How foreigners are buying land like magwinya

| Friday June 1, 2012 00:00

 

Mmegi: What are your credentials?Manatsha: My PhD dissertation focused on the land question in postcolonial Botswana with special reference to the North East District. I obtained my MA and PhD from Hiroshima University, Japan in 2008 and 2011 respectively. I have since published a total of nine academic articles on the land question in Botswana including one on the Historical and Politico-Cultural Significance of Nswazwi Mall in Francistown.

Mmegi: We have realised that there is a close relationship between poverty and landlessness in Botswana. In your view, what would you say are the reasons why most of the informal settlements emerge, especially around urban areas such as Mmamashia, Senthumole Ramadeluka next to Jwaneng (which has now relocated to Sese)?Manatsha: The rural areas are the hardest hit with high poverty and unemployment rates forcing the rural dwellers to migrate to the cities/urban centres with the hope of getting employment. When people in rural areas reach the urban centres, they face acute problems of shortage of 'affordable' accommodation and decent employment. The skyrocketing rent prices, for instance, force them to retreat to the neighbouring urban villages where they rent one-roomed houses with friends, often overcrowded. We have seen such developments in Tlokweng and Mogoditshane, near Gaborone. Some, unable to cope with the ever-increasing rental prices, end up building shacks; a typical example is the recent demolished Senthumule Ramadeluka squatter settlement on the outskirts of Jwaneng, the long demolished Machimenyenga location in Francistown, which was built on land belonging to the Tati Company, and the Old Naledi location in Gaborone.

Mmegi: But what do you say to the fact that most of these people are working and earning a salary? Manatsha: Their dreams get shattered once they reach the cities/urban centres because the salaries they get, for those who are lucky to get jobs, are meager and they cannot afford decent accommodation, buying food, paying school fees and transport. The Botswana Housing Corporation (BHC), which was established with a mandate to build 'affordable' houses for Batswana, is failing since its prices are beyond imagination. Shelter is a human rights issue. When squatter settlements emerge, the local authorities initially do nothing about them. This shows that they appreciate the difficulties and desperation that these people find themselves in. Therefore, to leave squatters to occupy the land for more than nine years and tell them in the 10th year that they should vacate it, with immediate effect, is not morally correct. Interestingly, in some cases, squatters are allowed to vote and politicians canvass votes from them. During the campaigns, politicians hardly mention or remind (squatters) that they are squatters and they would be removed at one point. After the elections, politicians turn a blind eye to these vulnerable people. They disappear.

The government of Botswana should know that squatter settlements, even those in Alexandra on the outskirts of Johannesburg and Kibera, the largest squatter settlement in the world, on the outskirts of Nairobi, Kenya, emerged as a result of lack of opportunities, poverty, unemployment, housing crisis, and the neglect of the rural areas in many parts of Africa.

Mmegi: Government, through the landboards, has a tendency of demolishing these settlements as a way of resolving this problem. Do you think this is the right solution? In your view, what are the better solutions that can be applied by both government and stakeholders involved in these land issues?Manatsha: Squatter settlements emerge out of frustration and desperation; a plea to the authorities by the poor, powerless and weak to do something about the plight and squalid living conditions they face. In other words, squatter settlements can be a 'weapon used by the weak' to remind the authorities about the 'poverty amidst plenty' in Botswana's society. In most cases, these settlements have been in existence for more than 10 years. In some cases, the councils/local authorities would provide some, but not all, essential services in such settlements.

When they do that, they give squatters the impression that they are welcome, and that at one point, they would be given legal status to the land they had 'illegally' occupied. Such hopes are, however, shattered at the last minute. Demolishing squatter settlements without alternative housing or land will never be a solution no matter how one looks at it. This is a retributive form of justice. These people are left without homes, land and, in some cases, lose property in the process of demolishing. Demolishing without alternative land shows that the authorities assume that these people have elsewhere to go or are just irresponsible fellows who enjoy living in shacks. This is not so, and it will never be so.

Mmegi: Can you give examples where demolitions ended up helping address the land question?Manatsha: The Murambatswina campaign in Zimbabwe in 2005, when the state demolished a large squatter settlement, resulted in the suffering of unimaginable proportion. It might have solved the government concerns, but not the people's conditions. In Jwaneng too, the government might have solved an 'eye sore' but not the housing/land problem. The Senthumule Ramadeluka squatters left for Sese where they are accused of making noise, living in squalid conditions, and nuisance by Sese villagers. The problems from Senthumule squatter settlement have been exported to a quiet and peaceful village as a result of the state policy. In Sese village, they rent undeveloped plots.

This, indeed, shows that their problem is lack of access to land. But the government seems to believe that they are just 'irresponsible' individuals who do not deserve to be in the city.

Mmegi: What do you suggest should be done?Manatsha: In the urban centres, I suggest that they should be serviced land for the lower classes to avoid a situation whereby everyone else competes to buy land in the open market. In this dog-eat-dog environment, the poor are marginalised. The state is silent about the land grabbing by the few elite. Alternatively, the government should develop rural areas so as to create jobs and opportunities.

Mmegi: Generally what do you think of land allocation and general land services by the land board, department of lands and others? Do you think they are resourced to do their work?Manatsha: To some extent, the landboards are resourced enough to carry out their mandate. The problem of land allocation in Botswana is not about the landboards or any other body managing land being under resourced.

The problem is that there is a lot of corruption in the management of land in this country. There are loopholes in the Tribal Land Act and other policies used to manage land. The Kgabo Commission and Lesetedi Commission have shown rampant corrupt tendencies with regard to land allocation, especially in Gaborone and urban villages. My view is that it is wrong to allow foreigners to buy land at the rate at which they are doing in Gaborone and other towns. This disadvantages the young Batswana who aspire to own property in their own country. The landboards are also too bureaucratic, elitist and removed from the society they claim to serve. They are staffed with retired government officers and cattle barons almost to the exclusion of villagers who know their land better. Although retired civil servants have experience in dealing with government issues, this experience sometimes becomes irrelevant when it comes to customary land rights. In other words, the bodies that manage customary land, in most parts of Africa, are unrepresentative and have too much power to dispossess people their customary rights to land as and when they want. The landboard members in Botswana usually serve their own interests and some are unapproachable even though some are 'elected'. The other thing is that Batswana lack general education about their rights to land more so that such rights have been codified and packaged in legal jargons. People do not understand the Tribal Land Act and other policies and their implications. That is why they still regard dikgosi as having more powers than land boards. And the dikgosi still believe so too and insist that, in many instances.

Mmegi: What do you see as challenges? Give a general overview of land issues in southern Africa and Africa, especially in relation to the Botswana situation?Manatsha: The main challenge is that the government seems to turn a blind eye on the now disturbing buying and selling of land by foreigners. They buy land in the free market like magwinya! The government should come up with mechanisms to stop this anomaly and Batswana should desist from this kind of worrying behaviour. If we are not careful, Botswana, especially Gaborone, will be in the hands of a few foreigners in 10 years to come.  I studied in Japan, and have never seen foreigners buying land at this rate. I understand that this is a free market economy, but foreigners should not be allowed to cheat our people and buy their land cheaply. The government should also desist from repossessing land from Batswana under the pretext that they are failing to develop it. Batswana do not develop their land not because they are 'irresponsible' but simply because of economic hardships. At one point, they would develop the land in question. What also disturbs me is that politicians are quiet about the land question in Botswana. In their campaigns, they just focus on mundane issues such as extra-judiciary killings and the militarisation of the state.

Yes, these are concerns, but why can't they also talk about the inequalities in land redistribution? Is it because most of them have benefited from the past land reforms and are now venturing into property, partnering with foreigners in buying land from poor Batswana?

Mmegi: How does Botswana differ with other countries, especially former colonies?Manatsha: The situation in Botswana differs from that of other southern African countries such as Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe, including Kenya, Angola and Mozambique. To start with, Botswana was a British protectorate and not a colony like the countries mentioned above.

Therefore, colonial land grabbing did not become a serious issue, though the North East District experienced massive land alienation by the Tati Company. In Botswana though, the elites have grabbed land from peasants under the Tribal Grazing Land Policy of 1975 and the National Policy on Agriculture Development of 1991.

These two elitist policies displaced peasant farmers from their land under the pretext that the big farmers would improve productivity. This never materialised. Instead, big farmers continued to hold dual grazing rights squeezing out small farmers from their land/pastures. The other difference between Botswana and other countries is that here, cattle barons, bureaucrats and politicians, and (now) property developers are working in collusion. Therefore, it becomes difficult for the poor to articulate their land rights. Botswana has become a country where wealth is made through acquiring land cheaply from the poor and weak.

*Opinions attributed to Dr Boga Mantsha are his and not his employers or any organisation that he might associate with.