         emphasis on restorative penalties; viewing the problem as communal where collective values were violated as opposed to conflict between individuals; enforcement of decisions secured through social pressure; no recourse to professional legal representation; decisions are confirmed through rituals aimed at reintegration as opposed to written orders; the rules of evidence and procedure are flexible; rituals, rites and symbols are used aiming to consolidate peace and the restoration of order; traditional arbitrators are appointed from within the community on the basis of status or lineage; and, there is a high degree of public participation (Igreja et al. 2008). 4.7 Comparison with Zimbabwe So how does Zimbabwe compare with the rest of the world and Africa in particular? In making any kind of comparison it is necessary to point out that Zimbabwe has had one major transition already; that from colonial settler rule in 1980, and this followed a very bitter and violent civil war. The regime in place in 1980 was civilian-institutional in a sense, but was also a renegade regime after 1965 and the Unilateral Declaration of Independence. Colonial rule had lasted nearly 100 years, but the illegal Smith regime only 25 years. The current regime has been in power since 1980, and materially in power, notwithstanding the short five years of the Inclusive Government under the Global Political Agreement (GPA) of 2008. It can be argued that the GPA represented yet another transition, but many would argue not, and see this more in the nature of a peace treaty to create a transition. It might also be argued that the Unity Accord of 1987 was also a transition, but again some would argue that this was merely a peace accord leading to a government of national unity of some kind. The point here is to suggest that, whilst 1980 can be clearly argued to be a transition, the other points in time do not strongly support the notion of any transition as the ZANU PF party has remained the majority power in all these political accommodations, and remains in power today. Hence it seems fair to conclude that Zimbabwe is in a pre-transitional state currently. Additionally, classifying the current regime according to the typology used in the analysis above is also tricky. Is the Zimbabwe regime civilian-institutional, civilian-individual, or military-institutional? It seems that all three forms co-exist, a state that has been characterized as a securocracy (Mandaza. 2016). Whilst all the forms of a civilianinstitutional state exist, it is evident that the President wields extraordinary power, but power granted within a civilian-institutional framework, with the powers granted under a constitution. It is also evident that the military also wield enormous power and influence, but it is often unclear whether this at their initiative or as proxy for the Executive. However, this may matter little for considering human rights and transitional justice as there is little dispute that the state is authoritarian in all material ways. So, in examining transitional justice in Zimbabwe, this section will deal with the period since 1980, and accept that there were a number of transitional justice initiatives in the period prior to this, as indicated in Section 1, but will not deal with these. There has been brief reference 36