National healing and reconciliation in Zimbabwe is linked to transitional justice. The International Centre for Justice defines transitional justice as a response to systematic or widespread violations of human rights. It seeks recognition for victims and to promote possibilities for peace, reconciliation and democracy.
Transitional justice is not a special form of justice but justice adapted to societies transforming themselves after a period of pervasive human rights abuses. This approach emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s, mainly in response to political changes in Latin America and Eastern Europe and to demands in both these regions for justice.
At the time, human rights activists and others wanted to address the systematic abuses by former regimes but without endangering the political transformations that were underway. Since these changes were popularly called ‘transitions to democracy’, people began calling this new multidisciplinary field ‘transitional justice’.
To confront the legacy of past human rights abuses with the motive of creating a more just and democratic nation, the importance of transitional justice cannot be overstated. Indeed, as indicated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “The preference for doing nothing is no longer an option”7.
Under Article 7.1 of the GPA, the Parties agreed to consider the creation of a body to properly advise on what mechanisms might be necessary and practicable to achieve national healing, cohesion and unity in respect of victims of pre and post independence political conflicts. The result was the Organ for National Healing and Reconciliation.
A recent opinion poll by the Institute for a Democratic Alternative for Zimbabwe (IDAZIM) revealed that, while 49 percent of people felt that the Organ was created for the benefit of all Zimbabweans, a quarter of all respondents felt it was created specifically to benefit the victims of political crimes and 12 percent thought it was set up solely to help the perpetrators of those crimes.
While gross human rights violations were committed during the colonial era, in the early 1980s, and in the 2000s during the fast track land reform programme, Operation Murambatsvina in 2005 and repeated bouts of election violence, more than half of those surveyed (55%) supported a transitional justice process that focused on the years since 2000 – with just under a quarter (23%) preferring the period from independence to the present day and under one-in-ten (9%) opting for the period from the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) in 1965 to now.
As for what would provide the best method of driving the process of national healing, respondents were split between truth telling and forgiveness, reparations, justice and criminal prosecutions. However, most respondents (62%) believed that all those involved in political violence should be held to account, while a quarter felt that accountability should be confined to ‘those who planned and supervised violence’.
In terms of who should lead the transitional justice process, a plurality of 44 percent answered that the government should spearhead it – well ahead of the support for churches, NGOs, political parties and traditional leaders.
However, not much has been done by the Organ in driving the process of national healing and reconciliation forward. Civil society has done remarkable work in uncovering the public`s preferences on this decisive matter but this critical information has so far not been used to help further the healing process. – www.osisa.org
Post published in: News