Transitional Justice: An urgent quest

Obituaries
In the last few weeks we have reflected on reconciliation. We have met with many people who find more questions than answers in these discussions and the suggestions we make.

In the last few weeks we have reflected on reconciliation. We have met with many people who find more questions than answers in these discussions and the suggestions we make.

Dzikamai Bere,Prosper Maguchu

In our polarised society, solutions for one group create problems for the other, hence the dialogue must always continue. Our suggestions in this area can never be exhaustive. They are not expert solutions – far from it.

They are part of a conversation that we all must engage in. As alluded to, this conversation is fraught with contradictions and seems to excite more questions.

These contradictions sometimes lead to the categorisation of different transitional justice measures as soft justice, and others as hard justice. What can we make out of these questions and contradictions?

Issues of reconciliation and national healing are sometimes regarded as the soft aspects of transitional justice while issues of institutional reform are arguably the hardcore of transitional justice. As a result, the aspects that call for accountability are snubbed.

As such, it has become difficult for any transitional justice measures to be comprehensive and holistic. Different sectors of society always fight to protect themselves from their perceived opponents, hence reconciliation appears to us to be a very important issue.

How can people terrorised by their own government for two decades ever trust that government again? Transitional justice invites all of us to ask, and search for strategies to such challenges.

At the same time, members of the ruling elite are always suspicious of those pushing for transitional justice because they believe transitional justice tools can be manipulated for political gain. In Guatemala, the military contested the use of the phrase; “Truth Commission” because they feared that the commission would be used for witch-hunting.

In the end they settled for “Commission for Historical Clarification” because they believed this would restrict the Commission to matters of history and not accountability.

On the other hand, those in opposition often believe that transitional justice is actually about regime change, and that there can never be transitional justice without regime change. Often, when they push for transitional justice, the belief is that such measures must force the ruling elite to relinquish power over key institutions such as security.

Sometime ago we happened to be part of a team of researchers who visited communities to find out their perceptions on how Zimbabwe can effectively deal with the constantly prevailing problem of violence.

In most meetings, participants who were political activists were convinced that transitional justice must be about removing the current administration.

To them, issues concerning reform of institutions had the primary goal of ensuring that there is political transition. There is absolutely nothing wrong with such a goal, except that it is NOT the goal of transitional justice to change governments.

This confusion erroneously contributes to the suspicion in which issues of transitional justice are held.

Justice advocates must have a vision beyond the next government and beyond the actors of today, because we know from history that the heroes of today can be the villains of tomorrow, and victims today can be tomorrow’s perpetrators, as long as the culture and the structures that mould it have not been transformed.

Transitional justice must not focus on inaugurating a new government. It must focus on inaugurating a new culture of doing things, for all — state and non-state actors.

At a very basic level, this is what ordinary Zimbabweans talk about when they address issues of transitional justice.

In the research referred to above, Zimbabweans who were not political activists spoke clearly and simply about their deepest wishes. The recurring pleas were … “I just want to live in peace with my family”, “I just need my house rebuilt”, “I hope they won’t come back”, “I am tired of making reports but nothing happens”, “I hope I will return home someday”.

These are real voices of real families, who many times, are not political activists. But we cannot deny that most of their suffering is linked to political events and political figures.

Seventy-two percent of human rights violations in independent Zimbabwe are linked to political events.

And yet transitional justice must not be reduced to these events and figures only but rather to a culture that must be transformed.

In transforming the political culture, society must not be waylaid by the compartmentalisation of soft justice and hard justice. The processes are all complex. The emotional healing of a child who witnessed the murder of her mother is as hard as the prosecution of the political leader who ordered the assassination of political opponents.

None of these two must be elevated above the other. Reform of institutions is not an end in itself, but rather it must be part of a comprehensive leadership transformation programme that touches both state and non-state actors.

Many times when the transitional justice discourse is appropriated by political actors, victims and survivors tend to carry political labels, while those who reject these labels are abandoned.

A comprehensive leadership transformation programme must acknowledge the important role of citizens in shaping the leadership. As Father Oskar Wermter writes; better citizens make better leaders, (NewsDay, July 30 2014). What we need in this country are not just new leaders, but rather new citizens who in turn create a new leadership culture.

Transforming a culture requires the commitment of both leaders and citizens in establishing tools of enforcing accountability and achieving transparency. 

Things like institutional reform, vetting and lustration then become tools for the broader agenda.

When we return to the basic question of what ordinary Zimbabweans yearn for, we then learn that transitional justice is not the answer to the problem of violence. Rather, it is a quest for the answer.

Society must open a no limits conversation, dig deeper and reach wider in search for solutions on how to build a more just society.

In the end, we know that societies with accountable leadership will develop faster and can effectively eliminate violence by peaceful means.

Dzikamai Bere & Prosper Maguchu write in their personal capacities. For feedback, please write to: [email protected]