**5. Methodology**

To study this organization, I adopted a case study method to profile the beliefs and practices of CiM. I conducted eight semistructured interviews with its members, guided by questions and themes that revolved around its ideology/culture and organisation as well as how it negotiates the environment to challenge the mainstream ethic. The length of the interviews ranged from forty-five minutes to one hour. To recruit my interviewees, I relied on snowball sampling. Interview partners referred me to their fellow members. This was the best method of recruitment considering that the security of the interviewees was of concern since they were challenging political elites as well. To guard against undue homogeneity, I used other methods such as a review of grey literature. I also interviewed other people who were not members of CiM. At the beginning of the interviews, I explained to the interview partners that I was the only one who would access the interview recordings and transcripts, and I was going to keep them safe. The transcripts were strictly for academic purposes and nothing more. The interviewees were free to withdraw from the interview without any consequences, had the right to refuse to answer any questions, and their responses would remain anonymous. I proposed to use pseudonyms since the topic of research was politically sensitive. I also deployed the snowball sampling from di fferent angles to be able to be directed from di fferent ways and have a heterogeneous sample of respondents within the organization.

While this article relies heavily on the interviews, my analysis was influenced by other research methods as well. I had email communication with some of its key members, who provided me with background information. I consulted grey literature, which included press statements, publications and booklets. Grey literature helped me to trace the genealogy of CiM, gather information about its official positions, reconstruct its development and acted as a canvass against which to understand the general discourse within which it operates. I also gathered data from online social media such as Facebook, which provided unexpected data. To analyse the data, I systematically coded it according to preset and emergen<sup>t</sup> major themes or codes.

The analysis of the data showed minimal disagreement regarding the ideology and practice of CiM. This can be accounted for by the fact that members studied CiM before committing to it. Absence from participating in some activities demonstrated some of the disagreements. CiM had room for this. A case in point is when some members of the Zimbabwe Assemblies of God in Africa (ZAOGA) who did not subscribe to the radical and confrontational approaches of CiM, such as demonstrations and distributing pamphlets with civic materials at bus termini, chose to take a lead in activities that centred around humanitarian aid, prayer and worship. One of the three prominent Bishops who were part of CiM jumped ship at some point and joined those who supported the ruling regime.

### *The Discourse and Practice of CiM in Pursuing Peace and Reconciliation*

The mission of CiM was to challenge both the mainstream churches' culture of silence and the violence that had engulfed the Zimbabwean political field. CiM is an "ecumenical" gathering of members from Christian denominations and organisations in the eastern province of Zimbabwe called Manicaland. It was formed in 2000, at a time of grea<sup>t</sup> uncertainty, intimidation and violence ahead of the elections. It claims that it aims to "seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit in taking action to promote tolerance in society, to give direction to public decision-makers and to enable our people to live Gospel values and principles" (Churches in Manicaland 2006). The use of the word "churches" does not refer to the institutional churches but to individual Christians, who would otherwise not be able to speak at high-ranking platforms such as those of mainstream bodies (Mkaronda 2003, p. 30). We see that the organization does not want to divorce itself from the traditional and recognized churches entirely, hence strategically retains the word "church" in its name. CiM describes itself as "strictly non-partisan regarding party politics and ... available to all for counselling, pastoral care and the building of a Christian vision for ... society" (Churches in Manicaland 2006). An o fficial said:

CiM is a platform of church leaders, laity and clergy who come together to see how best they can intervene in situations that need intervention, especially when we look at the political terrain in Zimbabwe. It started in 2000 during the height of political violence. Manicaland was also very much a ffected, so the church leaders thought it wise to come together and try to intervene ... We focus on human rights. Hence even where there is an unfair distribution of resources, we try to see how we can intervene and talk to the powers that be.

The formation of CiM centred on direct intervention in response to the cries of the victims of political violence. A founding member of CiM described to me how the original group of 14 religious leaders came together, assisted by the World Council of Churches, to begin the process of reflecting on the Zimbabwean crisis. Because these clergy felt they needed high-profile people to gain some legitimacy, they approached Bishop B of the Anglican Church and Bishop C of the Roman Catholic Church to be part of the organisation. The founding member noted that starting to talk about political violence was not easy after a long time of avoiding the topic within religious circles. Eventually, there was consensus that there was a crisis and the churches in Manicaland had to intervene, she asserted. They called together as many churches as they could, regardless of denomination. Their next meeting had about eighty people. They started these meetings against the background of rumours that the Chinese, who have warm political relations with the Zimbabwean ruling regime and carry out many governmen<sup>t</sup> technical and infrastructural projects, had mounted big satellites with which they could, on behalf of the ruling party, see everyone's vote.

Regarding their motivation to become members of CiM, some asserted that they felt that they had a biblical mandate to participate in issues that a ffect their lives. Others joined through the encouragemen<sup>t</sup> of already participating members. Some said that the desire to pursue peace and justice issues was inborn. As one respondent told me, "I would see myself since childhood trying to advocate for other people, when I feel that injustice was being done, hence when I heard about CiM and was invited to a meeting, I just clicked in."

To justify its radical and confrontational approach to peace, CiM members say they feel compelled to react to socio-economic situations, and in that process, they make their faith relevant. Unlike what might be called secular civil society organisations, CiM draws upon both the Old and New Testament texts and figures. Bishop B of CiM had the following to say:

You look back to the time of Micah, Hosiah, and Amos. State religion was there; the Pharisees were there; they had lost the vision, so God had to keep on sending his prophets to tell the Pharisees that what they were doing was wrong. The prophets are not condemning ordinary people; they are condemning the King and his cronies, so it is that kind of prophetic ministry that will make some people look redundant.

CiM members also deploy scriptural texts to argue that they do not separate the religious, the social, the economic and the political. For them, the spiritual is entangled with the socio-economic and political, so they need to deal with life holistically. In the same way that the Old Testament prophets condemned not only religious prostitution but also social and political institutions, so do

they. They mention prophets like Amos, who was concerned with trade, for instance, manipulating trade scales, that is, economic issues. Prophets were concerned with political issues, notably about how kings were using or abusing their power, so they argue. Politicians have admonished them for their stance, who have argued that as religious leaders, they should leave politics to politicians.

"No, we can't. There is no way you can separate the two. The problem comes when the church becomes partisan and supports a particular party", remarked a respondent. The relationship of religio-political nonconformist organizations like CiM with the political system contrasts with that of the mainstream churches, the latter of whom are silent, silenced, co-opted or sometimes express outright pronouncements of legitimation in the face of political violence. The mainstream churches seem compromised by bureaucracy, conservatism and proximity to political power. The emergence of organisations such as CiM confirms that in the face of a crisis, dissenting leaders from within may emerge and forge alliances with outsiders. It also shows that "in whatever sort of political system, widespread and profound disaster reopens the question of legitimate authority and the e ffective leadership in the conduct of the church leadership" (Fields 1982, p. 353).

CiM, as I pointed out above, describes itself as strictly nonpartisan regarding party politics (Churches in Manicaland 2006). My observation was also that it had easy access to non-ZANU PF (ruling party) politicians, thereby casting doubt on its nonpartisanship claim and weakening its criticism that mainline churches court ZANU PF politicians. A case in point is when Bishop B spoke at an opposition MDC campaign rally in 2013. He was reported in a Facebook post of the MDC to have

urged all Zimbabweans from all walks of life to rally in commitment behind President' Tsvangirai (the late leader of the opposition). He also noted that we need humble people with love to lead us into a new Zimbabwe, saying that an open palm (the symbol of the MDC) is used to rebuild compared to a closed fist (the symbol of the ruling party ZANU PF) which is used to destroy. He thanked God and called upon Him to usher our nation into a new Zimbabwe which we all need. (MDC Facebook Post 2015)

Surprised by this position of a prominent figure of CiM, I asked one of the founding members about this, and he emailed:

It does not sound like him. Is it possible that he did not say this but someone is deliberately misquoting him? If he did say it, I would not agree with his approach. If (Bishop B) did say what he is quoted as saying, he could be asked to give reasons as to why he adopted this approach. It seems to be out of character with the person that I knew.

This might sugges<sup>t</sup> that principles and action do not always agree, or that while in general there was much agreemen<sup>t</sup> amongs<sup>t</sup> the members of CiM, there are cases when there were di fferences. Above we saw members of ZAOGA deciding to participate only in prayer activities, and here we encounter Bishop B participating at an event of an opposition party. My email correspondent shows disagreement with Bishop B's approach.

### **6. The Discourse and Practice of CiM in Pursuing Peace and Reconciliation**

Peace and reconciliation are central to the mission of CiM. What is significant and in line with the argumen<sup>t</sup> of this article is that not as expected of religious leaders in Zimbabwe, CiM takes radical, confrontational and grassroots-based approaches to pursue political objectives. It defines reconciliation as "dealing with pain and resentment, hurt and anger leading to healing" (Churches in Manicaland 2006, p. 11). Some members of CiM feel that contrition or repentance is of paramount importance in the process. Bishop B describes reconciliation as a process of "re-membering" with the political other(s) after losing membership through committing atrocious acts:

Genuine reconciliation includes contrition, being inwardly sorry, and if you do not demonstrate that contrition, there is no reconciliation. I can't say, 'Forget about it, it was child's play.' It is warding off the problem. Reconciliation means a person has to swallow his or her pride. It demands a lot of humility—giving oneself on the table and asking to be helped to be 'one of us again' because he or she is no longer one of us. That is when for me reconciliation begins.

In his account of what reconciliation entails, Bishop B accentuates a demonstration of contrition. He emphasizes contrition and being sorry. For him, without an apology, there is no reconciliation. His emphasis on contrition and being inwardly sorry intersects with what I have elsewhere called transformative apology, understood as an apology that comes from deep within the wrongdoer's heart and mind, one that ruptures ideas, narratives and ideologies that made the wrongdoer see it justified in the first place to commit the wrong (Tarusarira 2019). Bishop B is thus against instrumental apologies which guarantee neither the rupture of the epistemic bedrock of wrongdoing, nor that the same wrongdoing will not be repeated to another person.

In Zimbabwe, there is a tendency to separate religious approaches to peace and reconciliation from political ones. It is upon this distinction that religious approaches to dealing with violence and its legacies are classified as "soft", thus possessing soft power (Haynes 2012) and characterised by piety, while political approaches are categorised as "hard" and not bent on piety. The distinction between soft and hard approaches resonates with the concept of religious soft power which was developed by Jeffrey Haynes in discussing how religion affects foreign policy (Haynes 2008), as an extension of Nye (1990) concept of "soft power". Soft power refers to the ability of ideas to make an influence or appeal to a targeted audience without using "hard power" that is often associated with state power. These ideas shape the values and norms of international and local institutions. The concept of soft power was introduced by Nye (1990) to show that hard power is not the only way to achieve political goals. Power is about influencing others towards desired goals. This can be done through the use of sticks, carrots or attraction. Soft power is thus defined as "the ability to ge<sup>t</sup> what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments." Its power lies not necessarily in influence, but in attraction of the culture, ideas, policies or principles. It thus appeals and does not force. It is about persuasion and encouragement. It is contrasted with the notion of "hard power", that is, military or economic influence, involving overt leverage and/or coercion (Nye 2005; Haynes 2009). Religious soft power should include cultural (including religious) actors who seek to influence foreign policy by encouraging policymakers to incorporate religious beliefs, norms and values into foreign policy (Haynes 2008.) It is when religious organisations seek to influence using religious beliefs, norms and values (Haynes 2009).

While CiM is not opposed to religious soft power, which it also deploys since it is an organisation founded on certain ideals and values, it does not limit itself to it. Religious soft power is connected to piety, but as Bishop B has shown, that is not enough. Nye (2005) acknowledged that soft power works in situations where there are willing interpreters and receivers. We have seen already that this is not the case in Zimbabwe where politicians are not willing interpreters and receivers, but pay deaf ears to the soft power of mainstream churches. Furthermore, soft power tends to produce a diffuse effect, creating general influence rather than producing early observable specific action, which is required in times of violence, like the context under discussion in Zimbabwe. Related to this is that soft power is relevant for what are called "milieu goals", like shaping an environment conducive to democracy, but less relevant to immediate goals like preventing an attack and violence, as we see in the Zimbabwean context in the 2000s. Confronted with these limitations of soft power, CiM appreciates what might be called "hard power", which in this case is represented not by guns, bombs and heavy artillery, but by radical and confrontational demonstrations and petitions.

CiM challenges these distinctions and bridges the religious and socio-political dimensions of reconciliation (see Porter 2003). Unlike in the past when the resolution of the conflict was discussed mainly in political terms of democracy, justice, equality, freedom, rights, stability and the rule of law, today there is an increasing recognition of the importance of terms such as healing, repentance and forgiveness, which were once largely restricted to the religious domain. This intermingling marks the recognition of reconciliation as a political and cultural priority. In describing reconciliation, my CiM informant spoke of "contrition", "inner sorry", "humility", "repentance" and "forgive me". "Forgetting" was ruled out as an option having been associated with the Christian concept of forgiveness in Zimbabwe through the dictum "forget and forgive" at independence in 1980, which I alluded to earlier. Bridging the religious and socio-political dimensions addresses the fear that reconciliation might be no more than a cheap religious, specifically Christian, process which seems to make a necessary connection between apology and forgiveness.

CiM members emphasize that reconciliation is not only political but societal as well. Political reconciliation, which tends to be associated with the top religious, political and military leadership of society or what is called Track 1 diplomacy, does not necessarily translate to the restoration of broken relationships in communities. Yet, communities provide the cement for sustainable reconciliation in society. Thus, CiM members advocated a platform that would facilitate a nationwide process of national healing. They believe that there must be a system that gives perpetrators of violence no option to avoid telling what happened. They argue that, in the context of Zimbabwe, a politically led process is not productive, because the powerful will protect themselves. Rev. D said:

As long as there are people who have power and are unreachable, because they are so powerful, the process will not ge<sup>t</sup> anywhere. What we would like to see happening is the formation of an 'independent' body to spearhead this process, which would consult or bring onboard political players. Those who have been perpetrating violence for years seem to be influencing from behind. I would have loved to see independent people like heads of churches and perhaps lawyers for human rights.

Mrs A echoed his sentiments: "what is needed is not a composition of appointed personalities", but "a process that takes on transparency and people feeding in and saying what they want". It was clear that the call for an independent body and the suggestion for church leaders to lead the process was influenced by South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation (TRC), which was dominated by religious leaders, prominent among them being Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Rev. Alex Boraine, the Chair and Deputy respectively. It must be noted, however, that the dominance of religious leaders in South Africa's TRC was not without concerns from representatives of other religious traditions who felt that they were not represented. CiM respondents did not sugges<sup>t</sup> traditional leaders, presumably because the traditional leaders had lost moral credibility because they were co-opted by the ruling regime. Notable here is that CiM members do not mince their words and are not "soft" with the process of peace and reconciliation, as demonstrated by its members' "hard" stance regarding the politicians whom they argue should not be allowed to ge<sup>t</sup> away without telling the truth of what they did during the periods of violence. Instead of only dialoguing and continuously engaging them, as would be advocated by the mainstream churches, CiM's nonconformist character mandates it to take robust approaches that compel politicians to be accountable for what they might have done.

Truth-telling was pointed out as a precondition for forgiveness. While truth-telling is generally agreed to be an indispensable element of the reconciliation process, it is not straightforward; it is delicate, sensitive and complicated. The caution would be that it needs not to be taken as a way of escaping justice, especially in cases where truth is exchanged for freedom, as was the case in the South African TRC, where truth-telling was traded for amnesty. No wonder Prof. A said, "Is it possible to just ask people to forgive each other? It will not work because the truth is not out. Truth and justice create healing and reconciliation... subjecting that truth to justice, then you ge<sup>t</sup> healing and you ge<sup>t</sup> reconciliation." This truth must be gathered from the grassroots people around the country, the majority of whom are victims of the contest between the political elites. Rev. Dr A a ffirmed the need to hear the stories of ordinary people, saying "We need people *vakadimurwa maoko* (who had their hands cut o ff) to tell their stories and what they want, we need people from Matabeleland massacres in the early 1980s to tell their stories." Truth-telling, healing, reconciliation and forgiveness were linked by Bishop A:

There is no way that there is going to be peacebuilding and national healing without truth-telling because only when one tells the truth even before anything happens that brings about some sort of mutual healing. After the truth, we then look at healing and after justice people can then talk about forgiveness and reconciliation is likely to follow.

Mr A confirmed this position: "It is important for the perpetrators of violence, who were involved in destroying property and people's lives, to own up to their actions and acknowledge they were wrong and that they are seeking to turn over a new leaf." Repentance and reparations are possible in cases where stolen goods can be returned or compensation made for destroyed property. Mr B said that the perpetrator should be able to say "I am sorry, what should I do?" The truth involved here comes from the victims and the perpetrators of the abuses. (Tutu 1999) calls this social truth, that is, truth gathered from social interaction, discussion and debate. CiM, therefore, calls for a comprehensive and rigorous process of reconciliation rather than a mere cheap and pious process that covers up for perpetrators.
