begun in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, for example, has documented a significant number of court orders that have been defied by respondents, and/or simply ignored by the police. It is important that a consolidated list be generated that can be used to identify patterns of contempt, in terms of the types and location of cases, as well as the responsible individuals and structures. This record is important not only in terms of illustrating the deteriorating respect for the rule of law, but subsequently for identification of appropriate persons and issues for investigation, subpoena and questioning. In terms of the courts, it is also important to start systematically recording bias and improper behaviour by court officials and bad judgments from judges and magistrates. This is easier in the High and Supreme Courts, where records of trials and judgments are more regularly kept as a result of transcripts and (albeit limited) media coverage. For a number of reasons, the situation in the country’s magistrate’s courts is more difficult. Any new political dispensation in Zimbabwe may look to see how it can remove individuals responsible for serious misconduct from public sector posts, including the police force, the prison service, the army, intelligence services, and even the judiciary. Human rights organisations have already drawn up extensive lists of named perpetrators of gross human rights violations. These include a considerable number of State security agents. Piecing together the picture of what happened and why will also require developing an appreciation of acts of omission as well as commission. In this regard a more detailed understanding of the responsibilities of security structures, their policies and jurisdictions should be developed. Memorialisation “The struggle for control over the national or ‘collective’ memory lies at the heart of post-conflict or post-authoritarian accountability policies. On a basic level, remembering the past operates to honour those who died or were victimised. Mechanisms for remembering can, however, also contribute to other transitional justice goals including truth-seeking, prevention of future abuses, generating dialogue and discussion about the past, establishing an accurate historical record, listening to the voices of victims, and pursuing goals related to reparations for victims.”31 In Zimbabwe, State-sponsored memorialisation initiatives have focused exclusively on the liberation struggle from colonial rule. In this regard, a number of important initiatives were undertaken by the Zimbabwean State, both in Zimbabwe as well as in neighbouring countries where Zimbabweans lost their lives during the war. Chimurenga populism has been recently and somewhat cynically resuscitated as a mobilisation and legitimising tool for the fast-track land reform, referred to by the government as the ‘Third Chimurenga’. In what one interviewee described as the ‘privatisation’ of the ownership of the struggle, those opposed to the government and ruling party, including many with exemplary ‘struggle credentials’, have been sidelined and their bona fides questioned. This includes the Zimbabwe Liberators Platform which claims a membership of 12,000 former freedom fighters. The issue of memorialisation in a post-ZANU(PF) controlled Zimbabwe presents a number of challenges. The transparent manipulation and selective application of ‘struggle’ identity and credentials by the incumbent regime has fundamentally devalued the contributions made by many Zimbabweans who fought against the colonial authorities. Any new government will have to explore innovative approaches to make sure that the realities of the liberation war are acknowledged 31 ICTJ, ‘Background Paper’, p. 25. 16