considerations, and the different levels of reconciliation – national/political, community, individual – that require attention if central objectives are to be realised and consolidated. Human rights advocates rarely accept the ‘forgive and forget’ construction of reconciliation, “arguing strongly that true reconciliation must be linked to accountability, justice, and acknowledgement of past crimes.”36 In Zimbabwe, despite opportunities that did not necessarily require a focus on retributive justice options, this approach to reconciliation has been studiously avoided, with the result that the concept has been widely devalued, perhaps irrevocably.37 Although negative attitudes towards reconciliation were demonstrated at the August 2003 symposium, and little attention was given to what must be done in this regard, there is broad consensus within the human rights community that meaningful reconciliation is intended to “generate peace and civic trust – in a context of justice and accountability – among former adversaries”.38 This approach is certainly recognised in the work of the Zimbabwe Civic and Education Trust, which has established a number of Peace Committees across the country. It remains unclear, however, to what extent in the current context these committees are willing or indeed able to address issues of retrospective accountability. Relations with Government – To engage or not engage? Several interviewees felt that the ‘Symposium Declaration’ and follow-up processes needed to be rethought in the evolving Zimbabwean context, especially as prospects for political dialogue evaporated. Although this was not a widespread feeling amongst interviewees, it does reflect broader differences within civil society regarding the most appropriate methodologies in terms of engaging with government. Indeed, reflecting earlier concerns articulated by the MDC, some felt that hard-hitting statements such as the ‘Declaration’ could be counter-productive. When interviews commenced in early April 2004, it was evident that a number of organisations (i.e. ZESN, TIZ, NANGO) advocated an approach of ‘constructive engagement’ with government, arguing that this was the most appropriate way of securing co-operation and concessions. NANGO and ZESN, for example, expended considerable energy and resources on engaging government on legislative reform processes around regulating the NGO sector and electoral reform respectively. The government’s bona fides in this regard have now been fundamentally questioned, as legislative reform in both these areas reflects little of what was discussed or recommended. Despite this, civil society organisations have continued to engage government policy through the parliamentary portfolio committees, which have been greatly enhanced over the last four years through a programme facilitated by the State University of New York. A cross-section of interested civil society parties (i.e. trade unions, NGOs, residents’ associations, etc.), for example, have established a Public Information Rights Forum to engage government on enhancing access to public information. This Forum has met with the relevant Portfolio Committee to discuss concerns and recommendations, but to date has not secured any tangible results. Civil society groups have also vigorously engaged the parliamentary portfolio committees during the recent passage of NGO and electoral ‘reform’ legislation. Although public participation vis-à-vis the lawmaking process has been considerably developed, the extent to which this has extended beyond a limited number of non-governmental organisations remains moot. In addition, the portfolio committees have scarcely provided effective oversight of either the executive or State bureaucracy. 36 ICTJ, ‘Background Paper’, p. 4. ‘Zimbabwe: Why Reconciliation Failed’, in Reconciliation after Violent Conflict: A Handbook, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2003, pp. 34–39. 38 ICTJ, ‘Background Paper’, p. 4. 37 21