In this debate, there is often a serious misunderstanding about the difference between
customary institutions and rules and customary authority (i.e., chiefs, kings, and the like).
This misunderstanding frequently leads people to conclude, incorrectly, that a discussion
about decentralized control over natural resources implies a return to "antiquity" and the rule
of "chiefs"—as they have often been mythically characterized in the precolonial period—as
the absolute managers of land and other natural resources. This misunderstanding,
unfortunately, has influenced the debate over the management of land in Mozambique.
Several participants representing different levels of "official" government at the recent Second
National Land Conference in Mozambique (Weiss and Myers 1994) expressed alarm at the
idea of empowering local communities, using locally defined rules and procedures, to control
land within their community's jurisdiction. Some participants thought that this would be a
reversion to tribalism and inhibit the fair and open distribution of land. Others stated that it
would be undemocratic. 12 This position—that local authorities and customary rules are
undemocratic—is not a new one. Shortly after independence FRELIMO took the position that
customary institutions, authorities, and rules were backward, representing feudalistic society,
and launched a campaign against them. This campaign had a dramatic effect on social
relations in m1a3 ny rural communities, promoting conflicts and schisms within these
neighborhoods.
We use the terms "smallholders" and "larger commercial farmers" (or interests) to denote
two broad economic categories of farmers. We use this terminology in place of the
FRELIMO party/government-created wordings, "family sector" and "private sector," which
are artificial and do not accurately reflect relations of production in Mozambique. By
government definition, the private sector is made up of farmers who theoretically employ
wage labor, have access to credit, and produce for the market. Private sector farmers are seen
as having "greater capacity" to exploit resources (land, capital, and labor) than the family
sector. The family sector is defined by government to include farmers who do not employ
wage labor (but exploit only family labor), have little access to capital, and do not produce
for the market. They are seen as subsistence producers. Again, these categorizations do not
reflect reality.
Many private-sector farmers have little access to capital, employ family rather than wage
labor, and consume much of what they produce. At the same time, most family-sector
farmers produce for the market and hire labor to augment the family work force. Many
family-sector farmers have access to capital through the market and remittances from off-farm
employment. The categorizations also are destructive because they are used to control or
divert resources to a select14group of individuals; this will become more clear in the discussion
of the case study below. 14 The important points to note are that these categories are not
discreet, but highly porus, and that they are used to control and influence the distribution of
12. Weiss and Myers (1994), especially the comments of Sr. Cadmiel Mutemba, governor of Tete Province;
Sr. Francisco Pateguana, governor of Inhambane Province; and Sr. Lemos Chalulo, district director of
agriculture, Manica Province.
13. See Myers, West, and Eliseu (1993); West and Myers (1992); Geffray (1990); Hanlon (1990); and
Sidaway (1992).
14. See also Tanner, Myers, and Oad (1993); and Myers, West, and Eliseu (1993).