Kubatana recently received an email from a subscriber describing an incident in which a young girl was badly beaten by school authorities. Our subscriber wanted to encourage debate and discussion on this issue:

1. Do schools have the right to ‘beat’ and I mean beat children?
2. Do they have the right to do so without the sanction of their parents (if indeed this makes it right at all)?
3. Does beating ever solve anything or will it only ensure that the child becomes an adult who beats?
4. Is authority best wielded through the stick?
5. Does the Ministry of Education approve of beating?
6. What sanction do parents have against their child being beaten?
7. What action can they take if the child is beaten and the parents disapprove?
8. How can one complain without making the child’s position even more vulnerable?

We asked our email subscribers for their feedback today, and some of their feedback includes:

I personally think it depends to what extent is the teacher beating the student. There should be some kind of a limit and areas to beat if it is discipline the student. If  you are to see most of these big educated guys they went through all these kinds of treatment and most of them ended up doing well and worked within a disciplined order guided by code of  good social behaiour.

If students are not to be beaten they are more chances of them misbehaving and the teacher will end up being reluctant to monitor the general behaviour of the students because he or she would not want to waste time on someone he or she has no control over.

If punishment of students in schools is to be approved and made known to the students, I believe the behavior of them will substantially improve and possibly yield better people for tomorrow.
- ML

——

If anyone considers unfair and unreasonable treatment of children it should be in consideration of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

These instruments recognize that all human beings should be free, have freedom from fear and want, and are endowed with equal and inalienable rights. Accordingly, human rights are acknowledged as being universal, that is they apply everywhere, and inalienable, which means that they cannot be taken away from the person even with his or her agreement. In your brief there appears to be contravention of the following principle: -

The school should have respect for due process and the right to a fair hearing before taking any disciplinary measures. Any disciplinary measures should be proportionate and not involve physical punishment or inhuman or degrading treatment.

Environments characterized by activities that can affect or involve children may provide particular difficulties and high risk situations of violating or being complicit in human rights abuses. Schools may be faced with the need to make difficult and complex judgments on whether and how to conduct themselves.

The UDHR itself states that “every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance.’’

An organization may be regarded as complicit if it in some way authorizes, tolerates or knowingly ignores abuses committed by the school.  While case law is developing that is clarifying the legal liability of private organizations for complicity in international crimes, most of what society, business and human rights advocates understand as complicity goes beyond its present legal definition and application.  The school and staff in their personal capacities may find they become isolated as international organizations (e.g. international finance or looking for another job) become risk averse if their complicity in turn may in any way entail liability under international law.
- TL

What do you think? Is there an “acceptable” level of beating? Or does all corporal punishment on students a violation of their rights? Email us your thoughts and opinions on info [at] kubatana [dot] net or leave us your comment here.

Last time I wrote I was talking about Transitional Justice, it’s benefits and so on and so on. I got thinking: for Transitional Justice to be implemented, we need a Transitional Government right? But the question is, are we seeing any transitional happenings? I for one have seen tangible change. I believe in transition you see, in moving on with the little things in life. I try to picture Zimbabwe two years back; it was a mess and I remember the days when I would go to sleep on an empty stomach. Zimbabwe has changed. It is slowly moving on and I think it’s our duty as Zimbos to see transition in our day-to-day life. I am queuing at Chicken Inn waiting my turn coz, yes, they now have potatoes to make the hot chips which they did not have towards end of year 2008.  And at that moment I forget those sleepless nights of hunger. My point is if you have moments when you forget what happened to you during those horrid times you are slowly moving on and forgetting and hopefully forgiving. Like with Chicken Inn – I had vowed I would never eat there ever again. But two days ago I was there queuing at the end of a long queue all forgiven and totally forgotten. So maybe don’t answer my question. If you and I move on and start to forget the Zimbabwe we lived in a couple of years ago, maybe we don’t need to look to the government for transition.

We have just had 3 days dedicated to peace, healing and reconciliation; an initiative driven by the 3 political parties, ZANU PF, MDC-M and MDC-T’s joint Organ for National Healing.

In his speech on the 24th July, the Prime Minister made impressive remarks on national healing, reconciliation and integration. He noted at the outset that the dedication marked the beginning of what can only be “a long but essential journey to heal our nation”. He also made the very important point that there can be “no short cuts on this journey and no easy way to deal wit the pain and suffering that has been experienced by so many of our people”. The process must be “open, genuine and frank”. That is all very good. In terms of the theory, the PM hit all the right notes touching on issues of transitional justice, help for victims to begin to build their lives, truth and acceptance of responsibility for wrongs done.  He had most people nodding their heads in agreement as he went through his speech.

The PM’s speech however was woefully inadequate when it came to concrete action. There were no definitive pronouncements from him regarding the actions his government was going to take to make sure that all these wonderful ideals were realised. Listening to his speech l kept saying to myself at different points in his speech; “so what are you going to do about that,” until it became a never ending refrain until suddenly the speech was over.

The PM could have and should have taken this opportunity to announce the plans his government has put in place to begin to address the issues. What plans for justice for the Gukurahundi massacres? Even though he extolled the virtues of justice, the PM should be reminded that justice delayed is justice denied. This process cannot be unduly long. Does his government have a time frame for gathering the views of the victims of those and other atrocities? From his speech, it would appear that the Organ for National Healing has only been charged with undertaking “grassroots consultation” to define the form and content of the healing programme.

I am worried that the PM can acknowledge that “the State media continues to propagate hate speech and political divisions through publishing of blatant lies and deliberate distortions” but he does not propose any action to remedy this. What does that signify? Is he powerless to put a stop to it? If a crime is being committed by the State media, why doesn’t he charge the police to investigate and the Attorney General to prosecute the culprits?  Who is the PM asking whether the next election will be held in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect? Who is he asking whether government institutions will act with impartiality, openness and accountability? Who should hold the answers to these questions if not the government of which he is a significant part? If as he says the cooperation and communication at top of the political spectrum is not cascading down the party structures, what is he going to do about it, seeing as he occupies the highest seat in his party’s structure? What has he done with his counterparts in the other party formations?

We have been asking these questions of our elected leaders. We demand answers to those questions. If the people who disrupted the Constitutional Reform consultative process were identified, why did the PM not insist on their being arrested? If the State media continues to propagate hate speech, is that not a crime? If these crimes then are prosecuted would that not send a message to anyone else so inclined that we are under a new political dispensation and any behaviour that undermines the rule of law will not be tolerated. If no consequences follow their actions, isn’t that how impunity happens Mr PM?

A last word for the PM and his team in the Organ for National Healing;

Peace is not the product of terror or fear.
Peace is not the silence of cemeteries.
Peace is not the silent result of violent repression.
Peace is the generous, tranquil contribution of all to the good of all.
Peace is dynamism. Peace is generosity.
It is right and it is duty.
- Oscar Romero

In a previous blog of mine entitled Violence and masculine performers a reader raised the following questions:

I want to know if the project on Violence would help to reduce the prevalence of violence in the Zimbabwean communities or not. I just want to know your fair minded judgement based on what the fourteen participants contributed on that topic of violence. Is the film going to help all the people (men and women) or women only or vise versa? If it cannot help, what are the areas that were not clear that will leave the people still wanting more information concerning violence?

The simple answer is yes.  I believe all of the participants walked away from the week having absorbed new knowledge and inspired ideas around what violence entails, why violence is a coward’s solution, and how to better lead life in non-violent ways.  One reason I say yes is because the fourteen participants were willing to speak at length and in detail as well as willing to speak honestly and in relation to their personal experiences.  That’s no small feat.  All too often discussions about violence in Zimbabwe are predictable and merely go the route of referencing “other” people who commit acts of violence.  When individuals look inwardly to unravel their own beliefs and actions then the conversations get real and begin to pave the way for meaningful paths toward change.   Therefore, I stand by a point in the original blog.  Change must come from within.  Within individuals.  Within communities.  Within institutions.  Within societies.  One by one, and it’s a process which takes time.  Tho, all the little things help.

At the same time, the questions which have been posed do not neatly have simple answers.  As I noted, the honesty among the participants was key in building discussions which were true to life and constructive.  But honesty is not always synonymous with hearing what you hope to hear.   Much of the honesty among the male and female participants incorporated belief that there are situations where violence against women is warranted.  Intermingled or likely one reason for that belief is what I saw as unsettling blind faith and one-dimensional this is just the way it is adherence to the notions that women are the weaker sex, that labola is tradition and a form of payment for a wife, that good wives must allow husbands to exercise their conjugal rights, and so on.  I mean come on.  Is that really just the way it is?  Or, is it not the case that all human beings harmoniously deserve respect, love, companionship, admiration, laughter, compassion, and equality from their fellow human beings?

The reader asked for my fair minded judgment.  To be honest, I’m not entirely sure I can be fair.  While I have the utmost respect for how honest the participants were, there were moments during the week where my jaw dropped.  I was in shock.  How can people think violence is ok?  And to try to rationalize justifications for violence, it made my body hurt.   In fact, during the week of filming I had nightmares.  And continue to have nightmares.  They are nightmares where people needlessly resort to violence.  So yeah, it’s tough for me to fair.  Intellectually a lot of what was expressed during the week I did not agree with.  Emotionally the week was taxing for me.  I would like to say I don’t have a violent bone in my body; however, in reality, no person can live up to that assertion.  But what I can do, and I hope the film participants also do, is recognize that every human being has the ability to make choices around whether or not to be violent.

Back to my simple answer.  Yes.  The week of filming was successful.   I remain hopeful.  I believe there are many courageous Zimbabweans, people who are willing to take a hard look at themselves and in turn, to let that self-reflective journey inspire them toward travelling down roads of non-violence and helping others do the same.  And as I said, little things do help.  Like this film project and others which International Video Fair Trust (IVFT) is implementing.  Disseminating films where the filmed participants speak up is surely a recipe for success and an effective way to encourage others to address the difficult issues in life.   And you know, there is a nice synergy with Kubatana’s Inzwa Weekly Audio Magazine.  Just as much as the people who work for the Adult Rape Clinic and the people who access those services are everyday heroes so too is it importantly heroic to make the information available.  To stand up and say, for those of you who might benefit from the services at the Adult Rape Clinic, please make use of them and we support you in the most heartfelt ways.

Last Tuesday I was at a very enlightening meeting that highlighted a lot of issues in relation to the current economic and political cloud over our country. This particular discussion was headed by a human rights lawyer who was addressing us on Transitional Justice: Forgiving, Forgetting and Reconciliation. He gave us what I think we all need to know about this Transitional Justice thing. One of the issues that springs to mind is that we should create a historical record and prevent repetition of human rights violations. I think that is what we must concentrate on. Because for those who were beaten and stripped of all dignity during election time, to forgive and forget we want to be assured that it’s not going to happen again. The other thing that was raised as a goal for Transitional Justice is that all people should be treated equal before the rule of law. Can you imagine me and a minister being treated the same way before a court to say both you guys committed a crime so you are getting the same sentence. If things could go like this then this country would be heaven. Now one other goal that toppled my day is that Transitional Justice seeks to hopefully reform state and non state institutions. This means that the police will not be pro party but will work on neutral ground. Therefore that would allow me to report policeman so and so for harassment at these pop up road blocks they have. But one thing that got me thinking is: should we go the criminal proceedings way and arrest all people we saw beating us up and taking our livestock? Or should we go the reparations way and say what you took bring back? As for me and my household I say forgetting and forgiving is the way to go. Don’t know about you?

I had not realised the true extent, and impact of the Zimbabwe crisis on ordinary Zimbabweans until last weekend I embarked on a four and half hour drive from Johannesburg to Kabokweni, a tiny, far-flung township situated in a valley near Nelspruit, in South Africa’s Mpumalanga province.

I was visiting my two brothers, a cousin, a nephew and an uncle who now, due to circumstances back home, are trying to eke out a living there. To my utter amazement I soon discovered there are literally hundreds of Zimbabweans there, perhaps without a thought of returning home soon. Commenting on how he has been forced to put away his degree certificates and resort to doing odd, often degrading jobs just to survive, all that my uncle said to me was, “Look what Mugabe has done to us!” I felt a deep sadness in the depths of my soul and began to agonise over the root causes on the crisis in Zimbabwe.

This morning, while taking a shower, that is usually my time of greatest inspiration, it suddenly occurred to me that the primary driver of the crisis in Zimbabwe and the consequent misery and suffering of the people is greed on the part of those in authority. For the avoidance of doubt, authority in Zimbabwe resides in ZANU-PF and its allies the so called war veterans, green bombers, and security forces.

Greed has so consumed those in authority so much that they have ceased to care about anything except their excessive desire to accumulate massive wealth which they neither deserve nor need. Political power, for them, is the vehicle through which they can satisfy their greed, and therefore, they would be prepared to shed blood to acquire and retain that political power. In their twisted sense of logic, they are therefore justified in unleashing waves of electoral violence and coerce people to ‘vote’ them into political power, or to use other fraudulent means to attain political office.

Understanding that greed is the primary driver of the Zimbabwean crisis would lead to a better understanding of the paradoxical situation of Zimbabwe that, in the midst of all this suffering, you find multi-millionaires in United States dollar terms, on the streets of Harare. This also explains how a person like Joseph Chinotimba, a mere municipal guard (no offence to this humble profession intended), who was virtually penniless before he discovered the benefits of ZANU-PF membership, can claim that due to loss of his mobile phone for just a week, he had lost business worth US$19 million! And this is not one of those Chinotimba jokes doing the rounds. What business is he into?

Clearly there are a few people who are directly benefiting from the suffering on millions of Zimbabweans. That same group of people is reaping where they did not sow. Again, this is not just a figure of speech, scores of those aligned to ZANU-PF are currently on an invasion spree of white-owned commercial farms and are literally reaping where they did not sow. Zimbabwe has enough resources to support all those who live in it, and also to support the region, but a few, politically connected and greedy people are busy plundering Zimbabwe and eating everyone’s share. I would not be surprised if there are people in Zimbabwe whose daily prayer is that the crisis never ends!

Greedy political leaders who do not care about the people they purport to represent invariably breed misery and suffering. This breed of political leaders often have the following distinctive characteristics: (1) Although generally incompetent and lacking in business acumen, they are involved in all kinds of businesses; (2) they measure they political achievements by the amount of wealth accumulated or cars they own; (3) they publicly speak against the West and pose as pan- Africanists while privately sending their children to school in the West, drink wines imported from the West and do not miss on their monthly satellite television subscriptions; (4) all their ill-gotten wealth is derived exclusively from their political connections; (5) their lavish, and outlandish lifestyles are at odds with their professional salaries (for example, it is not surprising in Zimbabwe to come across a mere journalist working for state media, but with powerful political connections, owning several properties that he can never acquire on his journalist’s earnings).

This breed of political leaders is beyond redemption and cannot be expected to reform and be like the biblical Zaccheus, the chief tax collector who repented and gave away his ill-gotten wealth. Politicians of this kind, who unfortunately at present dominate the political scene in Zimbabwe, must be removed from office and mechanisms put in place to ensure that this breed becomes extinct. This legacy of leaders who doggedly pursue self-serving interests must be broken. Without such a paradigm shift, charting a new political direction for Zimbabwe will remain a pipe dream. It is worthwhile noting for political leaders in government, particularly those in the MDC whom many of us look up to in hope, that greed is not a trait confined to leaders from one particular political party.

Zimbabwe desperately needs political leaders with integrity, who deeply care for others, and have the ability to self-transcend. Political leaders are judged not on the basis of the political party they belong to, but on content of their character and their service to humanity. I am absolutely convinced that if we had leaders who really cared then Zimbabwe would not have gone through the horror, pain and suffering which characterised the past decade and continues. It is not an act of God, neither is it a freak of nature, that Zimbabwe finds itself in this multi-layered socio-economic, humanitarian and political crisis. The issue boils down to want of able political leadership. Want of leaders who have already distinguished themselves in their private and professional lives who now take up public life leadership roles to serve, deriving satisfaction from putting a smile on an old woman’s face.