need. In such cases apology may amount to a “politics of distraction” (Corntassel and Holder, 2008). displayed (Minow 1998). Attempts to clean past horrors may be offensive to some viewers (Young 2008). Memorials may cynically divert attention from ongoing problems (Blustein 2014) or serve as a rallying point for those who would like to renew the conflict (Barsalou and Baxter 2007). Furthermore, the meanings of memorials change over time, as they are continually reinterpreted by later audiences inhabiting different political circumstances. There is thus no guarantee that a memorial that contributes to reconciliation at one point in time will continue to do so (Blustein 2014). Zimbabwe attempted apologies as a means to foster national healing, reconciliation and nation building but the citizenry is divided on the efficacy of these apologies based on two divergent views. On the extreme hand some segment of the society view statements such as “let the bygones be bygones” and description of gukurahundi as “moment of madness” as good enough for ensuring peace, reconciliation and national healing. On the other, citizens have also claimed that apologies made at local community levels have been more genuine. Such divergences require deeper investigation to find out what the citizens for call for apologies that will create national healing, reconciliation and integration. c) Truth Telling Both apologies and memorials combine an acknowledgment of a troublesome past with the suggestion of an emotional reaction to that past, such as remorse, regret or grief. Even without emotional, the communication of the facts of the past can contribute to reconciliation. Individual victims and survivors often find themselves unable to move on when they are uncertain about crucial facts of the past. They ask, what precisely happened to their loved ones? Who exactly committed the violent act? Who gave the order? Where were their remains buried? etc. In political contexts, wrongdoing is often officially denied through refusal to acknowledge wrongs and naming the agents of the state responsible for violations. The possibility for truth telling in Zimbabwe is compromised by the state’s involvement in the past violence. b) Memorials Memorials take a number of different forms, such as monuments, preserved sites of events, museums, archives, ceremonies or educational activities (Barsalou and Baxter 2007, Zembylas 2011). They may be officially or privately sponsored but shared their focus on memory. Scholars argue that memorials of past wrongdoing have the potential to play a number of different roles in the process of reconciliation. (1.) They help preserve the memory of the past event, which counters those who would deny or forget. (2.) They consolidate shared emotions (grief or remorse) and communal understanding of history. (3.) They reshape a sense of collective identity (Harjes 2005) which Zimbabwe could build on to rally its nationhood (4.) Groups responsible for wrongdoing may demonstrate a willingness to acknowledge responsibility for such wrongs, respect for the victims, and commitment never to repeat such misdeeds (Barsalou and Baxter 2007, Blustein 2014). And5. They encourage self-respect, show fidelity to the dead, and help preserve their sense of identity for victims (Blustein 2014). Some scholars claim that truth telling can end ongoing suffering of victims and survivors (Zalaquett 1995). Truth and reconciliation commissions, unlike trials are the institutional modelled to promote reconciliation in a fractured society and are usually set up for this express purpose. Nevertheless, criminal trials may offer a significant sense of healing and satisfaction to victims but these should be supported by the political will of the government of the day. In fact, reconciliation may in fact be the antithesis of prosecution (Gentilucci, 2005). It can counter and prevent certain forms of denial (Zalaquett 1995, Dyzenhaus 2000). Truth telling may also serve as a form of reparation for those not actually implicated in crimes. Zimbabwe embarked on a series of memorialisation processes that draw heavily from the liberation struggle. Therefore, the country confronted nation building using national monuments, the national shrines such as the national heroes acre, Nyadzonia and Chimoio and the use galas for the purpose of remembrance of the fallen heroes of the liberation struggle (Machakanja, 2009). Those who perished in the post-independence skirmishes have however not received state memorial accreditation. In addition, the Independence Day has served as a medium of nation building however, there are contestations around the history of the liberation struggle. Such contestations do shift the reconciliation and nation building terrain and hence scoping into citizens ‘perceptions and interpretation of these symbols of memory through a baseline study is vital. Opponents argue that truth‐telling, rather than providing healing, may reopen old wounds and divisions in society. Certainly, in circumstances where a state is not yet fully stable, where peace has been miraculously achieved by means of a settlement or otherwise, then truth‐telling would appear to present more dangers than benefits (e.g. with the promotion of collective ‘amnesia’ in post‐Franco Spain and Mozambique). The examples of the South African, East Timor point to the opposite. Another major drawback in truth telling commissions is deterrence. Deterrence is a kind of pre‐ emption, a strong statement directed at potential future perpetrators so that the crimes described in the report are never committed again. No fewer than four Latin American truth commission reports have employed However, memorials are frequently surrounded by controversy, as parties disagree over the version of history put forward or the manner in which it is 7