The Sunday Mail
Dr Sikhanyiso Ndlovu
It is sad and surprising that some members of our society are criticising Chief Magistrate Mishrod Guvamombe’s judgment on corporal punishment.Some critics might not know that the ban is in keeping with the highest law of the land (Section 53 of the Constitution).
The honourable magistrate was interpreting and implementing the law of the land.
Those who still have hangovers of the archaic adage of “spare the rod and spoil the child” need re-education on the new theories of teaching and learning, child behaviour and psychology; as well as family and teaching, which explain family responsibility to children’s education.
They also need to be studied and psycho-analysed.
In my other educational writings, I have referred to Professor Gagne’s theory that learning is a psychological process which involves stimulus response.
The teacher should make learning interesting to activate interest in learners who should respond actively without being subjected to threats or force under the guise of corporal punishment.
Corporal punishment disturbs this learning process.
There is also the affective domain of learning which is concerned with making learners interested and active particularly in the teaching and learning process rather than for them to become passive or passengers in the education bus.
Traumatic aspects of corporal punishment
Corporal punishment does not add value to a child’s physical, mental, sociological and psychological growth.
Immediately, the instinct of fearing the teacher or parent is invoked in the child. Sometimes this fear is not related to the bad act the child might be deemed to have committed.
Corporal punishment may induce an element of hatred not only against the punisher but also against any other man or woman associated with the violent punishment.
A child may even hate school and abscond completely and find substitutes.
Love can be substituted with hate. Relationships with peers can be broken due to embarrassment.
The child’s self-esteem may be destroyed forever.
Authority versus power of force
Authority is the capability to influence positive changes in the student, family and school. Power is the tendency to apply force when authority fails.
The family and school have authority to impress or persuade students to behave in a socially and culturally acceptable manner.
If a student does not behave appropriately this may be a sign of failure by parents and teachers to exercise the authority vested in them.
Failure to exercise that authority leads to anger and application of corporal punishment.
Corporal punishment implies that those applying it are correct and cannot be questioned.
Those applying corporal punishment need to be examined psychologically.
The panacea to corporate punishment is family and school communication based on love and trust.
Chief Magistrate Guvamombe was right to pass judgment banning corporal punishment.
Section 53 of the Constitution is clear.
It abolishes corporal punishment and guarantees the right to freedom from “physical or psychological torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Dr Sikhanyiso Duke Ndlovu is a veteran educationist who holds a Diploma Social Work (SA), Dip Development & Admin, BA Sociology, Master in Public Admin, Doctor of Education (Syracuse University New York). He is the Chancellor Designate of University Without Walls in Zimbabwe (UWWZ) and former Deputy Minister of Higher and Tertiary Education as well as former Minister of Information and Publicity.
