The meetings proceeded by way of presentations of the summary findings followed by indepth discussions in a question-and-answer format guided by the presentation and key questions posed before the participants. The paper “Are Zimbabweans Revolting: Risk Aversion Study First Phase” theorised that people’s risk taking/avoidance is differentiated according to gender, age, education, employment, residence (rural or urban), and political affiliation. The paper also theorised that residence and political affiliation might be more central variables in understanding variations in risk taking behaviour in Zimbabwe. Age, gender, education and employment were the other factors identified in the paper as critical in understanding risk aversion. The dissemination meetings attempted to focus on these variables, to get participants’ reactions as well as soliciting views on the following questions:       Why has Operation Murambatsvina had such a long effect, and did it have a rebound effect on the elections in 2008, and was the latter a combination of both OM and the economic decline? Why are women no more risk averse than men? Why should older people become more risk taking over time? Why are the middle class – urban and educated – so risk averse? Why are ZANU-PF supporters much more risk taking than others? Is any of this explained by “political cultures”? Data was recorded during the meetings, transcribed, cleaned and entered into NVIVO where the analysis was done. This analysis began with reading, coding of major themes and word frequency count, and thematic analysis of the emerging themes. 3. Youth views Report 3.1 Chaotic Governance The young people were asked to describe Zimbabwe’s political situation in one word and across all the three sites, the respondents were unanimous that there was chaotic governance in Zimbabwe. Some of the words given by the respondents included “Clueless, Disorder, Poor, Chaotic, Disaster, Volatile, Critical, Unfair, Unstable, Dead, and Hazardous”. The overwhelming majority of respondents indicated they were risk averse and attributed this to the chaotic governance of the country which was pervaded by intimidation of citizens by the state. This results in people becoming increasingly wary of expressing themselves in public, well expressed in the Afrobarometer surveys by the very high percentage of citizens – usually over 80% - who state that they “are always careful about what they say about politics”. This was a key statement in the construction of the risk aversion index (Masunungure et al. 2017).2 The different avenues available for citizens to participate in governance processes are not fully utilised. Previous experiences with token consultation from local councils further dissuade the citizenry from takin an active interest in participating. In one group some respondents cited the example of residents’ association meetings being shunned by residents because residents felt councils repeatedly ignored their views and the consultation processes 2 See again, Eldred Masunungure, Tony Reeler, Richman Kokera, Daniel Mususa, Stephen Ndoma & Heather Koga (2016), Are Zimbabweans Revolting? An examination of Risk-taking and Risk-Aversion since 1999, May 2017. MPOI & RAU. 4