A vehicle for peacebuilding or cloak of impunity? The Zimbabwe National Peace and Reconciliation Commission (original) (raw)
Related papers
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications (IJSRP), 2020
This paper analyses the healing and reconciliation policy in Zimbabwe as embodied by the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission (NPRC). Zimbabwe has a history of cosmetic attempts at healing and reconciliation dating back to the 1980s. Informed by secondary data, the paper explores the strengths and flaws of the current healing and reconciliation policy. It argues that political reforms in Zimbabwe are a prerequisite for peace and reconciliation. With the alleged perpetrators of the atrocities still in power, the ideals of justice, peace, healing and reconciliation are difficult to achieve. The NPRC remains an excellent blueprint but without political will, an adequate budget, effective visibility, survivor inclusion, truth telling, justice and unity the policy will be ineffective. The inclusion of stakeholders such as traditional leaders, faith based organisations, civic society and survivors are crucial for the effectiveness and sustainability of the process. For Zimbabwe to have an effective healing and reconciliation process a balance must be found between retributive justice and reconciliation. Transformative and restorative justice is best suited for the Zimbabwe scenario due to the political power dynamics, history of violence and previous failed attempts at reconciliation. This approach will result in restoring affected communities and the involvement of different stakeholders.
Journal of African Studies and Development
The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of transitional justice processes in Zimbabwe using a case of the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission (NPRC). The NPRC is the first Commission constitutionally mandated to implement the transitional justice processes in Zimbabwe. The research employed a qualitative research methodology and a case study design of the NPRC was used. Purposive sampling method was used to identify research participants. Data was collected using key informant interviews and documentary analysis. The research participants were drawn from the NPRC and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). The findings of the study showed that the NPRC was far from meeting its mandate as enshrined in the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013) and the NPRC Act. The key issues of transitional justice include reparations, prosecutions, and truth telling. The major challenges noted included financial, political, and lack of visibility at grassroots levels.
Towards a framework for resolving the justice and reconciliation question in Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe has never had meaningful and comprehensive programmes to provide justice in the many issues that cascade from conflict and violence in the nation. What has been done, amounts to armistices rather than transitional justice mechanisms. Consequently, Zimbabwe has not seriously dealt with the primary sources of conflict and violence that date back to colonial times. The rhetoric of unity premised on amnesia has been privileged over effective practical healing and reconciliation mechanisms that address the root causes of recurrent human rights violations. Indemnities, amnesties and presidential pardons have been used to protect perpetrators of conflict and violence. This article attempts to explore key issues and challenges around the healing and reconciliation question by exposing the contending perspectives and issues provoked by the adoption of the new constitution in Zimbabwe and the setting up of the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission (NPRC). Theoretically, the article posits that the very logic that informs the construction of ‘the political’ (as a domain of political values and incubator of political practices), which privileges notions of ‘the will to power’ and the ‘paradigm of war’, makes conflict and violence to be accepted as normal. Practically, the article advances ideas of ‘survivor’s justice’ as opposed to the traditional ‘criminal justice’ that fragments a society emerging from a catalogue of conflicts and violence into simplistic ‘perpetrator’ and ‘victim’ binaries. Survivor’s justice privileges political reform as a long-lasting solution involving reconstitution of ‘the political’ itself.
Post-Mugabe Justice: A Critical need for Truth & Reconciliation Commission
This paper interrogates conditions by which deeply divided societies such as Zimbabwe can move forward through a recognition paradigm often used by Truth Commissions (TCs). The study is located within a dispute that troubled societies cannot fully reconcile as long as pre-existing grievances are not addressed. The principal argument is that there have been human rights abuses under President Mugabe’s presidency and the task of addressing the country’s traumatic past can be effectively executed through the mechanism of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The study considers, how after the country’s turbulent history, a TRC can enable Zimbabweans to come into terms with what happened, consequently, settle for a new social contract that seeks to bring justice to victims and survivors while also healing the nation’s psyche. To achieve this, the study examines what happened under Mugabe’s presidency by means of conceptualising primary and secondary data on postcolonial Zimbabwe. Findings suggest that there have been abuses that may have left the country divided and wounded, requiring an institutional response to deal with the past as a means of creating a positive shared memory. Findings also highlight that reparative justice has become more of an imperative as victims become more aware of their rights.
Reframing post-Mugabe justice: A critical need for a truth and reconciliation commission
African Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 2015
This paper interrogates conditions by which deeply divided societies such as Zimbabwe can move forward through a recognition paradigm often used by Truth Commissions (TCs). The study is located within a dispute that troubled societies cannot fully reconcile as long as pre-existing grievances are not addressed. The principal argument is that there have been human rights abuses under President Mugabe’s presidency and the task of addressing the country’s traumatic past can be effectively executed through the mechanism of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The study considers, how after the country’s turbulent history, a TRC can enable Zimbabweans to come into terms with what happened, consequently, settle for a new social contract that seeks to bring justice to victims and survivors while also healing the nation’s psyche. To achieve this, the study examines what happened under Mugabe’s presidency by means of conceptualising primary and secondary data on postcolonial Zimbabwe....
Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation in Africa: Issues and Cases'(2004)
Afr. Stud. Q.
This essay identifies a number of problematic issues concerning transitional justice and restorative justice in particular and suggests that they can be fruitfully explored through thoughtful examination of the truth-seeking projects of this issue's case countries: South Africa, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. One debate is whether political transitions genuinely require a unique type of justice or whether transitional justice results from a mere political choice which compromises justice. A second issue concerns transitional justice's goals. Related to this issue is the lack of clarity concerning the criteria for a successful transitional judicial structure. A third debate is whether truth commissions do actually bring healing and reconciliation among former enemies. Finally, there is a set of very practical concerns that need attention: what are the ideal balances between trials and truth commissions, domestic and international initiatives, efficiency and effectiveness? Pardon rather than punishment, or pardon for the many alongside punishment of the few, has become a trend for transitional societies coming out of eras marked by intrastate conflict. Restorative justice, which favors reconciliation among former foes over punishment of perpetrators of crimes, has been increasingly applied since 1974, with truth commissions implemented in approximately two dozen countries around the world. Most prominent among these in Africa has been South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but Rwanda, Sierra Leone, the Central African Republic, Ghana, Morocco and Nigeria have also embarked on "truth telling" processes that emphasize reconciliation. Moreover, the Kenyan government GRAYBILL& LANEGRAN 2 African Studies Quarterly
Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation in Africa: issues and cases
African Studies Quarterly, 2004
This essay identifies a number of problematic issues concerning transitional justice and restorative justice in particular and suggests that they can be fruitfully explored through thoughtful examination of the truth-seeking projects of this issue's case countries: South Africa, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. One debate is whether political transitions genuinely require a unique type of justice or whether transitional justice results from a mere political choice which compromises justice. A second issue concerns transitional justice's goals. Related to this issue is the lack of clarity concerning the criteria for a successful transitional judicial structure. A third debate is whether truth commissions do actually bring healing and reconciliation among former enemies. Finally, there is a set of very practical concerns that need attention: what are the ideal balances between trials and truth commissions, domestic and international initiatives, efficiency and effectiveness? Pardon rather than punishment, or pardon for the many alongside punishment of the few, has become a trend for transitional societies coming out of eras marked by intrastate conflict. Restorative justice, which favors reconciliation among former foes over punishment of perpetrators of crimes, has been increasingly applied since 1974, with truth commissions implemented in approximately two dozen countries around the world. Most prominent among these in Africa has been South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but Rwanda, Sierra Leone, the Central African Republic, Ghana, Morocco and Nigeria have also embarked on "truth telling" processes that emphasize reconciliation. Moreover, the Kenyan government GRAYBILL& LANEGRAN 2 African Studies Quarterly
The International Journal of Business and Management, 2020
Introduction This paper grapples with the theoretical conundrum as confronted by post conflict and authoritarian rule and the politics behind the endeavour to get historical accountability for gross violations of human rights. Zimbabwe has never enjoyed peace in the last one hundred years of its history, with repeated conflicts accompanied by gross human rights violations that span from the 1890s the pre-colonial days to the liberation struggle of 1960s to 1979, this was then followed by the internal strive popularly known as Gukurahundi-the state orchestrated massacre of ZAPU supporters in