(a) Transitional justice options in Zimbabwe: debates and developments Civil society engagement The debate around transitional justice options in Zimbabwean civil society is embryonic and remains largely confined to a small grouping of non-governmental organisations. Since independence in 1980, a few human rights organisations have focused much of their attention on monitoring and the documentation of violations, seeking where possible some relief through the domestic courts and other local remedial mechanisms. In addition, violations have been recorded and exposed on an ongoing basis by international human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. A handful of criminal and civil matters were dealt with before the courts, and although Zimbabwe’s courts have demonstrated their capacity for independence, and have made judgments that do not favour the government, by and large, justice and accountability considerations for serious human rights violations have fallen on deaf ears. This situation has been compounded in recent years as the judiciary has been politicised and therefore its integrity has been increasingly questioned. The post-colonial State in Zimbabwe has never demonstrated a willingness to address issues of accountability for human rights violations – principally, it is suggested, because it was (and remains) one of the primary perpetrators. Violations perpetrated during the liberation war (by both sides in the conflict) as well as during the 1980s were indemnified and tied to broader national reconciliation objectives. During the 1980s, the context of security concerns – primarily as a result South African sponsored destabilisation – provided a veneer of legitimacy for tough State actions. Violations during this period were also indemnified under the pretext of fostering national reconciliation. Not surprisingly, many Zimbabweans’ perceptions of reconciliation remain at best highly cynical. With the exception of a few organisations that documented and dealt with the large-scale atrocities committed in Matabeleland and the Midlands during the 1980s, and other (largely uncoordinated) efforts to seek relief through the courts, Zimbabwean civil society in general has not been particularly vocal or active in efforts to stamp out malpractices or hold the State accountable for gross human rights violations. Other interventions have included the provision of human rights training and orientation to the local police, but this has not averted the current levels of abuse. With some individual exceptions during the first two decades of independence there has been a systematic failure to take legal responsibility for violations committed by State security agents. Allegations of abuse are generally ignored or denied. When the opportunity arose for widespread debate during the constitutional debates of the late 1990s, justice and accountability considerations were raised implicitly in relation to constitutional reform, but not in relation to retrospective notions of liability. Widespread repression in the wake of the formation of the MDC in 1999 has, however, generated a renewed interest in issues of accountability, institutional transformation and reparation. Any prospects for meaningful developments in this regard, however, are predicated on significant political changes. The notion of reconciliation remains polluted as a result of its expedient political manipulation and its failure to deliver meaningful results. 7