Zimbabwe: Talks Must Address Violence, Displacement

If talks between Zimbabwe’s government and the opposition are to help Zimbabweans regain the kind of society they deserve, they will sooner or later have to address a number of pivotal issues head-on.

First, Robert Mugabe’s ruling Zanu-PF and Morgan Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) must demonstrate their commitment to restoring Zimbabweans’ right to life, liberty and the freedom to choose their own government, rather than cynically using the negotiation process to share out positions of power among themselves.

To prove that commitment, negotiators must address the most immediate consequences of recent political violence, by ending the state campaign of targeted attacks and intimidation, and by immediately releasing all political detainees. They must also move swiftly to allow internally displaced persons to return to their homes and agree to the resumption of humanitarian aid without interference of any kind. The parties should also affirm the rights of victims to compensation.

Second, the format of the talks will have to expand beyond the chief political actors to include women and representatives of civil society. It is civil society – concerned citizens and the non-governmental organizations that represent them – that is best placed to ensure that the talks reflect the needs of the Zimbabwean people.

Women’s concerns are especially relevant given both their marginalization in political life and their disproportionate suffering as targets of political violence. Unfortunately, only one woman was on the MDC’s technical team for the talks taking place in Pretoria, South Africa; none were present to represent Zanu-PF. Women’s voices need to be heeded.

Third, Zimbabweans will need tools to help address human rights abuses over an extended period – not just the violence that has occurred this year. Genuine, lasting reconciliation is possible only if society seeks accountability for past wrongs. Experience elsewhere – during political transitions in other parts of Africa as well as in Latin America and Eastern Europe – shows that truth commissions can help repair deep divisions, by publicly examining the actions of national institutions and authorities. A truth-seeking body can also provide a forum for victims to be acknowledged, as well as make recommendations for future reforms.

Fourth, while those responsible for human rights violations will undoubtedly seek to protect themselves from future prosecutions, international law clearly rejects blanket amnesties for mass atrocities, and Zimbabwean civil society agrees with this position.

In 2003, representatives of more than 70 civil society groups met in Johannesburg and rejected amnesty for gross human rights violations. “Blanket amnesties for human rights abusers,” the groups said in a statement, “should never be allowed or find a space on the negotiating table.” Mediators will need to plan reforms of the military and police to undo the large-scale militarization Zimbabwe has undergone in recent years. But as they find ways peacefully to reintegrate fighters into society, the path must remain open for the perpetrators of grave human rights abuses to be brought to justice.

In the “Memorandum of Understanding” signed at the beginning of the current talks, Mugabe, Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara – leader of a second MDC faction – pledged to work toward “a society free of violence, fear, intimidation, hate, patronage, corruption and founded on justice, fairness, openness, transparency, dignity and equality.” This is no less than Zimbabweans deserve. When the parties reach an agreement that includes the essential elements outlined here, those goals will be within reach.