53 However, according to our survey and the subsequent consultations, Zimbabwean youth are not indifferent and unconcerned about politics. The youth clearly want to be involved in politics, but they want this involvement to be meaningful and beneficial to all, not merely a selected few. The basis for involvement should not be based on the liberation struggle, and they believe that it is necessary to move from blind adherence to this ideology. In this respect, these youth display all the thinking of modern democrats, and even show a critical attitude to liberal democracy: they clearly believe in social justice and see a strong role for the state in providing the services that will facilitate social justice. The work with the youth also shows that they have considerably more political maturity than might be expected, and have a much deeper level of understanding democracy and governance than is commonly accepted. In many societies in transition, and it is debatable, as we said earlier, whether Zimbabwe is in transition at all, it is the youth that chart the new direction. It was so in South Africa, and has been the case in Serbia, Georgia and the Ukraine, and, on the views of the youth involved in this exercise, Zimbabwe can take hope from the mature, democratic principles of its youth. The views of these youth do not conform to Gay’s view that they should be conforming to the “vicious” circle mentality, and rather would conform to the “virtuous” circle in the absence of all the freedoms that this circle should require. They do not belong to the better-off, but to the dispossessed and unemployed, but they nonetheless are democrats at heart and in aspiration. On the victims and democracy Clearly the victims of organised violence and torture are also unsatisfied with democracy in Zimbabwe. From the victims’ point of view, the government’s stance that elections are held regularly and the citizens elect their representatives is an insufficient measure of democracy, and is only a small part of the democracy they would like to see prevailing. They insist that there is a need to ensure that everyone has access to the political process, access to information, fair and equitable reporting, personal security, employment, health care, adequate food and access to social networks. It was unequivocally stated by the victims that Zimbabwe is a democracy in name only; as they said, in reality, Zimbabweans live under autocratic rule, where one person makes the decisions and everyone else is expected to toe the line102. Unsurprisingly, the victims placed a high priority on eliminating the culture of fear, and felt strongly that this is what is inhibiting Zimbabweans from taking a stand when their rights and freedoms are being infringed. This provided a somewhat different interpretation from the 2004 Afrobarometer survey for the current apathy seen in Zimbabwe. As the victims repeatedly pointed out, the political climate is not conducive for any opposition to succeed to political power, let alone to adequately campaign. The victims also pointed out repeatedly the ways in which the basic freedoms, promised in 1980, have been eroded almost completely by a plethora of draconian laws, partisan policing, and unsympathetic courts. The victims here are clear about the national project and what needs to be done to restore legitimacy to the nation. Most were victims because they were active in the process of advocating change, and, although there were attempts to silence their voices, it is apparent from the views summarised above that they will be a force in the future, just as the youth have shown that they too intend to have a say. And the voices of the victims of organised violence and torture will not merely be a force in contesting impunity and demanding accountability, they will be a force in defining the nature of democracy in Zimbabwe. As this small study shows, their definitions of democracy and its constituents place them in the main stream of the Zimbabwe project to develop a modern African democracy. 102 The election of Central Committee members at the 2004 Zanu PF Congress supports this. Although the members are supposed to be voted in, in reality the Presidium has the right to vet who can and cannot be a member. Here, Jonathan Moyo, who was widely seen as Robert Mugabe’s golden boy, suffered from the consequences of not following a Presidential decree, as he was voted into the central committee, but was vetted out by the inner circle of the Praesidium. IDASA: Zimbabwe at the Cross-Roads: Views of Zimbabwean citizens on democracy and transitional justice.