On 30 March 2020 Zimbabwe, a country of 14.3 million people, the government responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by imposing a mandatory lockdown for 21 days. This mandatory lockdown movement was only restricted to essential service providers; health care, security services and agriculture were designated as part of the essential services. Two days later the police seized and burnt some produce belonging to peasant farmers in Mutare, a border town in the Eastern part of the country. The produce was being transported to the urban markets. The action of the police was widely covered in a national newspaper, The Herald as the triumph of the state in controlling COVID-19:
“No arrests were made as all of the vendors fled as soon as they saw the police officers approaching but we recovered all the produce they had brought to the market. We continue to urge residents to avoid gathering in large numbers as this will only put our efforts to curb the spread of Covid 19 in jeopardy” (The Herald 02 April, 2020).
The police’s actions faced mixed reactions but the majority, the progressive forces in support of the peasantry, condemned the police’s actions. Four days later the state, more specifically, the President Emmerson Mnangagwa after noticing the outrage over the police’s actions of burning fresh produce and harassment of the peasantry the president announced in a national address that:
“Farmers must continue to produce for our Nation. Farmers and traders alike must equally continue to deliver produce to markets, including those markets that supply our cities, towns and growth points. To that end, I direct our Security Arms to ensure a pathway of food supply.”
Therefore, after the President’s intervention, the peasants were now allowed to freely trade without harassment. Still the president’s speech did not address the issue of the more than 100 farmers that had lost their produce in the police dawn raid. The progressive forces in Zimbabwe maintained pressure on the government and a day later the state announced that it was embarking on a process of compensation of the farmers who had lost their produce. But what remained unknown is the modalities of identifying the farmers as well as the calculation of the compensation payments. However, more broadly, the state’s action demonstrates that the Zimbabwean state has entrenched, more specifically in recent days its unbridled support of corporate agriculture at the expense of the peasantry. For instance, when the lockdown started the state widely pushed media information that supermarkets were open during the lockdown to supply food to the citizenry. At the same time, the same narrative was deployed that commercial farms would continue to operate during the lockdown so as to supply the country with the required food. Undergirding this support for capitalist agriculture was the lockdown guideline that farm laborers on capitalist farms could continue with laboring during the 21-day lockdown. The state did not announce that the same working class had to be provided with PPE or any measures to safeguard the lives of the workers from the deadly COVID-19.
Generally, the lockdown measures received mixed reactions by the citizenry, however as shown by informal interviews, the majority is content that lockdown helps control the spread of the pandemic. At the same time, there are concerns that the lockdown is problematic if not accompanied by the necessary testing, provision of food hampers to the marginalized households and protection from the police’s brutality. But and large, the lockdown measure has been followed, though not without protest, particularly online. The main arguments are that the country’s economic structure is characterized by high informality. Thus the imposition of the lockdown has curtailed many people’s livelihoods particularly the vendors, hawkers and other people in the informal sector who struggle daily to put food on their tables.
Interestingly, while the state curtailed the mobility of peasants with regard to selling their fresh produce (horticulture, vegetables and tomatoes), it has been promoting peasants’ participation in tobacco trading. Normally, the tobacco trading season starts between mid-February and Mid-March every year. For some perspective, tobacco is the biggest agriculture export crop in Zimbabwe, generating on average US$400m per annum and the peasantry supplies 70% of the tobacco. Zimbabwe’s government heavily relies on taxes from the sale of tobacco. Thus, it is noticeable that the state is willing to breach/ bend its lockdown measures for its rentism agenda and is further prepared to risk the lives of 147, 528 tobacco growers, out of which 95% are peasants. Although, peasants need to sell their tobacco in order to recoup their expenses and support livelihoods, informal interviews with them and government official indicate that no mitigation measure/ adjustments have been made at the tobacco auction floors to ensure that the peasantry is safe or made to practice social distancing (2m apart). By and large, the Zimbabwean story demonstrates the state’s mixed stance towards the peasantry. On one hand, the state supports corporate agriculture, considers peasant agriculture as a second choice. On the other hand, the state badly requires the peasantry to participate in the cultivation of crops such as tobacco in which the state has a direct benefit. Thus, the novel COVID-19 has once again brought to the limelight the Zimbabwean state’s contradictions with regards to peasant agriculture and corporate agriculture.
Follow us on our social media
1 thought on “At Crossroads? Covid-19, State and The Peasantry: The Zimbabwean Case”