Farm workers: reconstructing lives and livelihoods

There is little doubt that farm workers lost out with the land reform, but what has happened to them since, particularly those who remained on the farms?

Too often commentary on farm workers has portrayed them as passive victims. But new work demonstrates their agency in a variety of ways. They were of course active agents, both before and after the land reform. Based on in-depth ethnographic exploration, this work tries to explore how different farm workers (not after all a uniform category) have reconfigured their lives in response to the new agrarian structure. There is, as ever, a complexity to the story not offered in standard accounts. In particular I can recommend an often overlooked 2009 paper by Andrew Hartnack that offers a particularly nuanced account. He shows how “through local responses to displacement, displaced workers are able to counter the discourses of the powerful by subverting global, national and local representations, using local agency to create their own practical discourse of displacement”.

Farm workers have always been represented in particular ways by public, media and political commentary. In the past, as Blair Rutherford has described, white farmers often related to labour in hierarchical and paternalistic ways, constructing citizenship and identify outside the influence of the state within the confines of the farm. Hartnack argues that the limited earlier research on farm workers often projected a simplistic image of workers as victims of racial discrimination and capitalist agriculture or, in direct contrast, they were characterised by commentators such as R.W. Johnson as having lived under a ‘cosy arrangement’ or ‘protective umbrella’, now disrupted by land reform. In the 2009 paper Hartnack comments: “While undoubtedly well meaning, much of it [the literature] essentially denied farm workers agency or cultural competence, portraying them largely as poverty stricken, illiterate and powerless, giving the impression that they were passive victims of their circumstances”. In the post 2000 discourse, farm workers are again seen as victims, this time of ZANU-PF expulsions, while the nationalistic discourse presents farm workers as ‘foreign’ and stooges of white farmers and the opposition.

Yet in all of these discourses, agency, capacity, innovation and practice is denied. This is why a deeper, ethnographic understanding of farm worker lives and livelihoods is required. Hartnack’s emerging studies offer one among a number of important contributions to this. He highlights for example how:

“…workers used their ingenuity, skills and resourcefulness to manipulate the farm system to their own advantage. Farm workers may have been subordinated within capitalist relations of power, dependent on paternalism for survival, marginalized and stigmatized within society in general and made to feel insecure, but this did not stop them from learning how to benefit from and adapt to their situation”.

And this experience helped farm workers and their families to cope with and respond to displacement when farm invasions took place. The experience of displacement is of course not uniform. Workers living on a farm came from diverse locations, often from outside Zimbabwe, they had formed communities on farms, but with linkages between and outside that differed between families, men and women. In a number of papers Hartnack describes the process of displacement and the living conditions of former farm workers living in a ‘holding camp’ on the outskirts of Harare. The insecurities, the poor health conditions, the oppressive patronage relations and political impositions, not least Operation Murambatsvina, are documented.

Yet the situation was not hopeless. It could not be: people had to survive. And the new farmers needed labour, and particularly skilled labour. Indeed some former farm workers then quite quickly (indeed within the same season) acquired jobs, but again this was not uniform. It was differentiated by levels of skills/education, gender and age. Hartnack explains that the first jobs available were:

“….piecework jobs that required either some measure of skill or experience, such as spraying for the flower-growing companies, or the capacity for heavy manual labour. Some men with experience in the Brylee flower nursery thus got jobs with the three different flower companies in the area. Others became builder’s assistants at the local housing cooperative and on private building sites. Some loaded bricks at the nearby brickfields, while other young men sought jobs as security guards. However, even those who found alternative employment soon after displacement found their wages inadequate to meet their increased need for cash, while their job security was poor in comparison to what they had enjoyed at the farm. Many of the available jobs were not easily accessible to women, being in the traditional realm of men. This meant that women, along with the elderly, struggled to maintain access to an income after displacement. Casual workers (traditionally women) had not had much work in 2002, as the disruption of the farm’s operations in the first three months of the year had reduced the need for their labour. Having had no wages, many casual labourers found themselves with very little cash at the time of displacement, as did retired workers. Female-headed households, which had relied on casual labour for an income, thus suffered badly as they did not have savings, and their members were often not able to find alternative jobs easily”.

Four years later follow up research found a small number of senior, skilled workers had gained employment on their former farm, while others had used skills and connections to get jobs or land elsewhere, and had moved on. Others remained vulnerable, and were reliant on piecework, small-scale gardening, trading and other activities. In the context of new settlements new forms of patronage emerged, with displaced farm workers finding protection by church leaders, war veterans and others. Responses included a range of strategies of the ‘weapons of the weak’ – trickery, foot-dragging, feigning ignorance and more – and farm workers developed representations of themselves as compliant, pious, weak or ignorant in order to get by. All this allowed some room for manoeuvre in nevertheless highly constrained circumstances, allowing them to ‘blend in’ yet ‘remain apart’. Conflicts and jealousies existed between the new arrivals and those residents of the informal settlement to where the farm workers were displaced. This involved a tricky negotiation, especially at the beginning, although as time progressed greater integration took place.

As readers of this blog will know, I have mostly worked in Masvingo province where large numbers of farm workers were not displaced, and there were few compounds of the sort found on the large-scale tobacco or horticulture farms in the Highveld. So it was fascinating for me to learn what had happened on such farms as part of an ongoing study in Mvurwi, Mazowe district. Here large compounds still exist, often housing hundreds of families; these are the ‘in situ’ displaced described by Godfrey Magaramombe, contrasting with those who were forced to move.

But unlike in the early 2000s, a decade on these former workers are carving out new relationships with the farms that surround them, as Walter Chambati and others have shown. This has not been straightforward, and stories of conflict abound, but these farm workers are now finding work in a more flexible way than before. Today they move around between farms looking for work, often able to strike deals to their advantage. Given the skills many possess, they have become valuable resources in the new farm economy, providing useful agronomic and marketing skills. Women and men engage in this new labour economy in different ways. Employment is usually poorly paid and insecure, and the lack of an organised voice is a constraint. Most households based at the compounds also farm. Negotiating small plots of land from the neighbouring farm owners has been a key part of their strategy, and many will survive off such gardens, even marketing surpluses to supplement wages. Some have been lucky to get larger areas, as part of official allocations within the resettlements. We met several former farm workers who were now farming tobacco with great success.

For new farmers with compounds within their farm boundaries, there are challenges too. With residents now incorporated into schools in surrounding areas, there is less of an obligation to provide services, but there are issues of welfare and security. A new farmer must deal with his neighbours well to avoid an escalation of theft or trespass. Thus many have started up relationships with committees within the compounds to negotiate access to land, water, electricity and to discuss issues such as the upkeep of farm buildings. These compounds are of course anomalous inheritances from an earlier agrarian structure, but have to be accommodated, as people, often second or third generation migrants, have nowhere to go.

While not denying hardship and vulnerability, the experience of former farm workers was not simple victimhood, characterised by passivity and lack of agency, but a much more active struggle. However despite this variety of strategies, access to new livelihood opportunities was again highly differentiated. Just as there is no single or simple story for land reform and the successes or otherwise of the ‘new farmers’, there is no standard story for farm workers, as is sometimes suggested. Detailed study of particular places and people, always contextualised, is essential for revealing the highly variegated experiences and outcomes.

This post was written by Ian Scoones and originally appeared on Zimbabweland



Filed under Uncategorized

7 responses to “Farm workers: reconstructing lives and livelihoods

  1. am

    Largely, the farm workers were persona non grata. They were not considered in the land reform process and were seen even by the indigenous people as to be got out of the way. Really they were potential blockers of accumulation by a more privileged group in society. They were a sub-class without privilege subject to deprivation, intimidation, harassment and death. They were the kulaks of land reform. A nuanced approach which does not reflect this is quite inappropriate and not academic. In the farms that were immediately adjacent to this communal area the land was redistributed to people in the communal area who already had land, to some in the communal area who had no land, to people in town who have never slept a night on their plots and to others from further away. The increase of accumulation in A1 by those who already had land is not really being addressed. Many of the towns people who got land already had it in their rural areas. However the point is that the farm workers were marginalised. A nuanced analysis cannot muddy the waters.

    They are a loss to national productivity. They had a high knowledge base and were able to put in a decent shift. If they had been given more of the A1 settlements then in productive terms land reform would have been far more successful than it is. They are less likely to sit. Clearly they are more equivalent to the dynamic individual often identified in this blog but they were not given opportunity to show their potential. I doubt that the Ngo’s would have gone to the farms if the land had been given to the farm workers. Hence new fast track while accepting there is about a 30 per cent success rate -although that figure may be too high- is fast becoming like communal. It will result in the country becoming an Ngo nation if it is allowed to continue.

    I think that it would be worthwhile for the government to identify ex-farm workers and move away the unproductive people on the farms and replace them with ex-farm workers. It would change the productivity levels very quickly. In the economic straits that the country finds itself in, the idea of land without an appropriate level of productivity should not be allowed.

    I would state that the man I mentioned in a previous post has been jailed for 9 years for buying stolen cattle. The thief is on the run. The victim of the stock theft most have known which was the most likely kraal to look in for his cows. If I had known better I should have towed him straight to the ZRP. People who say there is no rain I have often found to be thieves or just want to sit or are entirely taken over by dependency.

  2. William Doctor

    On a slightly different, but related topic, any comment on the below article published in the Zimbabwean Independent? A somewhat different picture to the one you try to portray.

    • I agree with Ibbo Mandaza quoted in the piece “There is a record of the people given the farms who stripped them bare….Those people must be answerable for the losses that accrued when they took over the farms. My view is that government has to confront the people and let them pay because those farms were successful before the redistribution exercise.” A proper audit of some of the ‘large-scale A2’ farms is clearly a priority, as I have noted on this blog before. But again this elite grab is only part of the story. The high profile cases in the article do not tell reflect the situation everywhere – far from it.

    • Andrew Hartnack

      William, it’s a pity Kintyre Estates seemingly has nothing happening on it, but across the Bulawayo Road from there, on the neighbouring former commercial farm, are quite a number of A1 farmers who are making a good go at growing maize and tobacco. I was at these farms last week where one woman is busy curing up to 20 bales of tobacco which she grew on 3 of her hectares. The other three hectares has a very healthy crop of maize. She employed a number of workers from the old farm compound over the last several months to labour in her fields. I was there – in the flesh – last week so this is first-hand. Her neighbours are also growing such crops with varying levels of success (access to capital and inputs is a real constraint). All Ian is ‘trying to portray’ is that the situation is more complex than many press articles make out. If the journalist had bothered to step across the road, he might have provided a more nuanced account of what is happening.

      • am

        Did you speak to the farm workers or just ignore them.

        What is needed is a second land reform. Unproductive off and dynamic individuals on. Perhaps unintentionally this picture of the Kintyre estate, wherever that is, and the nearby farm have successfully encapsulated the failure of land reform and are the true statement of the position. Massive failure has occurred with some limited success. It is about 70 percent of the farms under land reform. This is the correct nuance with proper weighting. It is really tragic which is why a second land reform is needed.

        It is also clear that the solutions are close to hand. If the farm workers just walk across the road then the land is there for them.

  3. Terry

    Have you read the GAPWUZ report of 2010?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s