and Vejamano (2002 p. 37) cite the several scholars who have looked at the modalities and experiences of these reconciliation efforts (Hayner 1994, 2001; Kritz 1995; Popkin 2000; Roht-Arriaza 1995; Van der Merwe and Dewhirst, 1999). debate precisely how acknowledgements must be communicated for them to be sufficiently credible and effective. There are always debates in the political realm regarding which wrongs must be acknowledged and redressed. Violations of civil and political rights have historically been the focus of both theory and practice, but increasingly scholars argue for the importance of also addressing violations of economic and cultural rights (Mamdani 2000; Sharp 2015; Arbour 2007). Besides acknowledgement what else must be achieved in order for reconciliation to be warranted? Must material forms of harm be redressed? Must retributive justice be achieved? Must the parties forgive? More contentious is the debate about who should decide which process of reconciliation in a given context (McEvoy 2007).. 3. Processes of Reconciliation Once social relationships and physical infrastructure are disturbed by war, fighting and deaths, in the African belief systems cleansing, healing and reconciliation processes are invoked to detoxify the spaces. Therefore, processes aimed at facilitating healing, cleansing and reconciliation are designed to contribute to the improvement of relationships damaged as a result of wrongdoing. A wide range of such processes is examined in the literature. One that is brought up is forgetting (Hughes 2001, Bhargava 2012). Since the past cannot be changed, wrongdoing cannot be undone. Therefore, one might argue, the only way to overcome a painful past is to suppress the memory of it. In Cambodia policies of forgetting in the name of reconciliation were pursued, with the prime minister advising citizens “to dig a hole and bury the past,” in 1999 while granting amnesty from prosecution to Khmer Rouge leaders (Chandler 2003: 310). The tone for reconciliation in Zimbabwe took shape on the eve of independence through the proclamation of the then Prime Minister Robert Mugabe, but true reconciliation remains an outstanding agenda because several violations that followed the post-independence era. a) Apologies Apologizing is perhaps the most explicit way in which wrongdoing can be acknowledged. A wellformed apology requires at least acknowledgement of both the fact of wrongdoing and responsibility by the wrongdoer, as well as an expression of regret or remorse (Tavuchis 1991). Ideally, the wrongdoer directly addresses the victim. This is not possible in all cases, of course, as when victims may have passed away or the tensions may be revived. Apologies made to indirect victims e.g., families of survivors and broader, communities are well established in practice. Lately official apologies made by state entities have become more common, raising questions about the validity and significance of apologetic statements made by representatives on behalf of groups (Harvey 1995, Gibney et al 2008), especially when the events in question lie in the distant past (Pettigrove 2003). However, those theorists who defend the political and moral value of reconciliation more often reject the claim that reconciliation requires forgetting. Instead, these defenders generally claim that knowledge and acknowledgement of wrongdoing, as well as recognition of the victims, are crucial to successful reconciliation. In political contexts, knowledge of basic facts is critical because often victims and the broader political community do not know who was responsible for the wrong suffered, nor the extent of violations committed. Acknowledgement which is the official, public recognition of what happened is often needed to counter official denial of wrongdoing or responsibility for wrongdoing (Weschler 1998). The fears are that often unspoken and suppressed traumas (even for perpetrators) will inevitably reemerge in destructive ways. The more explicit arguments are that the acknowledgement of wrongs and of victims helps heal psychic wounds (van Ness and Strong 2002), enable trust (Gibson 2004), reestablish normative standards for behavior (Walker 2006), and reassert victims as members of the moral or political community (Llewellyn and Howse 1999, du Toit 2000). Apologies are not merely acknowledgements of past wrongdoing and gestures of respect to victims, but also provide evidence of positive change in the wrongdoer(s). Parties who have come to take responsibility for and repudiate past wrongful actions are better candidates for renewed relationships of cooperation and trust (de Greiff 2008). This potential is undermined where apologies are vague, incomplete, or appear insincere. One may reasonably question whether mere admissions that “mistakes were made” (without owning up to responsibility or specifying the mistakes made) or that the speaker “regrets if anyone took offense” (which leaves open the question of whether the action was really wrong) qualify as apologies at all (Smith 2008). The importance of being sensitive to the gendered aspects of apology has also been highlighted (MacLachlan 2013). While apologies are considered to contribute significantly to reconciliation (Brooks 2004, M. Murphy 2011), others worry that they may be used as a substitute for more substantive forms of redress (Corntassel and Holder 2008). Official state apologies for systematic or historic injustices often result only after protracted and heated debate, leaving little political will to move on to other forms of redress which victimized groups While there is already a sense of agreement and common knowledge of the wrongs of the past in Zimbabwe, the approaches and modalities of acknowledgement are yet to be agreed on. Theorists 6