Posted August 2000
This chapter will start with a remark from Mr. Zambezi, one of the oldest people in the area who now plays a leading role in major rituals taking place in the village. The remark is about the importance of cattle against other forms of wealth such as money:
According to the old man, cattle are precious, and parents must never get tired of impressing this point upon their children. Again, cattle are a better form of wealth than anything, including money, whose importance is limited to specific contexts of one's life. The old man is convinced that his words and observation are true, that they bear repeating, and that young people can ignore this advice at their own peril.
But why should cattle be considered to be important and a better form of saving than money in the bank? Secondly and following on the above, why are cattle both widely kept and well-looked after by villagers? This chapter is about cattle as a preferred form of wealth. It argues that cattle, unlike money, are able to perform multiple functions to different people at all times.38 It is for this reason that many in the village desire to have cattle and some convert their other wealth into cattle.
Before the famous drought of 1992, the total number of cattle held by households in the village 1318. Today, there are only 129 head of cattle and there are 6 households with no cattle. Only 4 households have 4 head of cattle each. The average number of cattle per household is therefore 4 and the highest number of cattle owned by one person is 18. Similar to other parts of Zimbabwe, few people in the villagers own more cattle.39 Ownership of cattle remains an ideal which many strive to achieve at all costs as the two cases below suggest.
Mr. Mape used to have cattle bequeathed to him by his father. The cattle died in 1992 following a severe drought that hit most of the country. A year later, Mr. Mape, a builder by profession, built a new home away from where his late father had lived. Once he had done this, he went looking for a job in Masvingo and found one in a construction firm. 'I wanted to raise money to buy cattle.' Before he could raise the required money his contract abruptly terminated when the construction company, like many in Zimbabwe, went bankrupt, since it could not afford the soaring prices of building materials. He came back home 'disappointed', as he told my research assistant. When he eventually got a contract to build a big house for a well-to-do villager, he negotiated to be paid in-kind. He wanted to receive payment in the form of a cow. 'I am a builder, and one of the ways to build wealth is to have cattle' he remarked when I asked why he did not ask for money to buy his own furniture and complete his floor. At the time of research, he was still zealously working to complete his contract.
The second case study relates to Mambu, a liberation war hero. Mambu, who like many in Zimbabwe, had his cattle wiped out by the 1992 drought. At the end of the drought, he went into gold panning, one of the most hazardous occupations that claims the lives of many aspiring young men. Gold panning is also legally dangerous and those caught panning are given 2-year jail terms. These two risks however, did not prevent Mambu from going ahead. His vision was focused:
I do not interpret Mambu's action as an index of foolishness, although this is tempting. Rather I see this as demonstrating the importance of cattle and the sacrifices ambitious young men are willing to incur to obtain wealth.
While some cattle owners may choose to keep their own animals because they want to monitor their stock, others practice what is called kuronzera. The origins of the cattle keeping Kuronzera system are not well. 'We just inherited this custom from our elders', remarked the village head when quizzed when exactly the kuronzera institution started. It is more likely that the custom started in the colonial period following the impoverishment and sedentarization of rural people to make them serve the needs of colonial administration and agriculture.40 Whatever its origins, the institution is now widely accepted. It accords to the recipient, the rights to enjoy management benefits which include access to dairy products, use of cattle as draught power and access to the manure. But these privileges carry with them the responsibilities for the animals on the part of the recipient, chief of which is to provide adequate grazing and health care and to relay to the 'donor' up-to-date information on the condition of cattle, including how many would be in heat! People say that the owner of cattle reserves the right to promptly recover his cattle should he detect any abuse. However, I never came across a situation nor heard of one, where a patron recovered his cattle from an abusive client. But this could be that I spent too little time in the field to observe this dynamic. Moreover, people say there is no time-frame regarding when the cattle should be returned. One client, Musha, had kept the cattle for more than 10 years. As a matter of appreciation, for the service rendered, the patron courteously donates, upon retrieving his cattle and whatever they would have produced, one or two beasts. Such cattle are referred to as n'ombe dzedanga, or 'cattle for service'. Mr. Musha received a cow as a sign of appreciation from his patron.
People say, rather casually, that kuronzera is meant to assist households which are wealthy but do not own cattle. This is the explanation one frequently gets from wealthy families. However, I came across cases where cattle were loaned to households which had their own cattle. Mr. Jodhi gave cattle to his distant relative who had his own. I also came across households whose only cattle were those made possible by kuronzera. What then are the reasons for this practice? There are three reasons which people proffer when pressed.
Some farmers say they do that because they cannot look after the cattle themselves. This would be more the case during the agriculture season when there are pressing labor demands. Mr. Jodhi said he simply could not afford looking after the cattle himself. 'I am not employed, and can not afford to hire a laborer', he remarked why he dispatched his cattle to distant relatives who now stay in the resettlement areas.
Some give their cattle to clients because they want to minimize risks associated with frequent drought and diseases. The evidence for this was highest during dry years culminating in the severe drought of 1992. During the research, Mr. Shumba gave cattle to relatives living in Mushandike Resettlement where there were better pastures, good rainfall and rare disease outbreaks.
Finally, some villagers loan cattle because they want to hide their wealth from competing close relatives. This is more frequent among siblings residing in one locality. Ms. Mawe, a very old lady loaned her cattle to a distant relative in another village. She had received the cattle as inheritance from her father and wanted to prevent her young brother from claiming their portion of that wealth. Her younger brother said he would find ways to reclaim his share.
Whatever the reasons for the kuronzera institution, it serves the donor as much as it serves the recipient. It does not serve only the poor as is alleged by wealthy families. It is perhaps its ability to serve the needs of both client and patrons as well as those of cattle, that explains why kuronzera continues to exist and remain popular among all farmers. The section below examines why people prefer to keep their wealth in the form of cattle
Cattle, unlike money, can be used as draught power. People say the ownership of cattle enables one to plough his or her own field. In the village, there are six households that, although having, land, are always vulnerable to poverty and hunger.
These households are vulnerable partly because they have no cattle of their own. This is made clear from a remark from one of them, Mr. Koka
It is not just that cattle can be used for draught power that makes them an attractive form of saving. Cattle provide agricultural autonomy and control to those households that own them. Mr. Shoko, the village spokesperson, has 8 head of cattle which are adequate for draught power purposes. Because he has draught power, he is able to synchronize crop planting and the rainfall season. In a normal season, he can produce for both consumption and sale. The situation is rather different for his brother, nicknamed Mape, who neither owns cattle nor has money to hire them. Mape has to borrow cattle from his brother. But since Mr. Shoko wants to maximise the use of his cattle to plough his own land, it is always the case that he has completed his own ploughing. In a normal season, Mape is therefore only able to produce for his own consumption. Clearly, it is the ownership of cattle, among other things, that gives Mr. Shoko any edge over his brother.
That the ownership of cattle gives one control over agriculture is further illustrated in the case of tractors that have been introduced to facilitate ploughing among rural farmers. Tractors have been introduced in communal lands by the government which is aware of the acute livestock shortage in the country. Each villager is entitled to two hectares of ploughing by tractor, but because there are only 2 tractors in the whole district, villagers requiring urgent ploughing have had to wait, in some cases, more than a year before their turn came. Thus, the households that have been able to do better are either those who command cattle or have the money to bribe the tractor drivers so that they are given priority services.
A major reason why people keep cattle is to safeguard their image in society. Usually villagers classify people into two categories. Those in the village who plough their fields well and are able to deal with weeding successfully are considered to be good and hardworking farmers.41 In contrast, those who because they have no cattle, leave most of their arable land fallow, cannot deal with weeds and produce less, are generally condemned as lazy people who only want external assistance. 'We know them', remarked Mr. Jodhi speaking about poor households which cannot plough all their arable land. 'They know that their mother (the state) will rescue them. They want to be fed by the state.' This is a painful characterization which all villagers do not want and strive to avoid. 'It is like being called a witch when you are not,' remarked Mambu, adding that he would do anything to have his own cattle to ensure that he and his family never remained at the center of such putrid generalizations. At the time of research, Mambu had secured two head of cattle. Arguably, psycho-cultural factors play a part in the manner in which people save and the form of that particular saving.
Compared to money, cattle's uses as immediate as they are ongoing. People say, on the one hand, that, cattle take care of one's future needs, providing a source of livelihood after the end of formal employment. We have already heard this point from the old man cited in the beginning of this chapter. But villagers also pointed out that cattle take care of everyday needs unlike banked money whose use and access may be at a time in the future. It does that in a way that is dramatic. An old lady, Ms. Mupfu summarized why cattle remain an important form of saving:
People of course do not slaughter their cattle because they lack relish for their food. In fact, I never came across or heard of a case where a person slaughtered an ox to provide meat to his homestead. Such statements, as the one above, are therefore an exaggeration. It is possible that these villagers exaggerate to make the point that cattle's uses run across and are not limited to the future. Thus, it is their ability to be tapped for everyday use that make cattle a preferred form of saving and wealth.
Cattle also serve more people including those who do not own any. The major difficulty that villagers have with money is that it is often a property of one person, who may confine its use to his on immediate family. Cattle, by comparison, can be loaned to others - we saw evidence of this in the beginning of this chapter - and provide a variety of other services to other members of the kin group. I have already given an example of Mr. Mape who benefited from his brother's cattle. Cattle can also be used by one's neighbor. The six households who do not have their own cattle sometimes receive assistance from cattle owners who are their neighbors.
People also prefer cattle because it is a visible form of wealth, unlike banked money. In the village wealth, is still measured in terms of visible attributes, like cattle. People say that a fat bank balance does not mean anything in village politics or determining who is the big men in the village. Cattle can do this. Their display cattle wealth easily solves the problem of identifying who is the big men in the village and who is a poor person. When asked to nominate the most important person in the village, people always cite Mr. Denga, the peasant with the highest number of cattle. For those young people who want to evade the charge of being regarded as poor and for those who have ambition to be regarded as important in the village, cattle ownership - at least for now - provides a route to this goal. 'Anything else,' remarked Mambu, 'leads to poverty and ridicule'
In the village, cattle are a preferred form of wealth. Villagers keep them for ritual purposes, such as funerals and marriage payments. But people also value cattle because they provide draught power, especially for ploughing. They also value cattle on account of their capacity to serve the interests of the group rather than of one individual. Moreover, people value cattle because these have a capacity to generate more wealth than any other valuable. Finally, cattle are valued because they provide a visible sign of achievement. Clearly, cattle are valued because they continuously provide multiple services to the individual and the community. It is for this reason that people save them diligently in the manner described above. But people do not just save cattle, although this is a very popular form of saving. They also save food. In the next chapter, I examine how they save food.
39The same conclusion has been reached by E. Madzudzo and Rhawkes, 1996. Cattle and grazing as challenges in community based natural resources management programme.
40H. Moyana, 1984. The Political Economy of Land in Zimbabwe; B.Kinsey, 1982. Forever Gained : resettlement and land policy in Zimbabwe; R. Gaidzanwa, 1984. Promised Land.
41E. Madzudzo, and V Dzingirai, 1999. Big Men and Campfire.
42C. Vijfghuzien, 1998. The People you live With. Wanginengen, DPhil. Research.Saving to death: Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 | Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Chapter 10 | Chapter 11 | Bibliography
 
|