Conflict Trends

A rather surprising and astonishing ruling was taken on 8 June 2018 at The Hague by the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the case of The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo. The Appeals Chamber reversed the decision of the Trial Chamber III of 21 March 2016, entitled “Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute”. The Trial Chamber had in its decision found Bemba of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), as a person effectively acting as a military commander, guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.2 These crimes were proved beyond reasonable doubt to have been committed in the Central African Republic (CAR) from on or about 26 October 2002 to 15 March 2003 when Bemba as president of the Mouvement de libération du Congo (MLC), a political party founded by him, and Commander-in-Chief of its military branch, the Armée de libération du Congo (ALC), sent its troops to rescue President Ange Felix Patassé whose power in the CAR was threatened by a rebel movement led by Army General François Bozizé.

Policy makers and scholarship on peacebuilding increasingly focus on reconciliation. In fact, peacebuilding efforts after violent experiences are usually accompanied by powerful calls to go the reconciliation route. Reconciliation is the mutual acceptance of the other in a peaceful relationship and the sustainability of that acceptance; accompanied by a commitment to bind relationships in accord with future interests rather than being stuck in a conflicted past. Yet reconciliation remains a profound challenge in societies that experience political violence. Zimbabwe is facing a similar situation despite a series of state-centred efforts at reconciliation. From the 1980 Policy of National Reconciliation to the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission (NPRC), a constant pattern of inefficacy is observed.

In 2013, Zimbabweans overwhelmingly endorsed the adoption of a new constitution through a referendum held in March 2013. The constitution was hailed by many as constituting a break from the past; thus the document represented an “aspirational nation”. The ”YES Vote” campaign drew support from across the political divide. An overwhelming 94.4 % of the electorate voted in support of the new constitution while the “No Vote” campaign fronted by the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) garnered less than 5% of the national vote.1 One possible explanation for the overwhelming endorsement is that the proposed constitution touched on bi-partisan issues that the electorate saw as important in moving the country forward and breaking with the past. For example, it guaranteed freedom of speech and association, introduced presidential term limits and also proposed mechanisms to increase and enhance the visibility of women in national politics.