Zimbabwe: Dealing With Past Human Rights Abuses - AllAfrica.com

Wellington MbofanaHarare

IT have been suggested on infinite occasions that the ground President Henry Martin Robert Mugabe and a figure of his henchmen will not release powerfulness is because they are afraid of prosecution for race murder arising from Gukurahundi, law-breakings against world emanating from such as political campaigns as Murambatsvina and other gross human rights violations.

I am always fascinated to read or listen to arguments on the emotive subject of prosecution of culprits of human rights violations.

I must say from the beginning that this article is not meant to review recent parts or statements by some resistance leadership on the topic but rather to broaden the argument on the emotive inquiry of justness in transitional societies.

Many observers share the popular ethical and legalist place of human rights organisations, which forces for prosecution and penalty of those guilty of certain crimes.

It is generally believed that such as prosecution and the attender penalty will function as a hindrance to future autocrats and militarists as well as enactment as a depository of corporate memory for affected societies.

This position, which have in our clip guided the prosecution of warfare law-breakings and law-breakings against humanity, gained currency from the station World War two Nurnberg and Tokio trials where culprits of warfare law-breakings were subjected to victors' justice.

While those who stood trial after the Second World War were weak people representing vanquished governments that had lost their weapons, autocrats in our modern-day modern times pull off endemic disease systems that in most lawsuits are not uprooted at the clip of "democratic" change.

It is very common for the security setup to be inherited with small alterations after negotiated or peaceful government change. This agency continued influence of and commitment to leadership of the different warring encampments by some pockets of the securocrats.

It is also not uncommon for ousted authorities to command some measurement of political support in the populace.

This agency new governments would have got to see whether punishing warfare felons would not arouse an armed recoil or civil agitation at the same clip being aware that perceived holds of justness would equally pull a backlash. It's a dilemma!

Chilean activist, Jose Zalaquett, at one clip president of the International Person Rights Internship Program and member of the International Committee of Jurists, places "balancing ethical imperative moods and political constraints" as the challenge of new democracies faced with a cruel past times of human rights violations.

Faced with such as a dilemma, Max Weber suggests, in Politics, as a career that "political leadership should be guided by ethical motive of duty as opposing to the ethical motive of conviction".

The former proposes playing guided by the predictable effects of one's action and the future acting according to the law regardless of outcome!

While the two are different and may look diametrically opposed, each incorporates hints of the other though in littler doses.

Some have got argued that it is better to endure longer under dictatorship with the hope of entire triumph than to do advancement through conceding some compromises. I am convinced such as fundamentalistic positions are not raised by those at the receiving end of the gross abuses.

Experience from station internecine struggle states of affairs demo that even with the best political settlement, culprits of atrocious law-breakings would still exert political or military powerfulness or would still very much be entrenched in the bureaucratism and other state institutions.

These could not be smoked out and the establishments overhauled nightlong without causing other problems. In any passage via medias are made. Unfortunately when such as determinations are made, the bulk of citizens and the victims are not consulted for they simply would vote with their emotions.

Relevant Links

As argued above, in some lawsuits the personal effects of threatening, allow alone pursuing those wielding power, are catastrophic.

Buoyed by a possible triumph in the Republic Of Zimbabwe 2002 presidential election, an resistance political party Member of Parliament was quoted as having made a populist proclamation that once their campaigner secured the ticket to State House, they would widen Chikurubi Maximum prison house to suit culprits of law-breakings against world and other gross human rights misdemeanors especially from the top brass of the security forces.

Predictably, the security heads responded unequivocally and commonsensical that that the presidential term was a consecutive jacket and they were doorkeepers to State House. In other words, they would not allow travel of powerfulness to travel and putrefaction in Chikurubi! That killed the contest. With hindsight, perhaps some word form of adjustment and via medias with the constitution could have got helped. Unbelievably the same play unfolded in 2008! It stays to be seen whether the result will be different.

Page 1 of 2

1