportions cited are exceedingly high in international terms, particularly given that some land reform programmes exclude widows.

Despite the benefits that access to adequate amounts of land confers, resettled widows commonly suffer from a number of problems. It is a common finding that widows are impoverished (Jacobs, 1989b; Cousins, Weiner and Amin, 1992; Maast, 1994), and sometimes this is assumed to include all widows. However, some writers note that not all widows/female headed households are poor: in a study I carried out in the mid —1980s, I found a minority to be well-off (1989b). More usually, though, lack of command over labour hindered their ability to cultivate land; such lack of command over labour is not a localised issue but has been reported world-wide and in different economic contexts (Blumberg et.al., 1995). Another problem widows faced was a general lack of social power and social status, as well as great isolation and loneliness. The latter may be compounded by rivalries among women: it was reported to me that widows are often accused of ‘stealing husbands’ — or at least, being prepared to do so. Such feelings probably act to further marginalise widows within communities which are already less-than-closeknit.

Thus in the absence of wider social changes, access to land alone might not radically alter women’s lives. Necessary accompanying changes might range from the practical (e.g. provision of infrastructure and services to support land reform; access to credit) to the less so (women’s stated desire for changes in the patrilineal kinship system [Jacobs, 1989]; changes in other villagers’ attitudes towards them).

 

‘Imagine....’

This is not to proceed to an argument that, since access to and control over land will not completely ameliorate life-risks for rural women, land rights are not worth having. Such rights, in any case, will not come without great struggle (see below). I argue, rather, that it is worth ‘imagining’ — as the song went — how more secure access to and control over land might alter the life-chances of rural women in Zimbabwe and South Africa.

At this point it seems appropriate to note that I am not, or not here in any case, entering the debate about the form such rights would take. It is worth noting, however, that privatisation and individualisation of rights in Africa have in practice meant even less access to land for the great majority of women, who cannot amass capital to buy property (Lastarria-Cornhiel, 1997; Marcus, Eales and Wildschut, 1996). I simply argue that women should have the same rights as men within the same societies/schemes/programmes/policies — e.g if land is held through permits, adult women should hold them as well as men.

At a minimum, access to land with greater security (ie because not subject to husbands’ inclinations) and with greater decision-making powers than obtains at present for married women, would mean greater food security for women, children and also for many men. As African women’s enterprises and incomes are often more explicitly oriented to food security that are men’s (Koopman, 1997). Greater food security will occur because of the cultivation of ‘women’s’ (food) crops such as groundnuts and sorghum, as well as due to women’s greater propensity to reinvest in farm activities.

Food security does not necessarily increase even in circumstances highly favourable to (male-directed) peasant agriculture. Koopman points out that it has not been possible to establish a link between rises in men’s incomes and improvements in childrens’ nutritional status, although such correlations do occur with increases in mothers’ incomes (Koopman, 1997, citing Blumberg, 1988). Land reform, for instance, may lead to more general prosperity, (see Barraclough, 1991; El-Ghonemy, 1990; Sobhan, 1993), including for women (see Jacobs, 1997). In Zimbabwe,as noted, post-independence, peasant-based production has grown apace in Resettlement as in Communal Areas (Weiner and Masilela, 1996; Kinsey, 1998). Indirect evidence exists, however, that this has taken place through intensification of women’s labour. Kinsey has found high levels of child malnutrition even in prosperous Resettlement Area households It is not hard to imagine that mothers of these children may also suffer malnourishment. In the particular case cited, however, the profits from more land and more intensive labour are not being used for women’s food security.

Thus in a hypothetical scenario in which women had control over land, they could make decisions concerning agriculture without husbands’, fathers’ or sons’ permission. It would mean that women had more bargaining power in countering extra claims on resources. According to women’s testimony (Jacobs, 1989b) — activities viewed as male (e.g. beer drinking; extra-marital relationships; ‘excess’ consumption) often constitute a financial loss to the homestead. Constructions of male identity tied up with personal consumption are by no means confined to Africa but occur worldwide; Gonzalez de la Rocha, for instance, has made similar observations for urban Mexico (Razavi, 1998), as have Kusakabe et.al for rural Cambodia (1995).

Improved nutrition for women and children is not a minor matter. Better nutrition would increase resistance to (some) infectious diseases, would improve prognoses in the advent of disease, and — in the case of HIV/AIDS — would probably prolong the period during which a relatively healthy life was possible.

Access to land might not directly halt violence, particularly if this is state-directed or involves police/military personnel. However, at the level of individual ‘domestic’ abuse, it would mean that women could more easily leave abusive relationships with some ability to subsist. Moreover, landholdings (in whatever form....) would better women’s social status and social power: the latter are ‘commodities’ generally in short supply for the economically marginalised.

Here, we can — happily — look to an example which is not hypothetical, that of the Bodghaya movement in Bihar, India. I know of only one such example, since women’s landholding rights are considered secondary in most peasant societies/sectors of society and since movements for land rarely consider gender to be an important issue. In the Bodghaya movement, land reform in general and women’s rights to land were obtained only after a long and violent struggle (see Manimala, 1983; Alaka and Chetna, 1987; Kelkar and Gala, 1990); astonishingly, wives managed to gain not joint but sole titles within marriage. These, however, proved difficult to maintain within a patrilineal system. Nevertheless, they were of great significance. As a village woman said:

Didi: earlier, we had tongues but could not speak, we had feet but could not walk. Now that we have got the land, we have got the strength to speak and to walk.”
(Alaka and Chetna, 1987:26)

The rights gained by women in Bodghaya did go along not only with generally improved status but with a lessening of violence and abuse towards them (Alaka and Chetna, 1987; Kelkar and Gala, 1990). It is possible that land rights for wives might have broad effects such as this within southern Africa as well.

 

Back to Reality? Conflicts over Land

Thus land rights for women, especially married women, are likely to lessen risks, or at least some risks. But it is very much necessary to ‘imagine’ circumstances in which women gain land rights both in theory and practice, equivalent to men’s. The example of Bohghaya is exceedingly unusual, 5 and although that of South Africa is hopeful, it still has not been implemented.

One of the reasons for women’s marginalisation from access to and control over land is the amount of social conflict entailed in engendering land issues. Firstly, land reforms are themselves, in most cases products of great social conflict and upheaval. Usually they result from movements of the land-hungry or landless; or else, when they are implemented ‘from above’, they usually follow wars and other social upheavals. Where land is gained as a result of peasant organisation, matters are (accurately) seen in terms of class conflict, although ethnic/national conflicts may also play a part. Gender interests are not only, in most cases, not included, they may be seen as antithetical to those of ‘the household’, in the eyes of male peasants (and some females) and officials.

For instance, a Ministry of Agriculture official in India, speaking to Prof. Bina Agarwal exclaimed:

“Are you suggesting that women be given rights in land? What do women want? To destroy the family!?”
(Agarwal, 1994:53).

Such sentiments are not confined to one country. The Zimbabwean Minister without Portfolio and for Resettlement, Joseph Msika, in response to a question about why women did not have land rights, blurted out at a press conference: “Because I would have my head cut off by men if I gave women land...men would turn against the government!” (Sayagues, 1998b). Msika added that giving wives land, or even granting joint titles, would destroy the family.

Raising the issue of engendering land rights, let alone implementing any such rights, is not likely to be a smooth and easy process; rather, conflicts are likely to ensue. These matters are deeply emotive. Land is linked to institutions and processes such as family and kinship, community, gender roles and gender power, and definitions of femininity and masculinity; changes within any or all of these can be deeply disturbing.

For both Vietnam and China, for instance, writers have documented the resistance of peasant men to any weakening of the peasant family farm, with attendant loss of control over female labour and sexuality see e.g. White, C.P., 1982, 1987, 1989; Wiergsma, 1988, 1991; White, Tetreault, 1994, for Vietnam; for China: Andors, 1976; 1981; Stacey, 1982; Frenier, 1983). (In the case of China, although Party cadres did often try to champion women’s land rights — which they possessed de facto- resistance from male villagers was too great, and entailed too many risks.) In Bodghaya, the agrarian socialist movement involved, the Chatna Yuva Sangharsh Vahini (CYSV), decided, after pressure from female activists, to take on board feminist demands for land, seeing this as a matter of general economic equity (Manimala, 1983). [It might also be noted, from this example, that ‘consciousness-raising’ was not a Western import: CYSV activists decided in some villages that women should do most public speaking and men, support work.] However, even in this successful campaign, there was much resistance, including violent resistance, from village men (Manimala, 1983).

In South Africa as elsewhere, deep-rooted fears about the possibility of women holding title to land (either communally or individually) exists. However, there the issue is beginning to be openly discussed. Bernstein writes, “...the most entrenched and intractable of the ‘contradictions among the people’ are gender relations” (Bernstein, 1996b:38). Meer writes that broaching the subject of gender power relations challenges deeply entrenched ways of knowing, theorising and doing (1997b:34).

It is not only one social category — i.e. people acting in specific roles/identities (e.g. ‘husbands’) who may wish to inhibit changes in gender (as well as class) relations. Meer mentions (in the South African context): ‘white farmers, traditional authorities and men’ as potentially threatened by reorganisation of resource allocation [1997:142]. Male household heads and land administrators are other ‘threatened’ categories [Cross, 1998]; sons too as well as some women may have interests in preserving most women’s subordinate status within households and villages.

Cross and Friedman stand out in beginning to excavate the level of affect which underpins current debates and conflicts in the countryside. Many rural South African men fear that if women gain land rights they will use their leverage to overthrow the male-oriented system of power relations and familial social order.

“..Men often see themselves as managers of strategies which relate family to community....[They] think that women will dispose of land rapidly and frivolously instead of using it judiciously for long-term political goals. So men tend to see the suppression of women’s attempts to hold and dispose of land, as an urgent moral [my emphasis] concern, part of their legitimate role in society.... change in gender control is seen [by many men] as linked with the destruction of rural society and of the family. Some (Cross and Friedman,1997:27-28).

The sensation that things might materially and psychologically ‘fall apart’ is not an error of perception, or wholly an irrational fear, though fear it remains. As noted above, it is an ‘accurate’ perception that men and women may use land differently, and that changes in relations on the land entail other widespread social changes, for instance in customary law; in women’s visibility; in public power relations; in women’s autonomy.

Not surprisingly, such defensiveness and anxieties are linked to the possibility of a backlash, at household, community and wider levels. Violence, more commonly from men than women, is a common reaction to changes. Mathye (1997:8) points out that land tenure systems are in any case, sites of endemic violence, including violence towards women. She warns of some of the hazards of gender training, writing that this should not expose women to unnecessary risks. Walker too notes that gendered land conflicts may be violent ones (1998).

 

Conclusion

It is, perhaps, ironic that the possibility of more gender equitable land rights causes so much conflict: such a reform would only constitute a first step. Altering women’s access to land so that it would be less tied in with links through men would have to be linked with more far-reaching changes, encompassing legal, political and economic shifts, for great alteration in rural women’s lives.

Even if not the stuff of high drama, this is no reason to downplay the importance of achieving food security in the lives of the rural female poor which easier access to land and greater control over it, would imply. Many African women are highly motivated to achieve food security and to improve their own incomes. As argued here, food security has links with other spheres — health, the acquisition of more negotiating space within and without households; and general betterment of social status. Most women, like most men, want more than food security: but without basic needs met, it may be difficult (although never impossible: human beings are always creative) to imagine more.

To return to a subject broached earlier, how would the arguments made here tie in with speculations/questions concerning appropriate terminology?

I have argued that land rights (in whatever form of tenure...) would lessen some risks in rural women’s lives, but that to achieve much change, they would need to be linked with other small and larger-scale social changes. These qualifications are important: land cannot equal total ‘security’ in the context of the vast uncertainties and risks outlined above, many of which would continue to exist even in a (hypothetical) situation of gender equity.

Rather than the term security, it might be more accurate to employ a phrase such as the following: ‘...circumstances which improve the odds that women as individuals and/or groups can better their life-chances in inherently risky, uncertain situations’. Aside from being very long-winded, this terminology is (perhaps?) more open to notions of human action and agency; while keeping some idea of ‘structure’. The issue of the relation between ‘structures’ (the consequences of past human actions) and agency has been central within sociology for many years, and which are, to say the least, not easily resolved.

Security remains a useful concept, particularly as shorthand for a more involved notion of the interaction of human structures and agency. Detached from its military origins, the term refers both to social states and to feelings. The latter is one of the strengths of ‘security’: it evokes feelings of entitlement and of hope. Security, however, perhaps needs some disaggregation, even seen through the gender-aware lens fashioned by feminist political and IR theorists and practitioners. (Security for which groups of women? In which ways? Are there ways in which security in some spheres might cause insecurity in others?).

The case of gender and land rights indicates that, indeed, the quest for more security for some evokes insecurity for others. Land matters are often tied in with feelings concerning masculinity, femininity and ethnic/national identities. Changes on the land may evoke longings of a (sometimes imagined) past which was more secure, in which society was orderly and stable. Thus conflicts may be set off by attempts to improve life-chances for (most) rural women. These conflicts, although profoundly gendered, may not take place simply between men and women: some men may support gendered land rights; some women may support ‘tradition’.

Conflicts may not only have negative impact, however. DuToit, writing of the South African village politics, notes that it is true that gender issues are divisive and involve real possibilities of serious dissension. At the same time, addressing gender issues can access powerful constructive and healing energies within communities (1996). Similarly, Arnfred, writing of 1980s Mozambique, comments that gender struggle is not (just) disruptive and destructive, but is also a means through which gender relations may change (1988:11).

The aim of greater security may cause, at least in the short term, greater conflict. This includes the issue of gendered food security, tied in as it is with land rights, differing forms of land tenure and authority, kinship, male authority and ideas about entitlements to food and to property. ‘Security’ is (unfortunately!) not an end-state but an ongoing process, never complete, but redolent of possibilities for the future.

 

References

Ackeroyd, Ann (1991) “Gender, Food Production and Property Rights: Constraints on Women Farmers in southern Africa” in Haleh Afshar (ed) Women, Development and Survival in the Third World, Longmans, Harlow.

African Rights (1995) Rwanda: Not so Innocent: When Women Become Killers, African Rights Publication, London.

Agarwal, B. (1994) A Field of One’s Own: Women and Land Rights in South Asia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Alaka and Chetna (1987) “When Women Get Land” Manushi, No. 40.

Alexander, J. (1994) “State, Peasantry and Resettlement in Zimbabwe” Review of African Political Economy, no. 61.

Andors, Phyllis (1976 ) “The Politics of Chinese Development: the Case of Women” Signs, 2; 1: 89-119.

Andors, Phyllis (1981) “The ‘Four Modernizations’ and Chinese Policy on Women” Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 13;2, April-June: 44-56.

Amupadhi, Tangeni (1998) “A woman’s enemy is in her home” Mail and Guardian, 4th-10th December.

Arnfred, Signe (1988) “Women in Mozambique: Gender Struggle and Gender Politics” Review of African Political Economy, no. 41.

Aslanbeigui, Nahid, Pressman, Steven and Summerfield, Gale (eds) (1994) Women in the Age of Economic Transformation, Routledge, London.

Barraclough, Solon (1991) An End to Hunger? Zed Press, London.

Bauman, Zygmunt (1998) Globalization: Its Human Consequences, Polity, Cambridge

Batezat, E. and Mwalo, M. (1989) Women in Zimbabwe, SAPES Trust, Harare.

Bernstein, Henry (1996b) “South Africa’s Agrarian Question: Extreme and Exceptional?” in The Agrarian Question in South Africa, Special Issue: Journal of Peasant Studies, 23, 2/3, January/April: 1-52.

Bernstein, Henry (1997) Social Change in the South African Countryside: Land, Production, Property and Power, Occasional Paper No. 4, Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape.

Block, Donna (1998) “Zimbabwe Faces Financial Ruin” Mail and Guardian, 6th-12th November.

Blumberg, Rae Lesser (1988) “Income under Female vs. Male Control: Differential Spending Patterns and the Consequences when Women Lose Control of Labor” World Bank Population and Human Resources Series, Washington, D.C., cited in Koopman, op.cit.

Blumberg, Rae Lesser et.al. (1995) EnGENDERing Wealth and Well-Being: Empowerment for Global Change, Westview, Boulder.

Boserup, Ester (1970) Women’s Role in Economic Development, St. Martin’s Press, NY

Brah, Avtar (1997) Cartographies of Diaspora, Routledge, London.

Brandt, Hans (1998) “Land for the Rich as the Poor Starve” Mail and Guardian, 4th-10th December.

Britain-Zimbabwe Society (1998) BZS Zimbabwe Review: Community Responses to HIV in Southern Africa, Issue 98/1, February.

British Broadcasting Corporation/BBC1 (1998) “Snapshot: Helen Mirren”, 8th February.

Bruce, John (1993) “A review of tenure terminology” Land Tenure Centre Paper, Univ. of Wisconsin, cited in Lastarria-Cornhiel, Susana (1997) op.cit.

Bundy, Colin (1979) The Rise and Fall of the South African Peasantry, Heinemann, London.

Carr, Marilyn (1991) Women and Food Security: the Experience of the SADCC Countries, Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

Chant, Sylvia (1997) Women-Headed Households, Macmillans, Houndmills.

Chasi, Mutsa (1993) “Women and Land” ZWRCN Paper, unpublished.

Chenaux-Repond, M. (1994) “Gender-Based Land Use-Rights in Model A ResettlementSchemes of Mashonaland, Zimbabwe”, ZWCN Monographs, Harare, cited in Gaidzanwa, 1995 and Moyo, 1995b.

Chenaux-Repond, M. (1995) “Women Farmer’s Position Paper”, 3rd Draft, Harare

Christodoulou, D. (1990) The Unpromised Land: Agrarian Reform and Conflict Worldwide, Zed, London.

Cobbett, Matthew (1988) “The Land Question in a Post-Apartheid South Africa: a Preliminary Assessment” in Cross and Haines (eds) Towards Freehold, Juta, Cape Town:

Cobbett, Wm. and Cohen, Robin (1988) Popular Struggles in South Africa, James Currey, London.

Collins, Patricia Hill (1990) Black Feminist Thought, Unwin Hyman, Cambridge, Mass.

Cock, Jacklyn (1989) Maids and Madams: Domestic Workers under Apartheid, Women’s Press, London.

Cousins, Ben (1997) “How do Rights become Real?” IDS Bulletin, 28, 4, October:5 9-67.

Cousins, Ben, Weiner, Dan and Amin, Nick (1992) “Social Differentiation in the Communal Lands of Zimbabwe” Review of African Political Economy, no. 53.

Cross, Catherine (1988) “Freehold in the ‘Homelands’: What are the Real Constraints?” in Cross and Haines, Towards Freehold, Juta, Cape Town: 337-77.

Cross, Catherine (1992) “An Alternate Legality: the Property Rights Question in Relation to South African Land Reform” S. African Journal on Human Rights, pp.305-331

Cross, Catherine (1997) “Rural Land Tenure: Surrounded by Hungry Allocators” Indicator SA, vol. 14, 2, Winter: 72-78.

Cross, Catherine (1998) “Reforming Land in South Africa: who owns the land?” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Land Tenure in the Developing World, University of Cape Town, January: 101-16.

Cross, Catherine and Friedman, Michelle (1997) “Women and land: marginality and the left hand power” in S. Meer (ed), Women, Land and Authority, Oxfam, Oxford: 17-34.

Cross, Catherine and Rutsch, Peter (1995) “Losing the Land: Securing Tenure in Tribal Areas” Indicator SA, vol. 12, no.2: 23-28.

Davies, Ros (1996) Personal correspondence, Harare.

Davis, Angela (1982) Women, Race and Class, Women’s Press, London.

Davison, Jean (ed) (1988a) Women, Agriculture and Land: the African Experience, Westview, Boulder.

Department of Land Affairs, Republic of South Africa (1996) Our Land/Izwe Lethu..., Green Paper on South African Land Policy, Pretoria.

Department of Land Affairs, Republic of South Africa (1997) White Paper on South African Land Policy, April, Pretoria

Dobash, R.E. and Dobash, R. (1992) Women, Violence and Social Change, Routledge, London.

DuToit, Andries (1996) “Problems in the Participation Women in LRPP Community Structures in the Southern Cape”, unpublished, Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, Cape Town, University of the Western Cape.

El-Ghomeny, R. (1990) The Political Economy of Rural Poverty: the Case for Land Reform, London

Enloe, Cynthia ( 1989) Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Relations, Pandora, London.

Eveleth, Ann (1998) “Gender Bills will make men pay” Mail and Guardian, 6th-12th November.

Fagan, G. Honor, Munck, R. and Nadasen, K. (1996) “Gender, Culture and Development: a South African Cultural Perspective” in Cultural Perspectives on Development: Special Issue of European Journal of Development Research,

Feminist Review(1984) Many Voices, One Chant: Special Issue, Black Feminist Perspectives, no.17, Autumn.

Fortmann, Louise, Antinori, Camille, and Nabane, Nontokozo (1997) “Fruits of their Labours: Gender, Property Rights and Tree Planting in two Zimbabwean Villages” Rural Sociology, 62, 3.

Frenier, M. (1983) “The Effects of the Chinese Communist Land Reform on Women and their Families” Women’s Studies International Forum, 6:1.

Gaidzanwa, R. (1995) “Land and the Economic Empowerment of Women: a Gendered Analysis” SAFERE vol.1, no.1, Harare.

Gala, Chetna (1990) “Trying to Give Women their Due: the Story of Vitner Village” Manushi, 59.

Goebel, Allison (1997) “Here it is Our Land, the Two of Us: Women, Men and Land in a Zimbabwean Resettlement Area” Staff Paper 97--07, Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Canada.

Goebel, Allison (1999) “Here it is our Own Land, the Two of Us: Women, Men and Land in a Zimbabwean Resettlement Area” forthcoming, J. Contemporary African Studies.

Government of Zimbabwe (1998) ‘Land Reform and Resettlement: a Policy Framework‘, Harare.

Gray, John (1998) False Dawn: the Delusions of Global Capitalism, Granta Books, London.

Hall, Ruth (1998) “Design for Equity: Linking Objectives with Practice in Land Reform” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Land Tenure in the Developing World University of Cape Town, January: 216-31.

Hargreaves, S. (1996) “Land Reform: Capturing Opportunities for Rural Women?” Agenda, 30:18-25.

Held, David (1995) Democracy and the Global Order, Polity, Cambridge.

Herbst, J. (1990) State Politics in Zimbabwe, University of Zimbabwe Publications, Harare.

Hirschmann, David (1998) “Civil Society in South Africa: Learning from Gender Themes” World Development, vol.26, no.2: 227-238

Jacobs, Susie (1989a) Gender Divisions and Land Resettlement in Zimbabwe, D. Phil thesis, Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton.

Jacobs, S.M. (1989b) “Zimbabwe: State, Class and Gendered Models of Resettlement” in J. Parpart and K. Staudt (eds) Women and the State in Africa, Lynne Rienner, Boulder.

Jacobs, Susie (1992) “Gender and Land Reform: Zimbabwe and Some Comparisons” International Sociology, vol. 7, no. 1, March.

Jacobs, Susie (1997) “Land to the Tiller? Gender Relations and Types of Land Reform” Society in Transition (formerly, J. of S.African Sociology): 28, 1-4: 82-100.

Jacobs, Susie (1998) “Past Wrongs and Gender Rights: Issues and Conflicts in South Africa’s Land Reform” European Journal of Development Research, ed. C. Lund: Special Issue on Development and Human Rights, vol.10, no.2, December.

Jacobs, Susie and Howard, Tracey (1987) “Women in Zimbabwe: Stated Policy and State Action” in H. Afshar (ed) Women, State and Ideology in Africa and Asia, Macmillan, London.

Jacobs, Susie, Jacobson, Ruth and Marchbank, Jennifer (eds) (1999) States of Conflict: Gender, Conflict and Resistance, Zed, London, forthcoming

Jary, David (1988) ‘Sociology, Knowledge and Higher Education in an Era of Social Change and Changing Graduate Employment’ Inaugural Professorial Lecture, Staffordshire University, Dept. of Sociology Occasional Papers, Stoke-on-Trent.

Jirira, K.O (1995) “Gender, Politics and Democracy” SAFERE, vol.1, no.2, 1995

Kazembe, J. (1986) “The Woman Question” in I. Mandaza (ed) Zimbabwe: the Political Economy of Transition, Codeseria, Dakar.

Kelkar, G. and Gala, C. (1990) “The Bodhgaya Land Struggle” in A. Sen (ed) A Space in the Struggle, Kali for Women, Delhi.

Kinsey, Bill (1998) “Allowing Land Reform to Act in Southern Africa” International Conference on Land Tenure in the Developing World, University of Cape Town, January.

Kinsey, Bill, Burger, Kees and Gunning, Jan (1998) “Coping with Drought in Zimbabwe: Survey Evidence on Reponses of Rural Households to Risk” World Development, vol. 26, no. 89-110.

Koopman, Jeanne (1997) “The Hidden Roots of the African Food Problem: Looking within the Rural Household” in N. Visvanathan et.al.(eds) The Women, Gender and Development Reader, Zed Press.

Kusakabe, Kyoko, Yunxian, Wang and Kelkar, Govind (1995) “Women and Land Rights in Cambodia” Economic and Political Weekly, 30, 43, October 28th.

Lastarria-Cornhiel, Susana (1997)“Impact of Privatization on Gender and Property Rights in Africa” World Development, 25, no. 8: 1317-1333.

Levin, Richard and Weiner, Dan (1996) ‘The Politics of Land Reform in South Africa after Apartheid’ in The Agrarian Question in South Africa, Special Issue: Journal of Peasant Studies, 23, 2/3, January/April: 93-119.

Levin, Richard and Weiner, Dan (1997) No More Tears: Struggles for Land in Mpumlanga, South Africa, Trenton/Asmara; Africa World Press,.

Lowenson, Rene and Kerkhoven, R. (1996) “The Socio-Economic Impact of AIDS: Issues and Options in Zimbabwe” Southern African AIDS Information Dissemination Service, May.

Maast, Mette (1994) Exploring Differentiation among the Zimbabwean Peasantry, Centre for Applied Social Studies Occasional Paper, University of Zimbabwe, June.

McIntosh, A., Sibanda, S., Vaughan, A., Xaba, Th. (1996) “Traditional Authorities and Land Reform in South Africa: Lessons from KwaZulu Natal” Development Southern Africa, 13,3, June: 339-57.

Masilela, C. and Weiner, Dan (1996) “Resettlement Planning in Zimbabwe and South Africa’s Land Reform Discourse” Third World Planning Review, 18, 1.

Manimala (1983) “Zameen Kenkar? Jote Onkar!: The Story of Women’s Participation in the Bodghaya Struggle” Manushi, Jan-February, 14.

Marcus, T., Eales, K.and Wildschut., A. (1996) Down to Earth: Land Demand in the New South Africa, Indicator Press, University of Natal, Durban.

Masilela, C. and Weiner, Dan (1996) “Resettlement Planning in Zimbabwe and South Africa’s Land Reform Discourse” Third World Planning Review, 18, 1.

Mathye, Mihloti (1997) “Submission to the Land Reform Policy Committee”, March, Pretoria, mimeo.

Meer, Shamin (ed) (1997a) Women, Land and Authority: Perspectives from South Africa, Oxford, Oxfam/David Phillips..

Meer, Shamin (1997b) “Gender and Land Rights” IDS Bulletin, 28, 3, July: 133-44.

Meinzen-Dick, Ruth et.al.(1997) “Gender and Property Rights: Overview” World Development, vol.25, no.8

Meldrum, Andrew (1998) “Police Tear Gas Harare Protest” The Guardian, 20th January, London.

Mirza, Heidi S. (ed) (1997) Black British Feminism: a Reader, Routledge, London

Misihairambwi, Priscilla (1998) “The WASN Youth Programme in Zimbabwe” in Britain-Zimbabwe Society BZS Zimbabwe Review: Community Responses to HIV in Southern Africa, Issue 98/1, February.

Mogale, Constance and Phohsoko, Sophie (1997) “The Women’s Rights in Land Workshop” Agenda, no. 32: 66-68.

Moyo, Sam (1995a) The Land Question in Zimbabwe, SAPES Trust, Harare.

Moyo, Sam (1995b) “A Gendered Perspective of the Land Question” SAFERE, vol. 1, no.1.

Mpofu, Joshua (1983) “Some Observable Sources of Women’s Subordination in Zimbabwe” Centre for Applied Social Studies, University of Zimbabwe, Harare.

Mukta, Parita (1999) “Gender, Community, Nation: The Myth of Innocence” in Jacobs, Susie, Jacobson, Ruth and Marchbank, Jennifer (eds) States of Conflict: Gender, Conflict and Resistance, Zed, London, forthcoming

Murray, Colin (1997) “South African Land Reform: Case Studies in ‘Demand’ and ‘Participation’ in the Free State” African Affairs, 96: 187-214.

Ncube, Welshman and Stewart, Julie (1995) Inheritance in Zimbabwe: Law, Customs and Practice, Women and Law in Southern Africa (WLSA) Books, Harare

Nyanguru, A. and Peil, M. (1991) “Zimbabwe since Independence: a People’s Assessment” African Affairs, 90, 607-620

Palmer, Robin (1990) “Land Reform in Zimbabwe: 1980-90” African Affairs, 89, 355.

Palmer, Robin (1996) “The Threat to People’s Land in Southern Africa: the Current Crisis” Briefing Paper, Oxfam UKI, Oxford.

Palmer, Robin (1998) “Mugabe’s ‘Land Grab’ in Regional Perspective” Land Reform in Zimbabwe: the Way Forward, SOAS, 11th March.

Pankhurst, Donna and Jacobs, Susie (1988) “Land Tenure, Gender Relations and Agricultural Production: the Case of Zimbabwe’s Peasantry” in Davison, J. (ed) Agriculture, Women and Land; the African Experience, Westview, Boulder.

Peterson, V.Spike (1992) Gendered States: Feminist (Re)visions of International Relations Theory, Lynne Rienner, Boulder.

Potts, Debbie (1998) Paper to Britain-Zimbabwe Research Day, St. Antony’s, Oxford, 6th June, cited in BZS Zimbabwe Review, 98/4, November, p.3.

Potts, Debbie and Mutambirwa, Chris (1997) “The Government Must not Dicatate: Rural-Urban Migrants’ Perceptions of Zimbabwe’s Land Resettlement Programme” Review of African Political Economy, no. 74.

Ranger, Terence (1985) Peasant Consciousness and Guerrilla War in Zimbabwe, James Currey, London.

Ranger, Terence (1998) “President’s Letter from Zimbabwe”, November.

Razavi, Shahra (1998) Gendered Poverty and Social Change: an Issues Paper URISD, Geneva, DP 94.

Sarkar, T. and Butalia, U. ( 1995) Women and the Hindu Right; Kali for Women, Delhi.

Sayagues, Mercedes (1998a) “Peasant Power Growing” Mail and Guardian, 31st July - 6th August, 1998

Sayagues, Mercedes (1998b) “Leave them to Cotton Suicide” Mail and Guardian, 14th-20th August: p. 34.

Seidman, G. (1993) “No Freedom without the Women: Mobilisation and Gender in South Africa”: 1970-92, Signs, 18, 2: 291-322.

Sen, Purna (1998) “Development Practice and Violence against Women” Gender and Development, 6, 3, November: 7-16.

Siqwana-Ndulo, Nombelelo (1996) “Can True Gender Equality be Realised in Land Redistribution in South Africa?” Paper to the Committee for Family Research of the International Sociological Association, KwaZulu-Natal, July.

Sobhan, Rehman (1993) Agrarian Reform and Social Transformation, Zed, London.

Speakout/Taurai/Khulumani (1996) “Women cry foul over inheritance law reform” Issue No. 35, June/July, Harare: pp.2 + 13.

Stacey, Judith (1982) “People’s War and the New Democratic Patriarchy in China” J. Comparative Family Studies, 13, pt.3.

Stewart, Julie (1992) “Inheritance in Zimbabwe: the Quiet Revolution” in Stewart (ed) Working Papers on Inheritance in Zimbabwe, WLSA Research Project, Working Paper no.5, Harare.

Stewart, J. and Armstrong, A (1990) (eds) The Legal Situation of Women in Southern Africa, University of Zimbabwe Publications, Harare.

Stoneman, Colin (1998) Paper to Britain-Zimbabwe Research Day: “The Zimbabwean Economy’ St. Antony”s, Oxford, 6th June, cited in BZS Zimbabwe Review, 98/4, November, pp. 2-4.

Sylvester, Christine (1994) Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Tetreault, M. (1994) “Women and Revolution in Vietnam” in Tetreault (ed) Women and Revolution in Africa, Asia and the New World, Univ. S. Carolina Press, Columbia.

Tickner, J. Ann (1992) Gender and International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security, New York, Columbia Univ. Press

Tickner, J. Ann (1995) “Revisioning Security” in Booth, K. and Smith, S. (eds) International Relations Theory Today, Polity, Cambridge.

Turshen, Meredith (1995) “Women and Health Issues” in Margaret Hay and Sharon Stichter (eds) African Women South of the Sahara, Longmans, Harlow, Essex.

Turshen, Meredith (ed) (1998) What Women Do in Wartime: Gender and Conflict in Africa, Zed Books, London.

Unterhalter, Elain (1987) Forced Removal, International Defence and Aid Fund for South Africa, IDAF, London.

Walker, Cherryl (1994) “Women, ‘Tradition’ and Reconstruction” Review of African Political Economy, nol.64.

Walker, Cherryl (1996) “Reconstructing Tradition: Women and Land Reform” in P. Rich (ed) Reaction and Renewal in South Africa, Basingstoke, Macmillan.

Walker, Cherryl (1998) “Land Reform and Gender in Post-Apartheid South Africa” UNRISD Discussion Paper, DP98, Geneva, October.

Weiner, Dan (1986) Personal communication, Leeds.

Wetherell, Iden (1998) “Adventures in Mugabe’s Neverland” Mail and Guardian, 20th-16th November.

Wiergsma, Nan (1988) Vietnam: Peasant Land, Peasant Revolution, St. Martin’s Press, New York.

Wiergsma, Nan (1991) “Peasant Patriarchy and the Subversion of the Collective in Vietnam” Review of Radical Political Economics, vol. 23:3-4.

White, Christine.P. (1982) “Socialist Transformation of Agriculture and Gender Relations: the Vietnamese Case” Bulletin of the Institute of Development Studies, vol. 13, no.4.

White, Christine.P. (1987) “Women’s Position in Rural Vietnam” in Afshar, H. (ed) Women, State and Ideology in Africa and Asia, Macmillan, London.

White, Christine.P. (1989) “Vietnam: War, Socialism and the Politics of Gender” in Kruks, S., Rapp, R. and Young, M. (eds) Promissory Notes: Women in the Transition to Socialism, Monthly Review, NYC.

White, C. (1993) “Close to ‘Home’ in Johannesburg: Gender Oppression in Township Households” Women’s Studies International Forum, 16, 2: 149-63.

White, Sarah C. (1992) Arguing with the Crocodile: Gender and Class in Bangladesh, Zed, London.

Whitworth, Susan (1998) “The Myth of ‘Sisterhood’: an Evaluation of the Capacity of Women’s Organisations in Bulawayo” BA Thesis, Oxford University (unpublished).

World Bank (1996) From Plan to Market: World Development Report 1996, Oxford Univeristy Press, Oxford.

Young, Kate (1978) “Modes of Appropriation and the Sexual Division of Labour: a Case Study from Oaxaca, Mexico” in Kuhn, A and Wolpe, A-M. (eds) Feminism and Materialism, Routledge Kegan Paul, London.

Yuval-Davis, Nira (1997) Gender and Nation, Sage, London

Zimbabwe Women’s Bureau (1981) Black Women in Zimbabwe, Salisbury, Zimbabwe.

ZWRCN (Zimbabwe Women’s Resource Centre and Network) (1994) Land in Zimbabwe: a Gender Question?, Workshop Report No.6.

 


Endnotes

*: Prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Washington, D.C., February 16–20, 1999.  Back.

Note 1: In Zimbabwe, primary education has remained free, although government has imposed fees for secondary education in cities since the early 1990s. This was not a specific World Bank stipulation for the ESAP (structural adjustment) programme, and has resulted in overcrowded schools in Communal Areas, as urban parents send their children to relatives in the countryside. There is thus an indirect impact on ‘farmer-housewife’ women, who look after extra children (Potts, 1998).  Back.

Note 2: After the massacres of ZAPU activists in Matabeleland in the early/mid 1980s and the ‘round-ups’ of any women unfortunate enough to be in public places in urban areas: Jacobs, 1989a)  Back.

Note 3: Although in Zimbabwe, over 15% of estates are now owned by black farmers (Moyo, 1995a).  Back.

Note 4: In Zimbabwe, the term widow is sometimes applied honorifically to older divorced/deserted women with dependent children. However, in Resettlement Areas, most female headed households are ‘widowed’ in the usual, narrower sense.  Back.

Note 5: However, women in Cambodia enjoyed full rights to land; in contrast to many Asian states, land was not in short supply (Kusakabe, Yunxian and Kelkar, 1995)  Back.