Zimbabwe: Land and the Lancaster House Settlement
Zimbabwe: Land and the Lancaster House Settlement
复制标题
津巴布韦：土地和兰开斯特宫定居点
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Onslow
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Onslow
Alois Mlambo教授最近在《历史指南针》上发表文章，题为“土地掠夺”还是“收回被盗土地”：从历史角度看津巴布韦的快速土地改革进程“，1他雄辩地指出，需要在适当的历史背景下看待津巴布韦目前的土地危机。Mlambo的复杂的论点指出了可以理解的广泛的独立改革的期望之间的差异，由解放战士的言论刺激，他们承诺激进的土地重新分配作为解决“民族悲痛”的一部分，而新独立的津巴布韦国家未能履行这些承诺。姆兰博解释的一个关键部分集中在兰开斯特众议院宪法的限制性条款和英国在未能提供足够的硬通货以使非洲民族联盟-爱国阵线政府能够维持其合法性的一个关键因素农民和解放运动之间的联系方面的所谓吝啬。到20世纪90年代，只有70 000个家庭在以前的白色土地上重新定居，而不是2000年预测的162 000个家庭。
In his recent article in History Compass, ‘“Land Grab” or “Taking Back Stolen Land”: The Fast Track Land Reform Process in Zimbabwe in Historical Perspective’,1 Professor Alois Mlambo eloquently argued for the need to view the current land crisis in Zimbabwe in its proper historical context. Mlambo’s sophisticated argument pointed to the discrepancy between understandable popular expectations of far-reaching reform at independence, stimulated by the rhetoric of liberation fighters who had promised radical redistribution of land as part of addressing the ‘National Grievances’, and the failure of the newly independent Zimbabwean state to fulfill these promises. A key part of Mlambo’s explanation was focused on the restrictive clauses of the Lancaster House constitution and Britain’s supposed parsimony in failing to provide sufficient hard currency to enable the ZANU-PF Government to maintain a key element of its legitimacy the nexus between the peasants and the liberation movement. By the 1990s only 70,000 families had been resettled on former white owned land, instead of the 162,000 presaged in