However, irrespective of the outcome of the challenges to the election results, ZANU (PF) must solve the issue of good governance in order to attain international respectability and the re-engagement of the international community. This means a reversal of its whole style of governing, adherence to the rule of law, an end to political violence and repression, opening of the press and media space, and a cessation of all interference with citizens’ basic freedoms. This would open the Government to the possibility of massive protest and civic pressure. It is in this context that some have advanced the most sinister interpretation of the current campaign of displacements, and an interpretation that combines most of the previous theories. It is predicated on the observation that the greatest risk to repressive governments comes when they seek to liberalise. Here, the major problem revolves wholly around security. In the likely context of rising inflation and huge cost increases, the informal sector is a very probable vector for political discontent, and is already the base for civic and political party recruitment. It is probable that the government sees the risk in liberalising (solving the “governance” problem) in the context of rising dissatisfaction over hugely diminished livelihoods, and must seek to control this risk. Putting this together, the elimination of risks requires moving the informal sector from the urban areas into the rural areas. This would require an operation on the current scale: remove the sources of income, and consequently remove their places of abode. Destroying livelihoods without removing a now highly angered population would not solve the security problem, so the second step of destroying their homes becomes necessary. In consequence, a significantly large proportion of the urban population is neutralised as both a potential economic cost and a potential political risk. It is also possible that the recent acceptance by the Government of international drought-relief is partly in service of this strategy, and that the Government will try to hide the social costs of the forced evictions in the assistance to persons needing drought relief. This last theory is contentious, and whether it, or variants of it, have substance remains a matter of speculation. One thing is clear, and, that is, none of the Government’s explanations satisfactorily explains the scale, the haste, or the violent implementation of the current displacements. The lack of warning, the use of weapons of war and riot police, the deliberate brutality and the destruction of people’s homes and personal possessions, the total lack of provision for future shelter, and the wanton disregard for people’s health and well-being, strongly suggest a widespread and systematic campaign, no matter what the explanation. Litigation brought challenging the legality of the campaign A number of court actions have been brought challenging the legality of the action taken by the police under Operation Murambatsvina. The Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights have brought two cases to court. The first case involved the demolition of buildings housing members of the Dare Remusha Co-operative, which had been located in Hatcliffe outside Harare. This co-operative had about two thousand members. On 26 May 2005, the police came to Hatcliffe and told members of the co-operative to evacuate their houses and to start demolishing