NGO Forum panyaya idzi dze transitional justice9.” How does civil society ensure a satisfactory outcome for victims and survivors in these national processes? Indeed, over 90% of participants were open to both the NPRC and traditional conflict resolution mechanisms working in tandem. This signifies a willingness by the constituency to work with other actors over and above the national processes with considerations to the preparatory work done by civil society within the communities. It could also signify a lack of trust in national processes as responses to the question on the independence of the commission indicated. Considering the dichotomy in participants’ agency (63.4% community, 22.8% political institutions and 13.9% civil society) the 72.3% response rate in the negative in regards to the independence of the commission from governmental and political influence, was interesting. This could indicate a belief that the NPRC will not change the plight of the victim or survivor for the better. The operationalizing of the NPRC can be taken as a positive sign that Zimbabwe is attempting to move forward by breaking the cycle of violence and dealing with the past. What remains to be seen is that, is there enough political will considering the political connotations of revisiting the major conflicts. Nonetheless the recommendations of the respondents of this survey are important in establishing what the people of Zimbabwe want to see in a transitional justice process that could foster true national reconciliation. 9 The above sentence is translated as “we have come far on this journey with the NGO Forum” 17