Youth Call For Training Camps To Be Abolished
Following on from a blog earlier this year about the YIDEZ campaign against Zimbabwe’s national youth service programme, we received this report from ZLHR sharing youths groups’ opinions on national youth service.
At a recent debate in Gweru, organised by the Civil Society Monitoring Mechanism (CISOMM), students and youth groups called for the outright abolishment of the National Youth Training Programme, arguing persuasively against it from a number of informed angles.
The debate, entitled With consideration for the provisions of the GPA, of what service is the National Youth Training Programme currently to Zimbabwe? brought together a dynamic, young panel to engage in a frank and provocative discussion on a topic that spoke directly to the concerns and interests of the student-filled crowd. In a packed room at the Midlands Hotel in Gweru on 25 November, the crowd – many of whom were students or youth leaders themselves – had the opportunity to hear first-hand from a graduate of Dadaya Training Camp, the Students’ Union President of Midlands State University, and a local lawyer and human rights activist.
In defence of the programme, the ‘graduate’ said it could be a platform for youth to collectively articulate and find solutions for the challenges they face, while it promoted nation-building in the youth by instilling the values of discipline, historicism, and non-violence. However, he acknowledged that it had been taken over by partisan agendas and that there was a serious problem of violence, mistreatment and politicisation. Exemplifying its non-compliance with the GPA, he said that stated objectives such as increasing HIV/Aids awareness in the youth were problematic when one considered the numerous rapes that took place in the camps.
The youth and other participants freely expressed their vigorous dislike of the programme and called for its abolishment. One argued that you cannot teach a young person about patriotism, citing the examples of the liberation movement forming in 1970s and the students’ struggles of ’87. They said that the camps were an abusive of youth, not empowering; they pointed to the deprivation of schools and colleges from funding, and also to increased violence and intolerance, and finally, the lack of consultation with the youth that might have seen emerge a service that was transparent and inclusive.
The forthrightness and willingness to engage on the part of the graduate was highly appreciated by all the crowd, although they took a different view. This is the nature of democracy. However, sadly, he testified that the time was not yet right to be able to engage on a greater level. We still have a long way to go.