Quarterly Bulletin

One topic raising many different points of view in a heated debate in Zambia is whether the poor who cannot afford education expenses should have children. Pete Henriot, staff of the JCTR, looks at what that entails in country like Zambia where education is not a constitutional right. (This article first appeared in The Post Newspaper, Lusaka, 04 September 2007.)

Many have agreed with the State President’s recent opinion that the poor should not bring children into this world if they cannot afford the cost that even so-called “free education” demands. Others have disagreed, speaking of the basic right to have children and of the duty of the Government to provide genuinely free education.

RIGHTS AND FEES

In this debate, it is important from the start to get some basic facts very clear.  The first fact is quite simple: “No Zambian child has the right to education!”  That very   shocking   statement,  made several months ago by the then-Minister of Education, is unfortunately true.  The Bill of Rights in our current Constitution does not contain any Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCRs) and therefore no one is guaranteed the right to education.  The Government is under no constitutional obligation to provide education to any one!

That very disturbing fact is just one more pressing reason why the National Constitutional Conference (NCC) must immediately deal with an up-dating of the current Bill of Rights.  Let there be no two-ways about it. Certainly the welfare of all Zambians demands that the revision of this fundamental document not be postponed until some future undetermined date!  It must be a high priority item as soon as the NCC gathers. 

The second fact is that “free education” is not, in actuality, “free.”  In a study released last year by the JCTR entitled, “How Free is Free Education? The Cost of Education in Lusaka,” we demonstrated that thousands of children from poor families are not in school because of their inability to pay PTA fees, project fees, school uniforms, transportation, lunch, etc., etc.  The guidelines from the Ministry of Education may emphasise that no child should be sent away from primary school for not being able to pay any fee.  But that does occur as many parents across the country know all too well.  (Our study is available at www.jctr.org.zm.)

RESPONSBILE PARENTHOOD

So then, what are we to make of the President’s strong statement, given the third fact that Zambia has solemnly pledged to try to meet the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of universal primary education by 2015?  Surely he is not suggesting that the Government will promote a Chinese “one-child policy” in order to meet that MDG!  Children are blessings from God – we are all here today because our parents had the right to exercise that right.

But more needs to be said about that right.  I think that two emphases need to be made, emphases that several others have brought out in the course of this heated debate.  The first is “Responsible Parenthood” and the second is “Responsible Nationhood.”

“Responsible Parenthood” means that parents should look realistically at the possibility of providing a good and healthy environment for the children that they might bear.  Decisions about postponement of child-bearing or limiting of the number of children should, to the best of their abilities, be based on that possibility.  But the poverty situation within which many parents make their decisions has a direct relationship to the size of their families.

Parents have told me of the pressures of poverty.  And I have had the opportunity to participate in United Nations Conferences on Population and I have heard repeated the undisputed fact that it is not population growth that contributes to poverty but poverty that contributes to population growth.  

Put simply, this means that for the poor, children are riches.  Yes, one more mouth to feed but two more hands to work in the fields; yes, someone I must take of now, but someone who can take care of me in my old age.  To tell the poor to have fewer children without addressing their poverty is to tell them to be poorer!

It is true that Government, civil society and churches should all preach about “Responsible Parenthood.”  But all, especially those with strong influence on perceptions and policies,   should in their emphases on this responsibility honestly take into account the development context of decision-making and the influences that poverty concerns and demands placed on parents.

RESPONSIBLE NATIONHOOD

“Responsible Nationhood” is the other emphasis that must be spoken about very clearly.  It means that the nation as a whole, working through its democratically elected government, must exercise a responsibility to meet the basic needs of the people.  Education is one of those basic needs, and that is why free education should be a right to be prioritised. (Again, put it in the new Constitution and do that quickly!)

It simply is not possible for Zambia to move forward with all the wonderful objectives of becoming a “middle income country” by 2030 if the education sector is not radically improved. 

Our JCTR study last year cited government statistics indicating that 15% of boys and girls between 7 and 13 still miss out on primary education.  And recent UNICEF studies tell us that accessibility to secondary education in Zambia is very limited indeed, especially for the girl child. 

The situation at our national universities is another matter of grave concern.  To shut down one of the major universities in the country without any plan for immediately resolving the crisis sends a very disturbing message indeed not only to the students but to the whole nation.  Surely “responsible nationhood” would require that the Ministry of Education would courageously and wisely announce the steps that need immediately to be taken to re-open the Copperbelt University with the cooperation of all stakeholders involved. 

It is, of course, not simply a matter of places to be made available for children at every level.  It is very encouraging and something to be commended, for example, to see that the Government is currently placing thousands of new teachers in schools across the country. 

But into what conditions of housing, teaching supplies, salaries, etc., will those teachers be placed?  Enough to keep them creatively and enthusiastically engaged?

IS EDUCATION A PRIORITY?

Perhaps the fuss raised over the President’s statement – whether or not correctly stated or correctly understood – has had the advantage of turning attention again to what must be the number one priority for the future integral and sustainable development of Zambia’s immense riches.  It is not primarily Chinese loans or new Economic Zones or foreign investors or more cell phones or fancy shopping malls that will develop Zambia.  It is primarily educated Zambians!

Our JCTR study last year remarked very strongly: “to deny Zambian children their right to education is to bury undeveloped potential, to stifle rather than uplift human dignity, to bring down the progress of the nation and to jeopardise the fight against HIV and AIDS and poverty.”

All children – rich and poor – have a right to be here and a right to be educated!

Pete Henriot, S.J.
JCTR
Lusaka

“Cry and Yahweh will answer; call, and he will say, ‘I am here’.
If you do away with the yoke, the clenched fist, the wicked word,
If you give your bread to the hungry, and relief to the oppressed,
Your light will rise in the darkness and your shadows become like moon.”                      (Isaiah 58:9-10)