of a violation, and then the next day one meets the person who killed their relative walking freely in the streets, he/she may be tempted to mete out instant justice. It would be different if it had just been done [male participant]. • There is need to dismantle the institutions of violence. There are common denominators in this culture of violence. It is not proper that the same people who masterminded the Matabeleland massacres are still controlling security systems [male participant]. iv. Where do we begin? (If we have to address the past, which past should we take?) • We should begin in the year 2 000 because this must be a manageable period with victims still surviving. There is no fresh memory to recover the truth of what happened during Gukurahundi [some participants]. • It was discriminatory in nature to leave out the Gukurahundi period. This timing would departmentalise the victims [some participants]. • Participants in the end agreed that Gukurahundi could not afford to be left out of any transitional justice mechanism. v. Change of government • “Kugadza nhaka huona dzavamwe.” [“We draw lessons from other experiences.”] “Has it ever happened anywhere that the same government that committed the atrocities can lead transitional justice” [male participant]. vi. Who must lead the process • Parliament must lead the process of reconciliation [some participants]. • The Church is the proper body to do so because that was its primary purpose of existence. 8. OBSERVATIONS The meeting was dominated by people who identified themselves as political activists and human rights activists. At the beginning, participants seemed not ready to open up, but as the discussions progressed, they became active. Taking Transitional Justice to the People – Outreach Report 39