5.3 Findings from the study
5.3.1 Theme 1: Resource mobilisation by land reform beneficiaries and communal farmers
5.3.1.4 Provision of labour
The researcher further established from this study that the social capital of the land reform beneficiaries also influenced Tiro and Sambo satellite schools through the provision of labour during the construction of classroom blocks, toilets and teachers’ houses. There was consensus among the school heads, village heads and farmers at both Tiro and Sambo schools that the farmers voluntarily provided labour at the satellite schools. TVH2, a village head in the Tiro community revealed that,
Each household in our community voluntarily contributed to the construction of the classroom blocks and teachers’ houses. The farmers came together to clear the site; it was a bush when the school was pegged by the authorities. We used our own tools to clear the area before foundations could be dug. (Interviewee TVH2, Personal communication, November 3, 2015).
The same occurred at Sambo School, as SVH1, a village head, stated during the semi- structured interview that,
129 We called the villagers to come and work at our school. They participated without any payment. The surrounding villages took turns to come and assist with labour when the school was started. People used to come to help clear the land, mould bricks and fetch water. (Interviewee SVH1, Personal communication, November 10, 2015).
The contribution of the farmers to the building of Sambo school was endorsed by farmer SF3 who stated,
Village heads organised our households to come and provide labour at our school. We worked at the school for at least three hours per week. Due to our large numbers this meant that we could do a lot of work every time we were called to assist. (Interviewee SF3, Personal communication, November 3, 2015).
Thus, the study recognized that when the two satellite schools were established, the surrounding communities voluntarily provided their labour (sweat equity). The school heads corroborated the findings on the participation of farmers in the construction of satellite schools in the semi-structured interviews. TH elaborated that,
The construction of our satellite school relied heavily on the voluntary participation of the farmers. The farmers provided labour starting from the clearing of the land. As a school we did not have money for most of the construction work, ferrying of sand and stones among others, so we called upon the community to assist and they did.
(Interviewee TH, Personal communication, November 2, 2015).
While the head of the Sambo school, SH said, “They engaged the local leadership to facilitate the farmers’ participation in the construction of our classroom block when we started.
Initially the response was overwhelming but now the farmers are not as willing and supportive.” (Interviewee SH, Personal communication, November 9, 2015).
The researcher probed the participants in the focus group discussion at Sambo on the issue raised by the Sambo head, SH, that the farmers were now less willing and supportive. One participant, FGDS2, revealed,
As farmers we did not anticipate the school construction taking many years. Some of the farmers have become weary as the school is taking forever to complete. In addition, the government is not supporting us with resources. This has been made worse by the poor yields which are forcing us to use our time and energy towards
130 other pursuits to bring food on our table. (Focus Group Discussion participant FGDS2, Personal communication, November 10, 2015).
Findings from the focus group discussion at Sambo reveal that the amount of social capital of communal farmers fluctuated. The participants in the focus group discussion showed that their social capital influence on Tiro and Sambo satellite schools was later affected by the yields from their farms, a time period for providing assistance and the view that government needed to invest resources as well. In addition, the voluntary participation by the farmers through the provision of manual labour was reiterated by the focus group discussion participants. In the focus group discussion, the participants went further and listed the jobs that were carried out by the communities voluntarily at the schools.
Plate 5.4 reveals the jobs that the farmers participated in at the Tiro satellite school. The participants stated that they cleared the land, moulded bricks, ferried river and pit sand, fetched water, erected fences and crushed quarry stones in order to provide school infrastructure.
From the preceding empirical evidence, it was established that both communal farmers and land reform beneficiaries provided labour to Tiro and Sambo satellite schools in Zimbabwe.
Plate 5.4 Land reform beneficiaries at Tiro School in Masvingo province and the duties carried out in inserted to the right (Field data:2015)
131 The provision of labour as revealed by the participants in this study shows that there was coordination and cooperation amongst the farmers. Thus, this finding resonates with the conceptualization of social capital proffered by Putnam (1995) that it expedites harmonisation and collaboration for the common benefit of the community. A thriving school like Tiro school as observed in this study is of mutual benefit to the whole Tiro community and surrounding communities. Therefore, it was further recognized that due to the land reform beneficiaries’ stock of social capital, Tiro satellite school received labour for construction and development to a larger extent. Woolcock (2001) concurs that social networks facilitate collective action. The Tiro land reform beneficiaries provision of voluntary labour can be viewed as a collective action. The study established that there was no difference between Sambo communal farmers and Tiro land reform beneficiaries in terms of their social capital ability to facilitate coordination and cooperation at this satellite school.
However, it was noted from this study that the social capital of the communal farmers was less enduring when compared to that of the land reform beneficiaries as the farmers were no longer as participative as they were at the beginning of the construction of the school. The diminishing social capital of the communal farmers in facilitating coordination and cooperation is supported by earlier presented evidence (5.3.1.1) which revealed that Sambo School failed to complete the construction of donated toilets on schedule. Consequently, it can be argued from this study that the social capital of the Sambo communal farmers is less enduring as compared to that of Tiro land reform beneficiaries due to a number of reasons.
Moreover, it can also be reasoned that social capital is like financial, human and natural capital which gets depleted as revealed by the diminishing social capital in the Sambo community. Among the reasons revealed in this study as captured and expounded in Section 5.4 on the reasons for the land reform beneficiaries’ prolonged engagement with satellite schools are: the proximity of land reform beneficiaries’ homestead to each other as well as the school, homage and feelings of indebtedness to the government for giving the farmers the land, nhimbe social networks of the land reform beneficiaries at Tiro, shared meaning or goals, a sense of belonging and the land reform beneficiaries’ resource base. The next section interrogates the information sharing theme which emerged from this study.
132 5.3.2 THEME 2: INFORMATION SHARING AMONG LAND REFORM