as well as celebrated, and will have to conduct an appraisal of how the history of the struggle was subsequently directed to service the ruling party’s agenda. Memory requires acknowledgement, and much of what has happened in terms of human rights violations, organised violence and torture in Zimbabwe in the post-independence era has been successfully suppressed. Determining what needs to be acknowledged, and how that acknowledgement is carried out, requires a sensitive interaction with victims and survivors. Victims and human rights activists are often deeply offended by efforts to create an “official story”, a State-generated narrative about the past. Sometimes, transitional justice strategies — such as the establishment of a truth commission — are seen as both a necessary step toward remembrance but also an insufficient one. The challenge from this perspective is to “never forget” what has happened to victims of past human rights abuse. This will inevitably result in ‘contested truths’, and also involve struggles over what will be taught in schools, how victims will be remembered, and whether the voices of victims will continue to be heard, even after the publication of a truth commission report or the successful trial of a perpetrator. Even if history books tell the stories of victims, remembrance should engage people in a dynamic, vibrant, and lasting dialogue not just about the past — the facts and their significance — but also about the way this past informs the present, which in turn allow societies to better prepare for the future.32 (b) Broadening the transitional justice debate in Zimbabwe’s civil society The role of non-State actors in the promotion and influencing of transitional justice options remains a considerably under-studied area. In terms of credibility and legitimacy for the processes employed, however, meaningful civil society engagement and support is increasingly recognised as a critical precondition for effective implementation of transitional justice options. Exactly what this entails is moot, but there is some anecdotal consensus that this must go beyond an exclusive or principal engagement with ‘organised’ civil society. Zimbabweans’ own experience in terms of the debate on constitutional reform in 1999 and 2000 stands them in good stead in this regard. Despite its limitations, the constitutional debate was a widespread and largely participatory process, involving a broad cross-section of Zimbabwe civil society. Despite efforts to control and manipulate by government, it is argued that the processes employed enabled ordinary Zimbabweans to make an informed choice during the referendum. Civil Society and Justice Symposium The organisations gathered at the Johannesburg symposium in August 2003 recognised the importance of civil society speaking with ‘one voice’ regarding these difficult and sensitive issues, especially if its positions and arguments were to have any influence in a prospective political settlement or transitional arrangement. Consequently, these organisations made a commitment to actively promote discussion and debate about the issues contained in the ‘Declaration’ amongst their members and constituents. In addition, it was recognised that a host of other civil society organisations and structures that were not present at the symposium needed to be included in the process. 32 ibid., pp. 25–26. 17