The Sunday Mail
For over a couple of months now, there has been a debate with regards to the banning of corporal punishment. There are two distinct contrasting sides to the debate. On one side, there are the courts and human rights advocates while on the other side there are churches and educators. However, there are some who are sitting on the fence. They literally blow hot and cold.
Sunday Debate with David Penson Palasida
The courts and human rights activists are basing their argument on Sections 51, 52, 53 and 81(1)(e) of the Constitution.
When we talk of corporal punishment, what automatically comes to mind is the beating of children either at school or at home and this, in a way, has clouded the whole discourse of corporal punishment. In as much as I would want to centre my discussion on the corporal punishment of children, I will venture into the topic from a broader point of view that will also include adults.
ln Zimbabwe, the debate did not start with the latest High Court judgment. For those who are in the know, one of the many patches that had to be addressed by our Constitution was corporal punishment. There was a constitutional amendment which was as a result of a reaction by the Zimbabwe Parliament on a High Court decision in the matter of Ncube, Tshuma and Ndlovu versus the State.
In the matter, the trio took the Government on appeal after they were sentenced to whipping. In its decision, the Court declared that “the whipping each appellant was ordered to receive breaches Section 15(1) of Zimbabwe as constituting a punishment which in its very nature is both inhuman and degrading . . .” 1988 (2) SA 702 (ZS). After this judgment, the Constitution was then amended under Amendment No 11 (Act 30 of 1990). In the matter S v A Juvenile, the same decision was reached by the courts.
Corporal punishment amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment which is not reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. For those who support corporal punishment from a biblical point of view, more specifically from the book of Proverbs, there is need to look at what the Bible say and how the said Book can be interpreted in light of the Zimbabwean Constitution, human rights and everyday living with regards to disciplining children.
Proverbs is a book well known for its praise of the rod. The book provides two words which, on the surface, seem to mean one and the same thing. The words are discipline (13:24 [use of stick], 19:18 [chastise], 15:32 [correction], 5:11 and 12) [discipline] and punish (23:14) [stroke of the can].
In Proverbs, there seems to be use of the rod (13:24, 23:14, 25:15 [soft tongue breaks bones], 5:11 and 12, 22:15, 29:15 [stick and reprimand] to either discipline and or punish. It is therefore clear that a rod is acceptable in the Proverb’s context. Chapter 13:24 uses very strong words to try to support the use of the rod as a way of disciplining because not using it, according to the said verse, is indicative of one’s hate for one’s son. Kidner, a biblical scholar, says that Proverbs indeed praises the use of the rod but it is no panacea.
In order for us to fully appreciate the issue of discipline, especially in the Old Testament context in general and in Proverbs in particular, we first of all need to appreciate some words used therein. Matteh, shevet and maqqel refer to the item used to discipline a child.
The Hebrew word for a rod is shevet. This word is defined in Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon as follows: rod, staff, branch, offshoot, club (of shepherd’s implement), truncheon or sceptre (mark of authority), tribe shaft (of spear or dart). It can also be used metaphorically to mean verbal reprimand and censure.
Musar is another Hebrew word that means either education or instruction and corporal punishment. On the other hand, matteh refers to a branch, stick, stem, rod, shaft, staff, and most often a tribe. A rod in this context was, according to Isaiah 28:27, used to beat out grain amongst other uses.
There seems to be divergent views when it comes to the interpretation of these words by different scholars. Some are of the view that these words are used figuratively whilst others are of the strong belief that they are used literally.
Those who view the rod as having a figurative meaning view the rod in the context of the Old Testament and view it as authority. Renae supports this assertion since he is of the view that no children are beaten by a rod in the Bible.
This is, however, rebutted by Miller D in his article “Children and the Rod of Correction” who says that Solomon did not use the word rod figuratively.
Miller goes on to say that the Old Testament uses primarily three Hebrew words. Maqqel which means “tree branches that has been transformed into a riding crop (Numbers 22:27), a shepherd’s staff (1 Samuel 17:40 – which Goliath called a “stave” or “stick – vs. 43), or a weapon of war (Ezekiel 39:9 – “javelin” in the NKJV). It is also used as a symbol of dominion (e.g., Jeremiah 48:17 – where it occurs in synonymous parallelism with matteh), and in its natural state as a branch of a poplar, chestnut, or almond tree (Genesis 30:37; Jeremiah 1:11)”. In the Jewish Law Manual, the rod seems to insinuate the mouth for reprimanding someone. It is therefore clear from the scholars’ arguments that there is no one position with regards to whether the words were used literally or figuratively.
In everyday life, there are so many adages that try to bring home and justify the use of the caning stick on children and these are seen as supportive of the caning in Proverbs. The one very common English adage is: “spare the rod and spoil the child”. More often than not, many are of the mistaken belief that this adage is taken from the book of Proverbs when as a matter of fact, this saying was taken from a poem by one Samuel Butler in 1664.
The other one is taken from the Egyptian tradition and it says that: “boys have their ears on their backsides, they listen when they are beaten”. These are but only two adages that seem to support the use of corporal punishment.
It is apparent that the use of corporal punishment has been seen as a way of assisting in the development of children the world over as is shown from these two sayings. The world, at one stage, seemed to agree on this course of action should children misbehave and this has since changed as is reflected by the recent Zimbabwe High Court judgement.
After having appreciated that, it then becomes easy to see if the use of the rod to discipline children is consistent with Proverbs as some would want to believe. The issue of human rights and the concept of inhuman and degrading treatment as envisaged by the Constitution of Zimbabwe can also be looked at from this point of view. Section 53 of the Zimbabwe constitution provides for: “Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.
And it says that “No person may be subjected to physical or psychological torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Even though rights have limitations, this particular right among other rights, does not have limitations and as such it is absolute. Part 5 Section 86 (3) (b) and (c) of the same constitution confirms that.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary puts corporal punishment as the physical punishment of people, especially by hitting or beating them. From this definition, it is clear that the intention of corporal punishment is to cause physical pain. In the Zimbabwean context, up until the latest High Court judgment on this subject, corporal punishment was seen as a necessary and effective tool to discipline children.
Elsewhere and more specifically in the western world in countries like Sweden, corporal punishment was outlawed in 1979. In the United Kingdom, in a matter against Tyrer and the United Kingdom (Application No. 5856/72), the judges ruled that corporal punishment was inhuman and degrading. It was outdated. This was further supported later on in Matthew v United Kingdom (Application no. 24833/94), Loizidou v. Turkey (Application no. 24833/94) and Selmouni v France (Case No 25803/94).
It is on this basis that Proverbs is being challenged and interrogated to see if it is in line with not only modern trends but also Zimbabwean laws when it comes to the rights of children. In Zimbabwean, corporal punishment was banned in favour of alternative models of positive discipline way back in the 1990. As was alluded to earlier on, a constitutional amendment of Section 15 (3) of the old Constitution was carried out to bring back the use of corporal punishment.
With the new dispensation, corporal punishment no longer has any meaning to the lives of children especially when one looks at it from a human rights point of view. What that means is that whatever punishment is meted on a child should be exercised within the ambit of civilised standards.
Any punishment or treatment incompatible with the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society, or which involve the infliction of unnecessary suffering, is and should be repulsive.
What might not have been regarded as inhuman and degrading decades ago or in the Proverbs time may be resulting from the new sensitivities which emerge as civilisation advances. This notion is espoused in the matter between Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace v Attorney General and Sheriff for Zimbabwe and Prison.
In this matter, the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace was challenging that a delay in the enforcement of capital punishment amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Thereafter there was Amendment No. 13 (Act 9 of 1993) which followed.
Proponents of corporal punishment in Zimbabwe used the book of Proverbs to support its continuation. According to a newspaper article that appeared in The Chronicle of January 30 2015, the Progressive Teachers Union of Zimbabwe even quoted Proverbs 13:24 in trying to justify the use of corporal punishment. They wanted to have it continued.
They even went to the extent of saying that they wanted to petition the President so he would overturn the High Court ruling. From the above discussion, it is now apparent that biblical commentators now face a dilemma of integrating the biblical text with modern conceptions of child discipline.
Some scholars like Maurer Adah and Wallerstein James in trying to “clean” the Bible of any “ungodly actions” are of the view that Proverbs is not the Word of God, but merely the “word of mortal man” and that “The Biblical authority for whipping of youths in school and home rests solely on King Solomon’s Proverbs and has no other Biblical support”.
When one looks at the debate of the use of corporal punishment, the effects of corporal punishment should also be taken into account. Research over the years has proved that where the tradition of spanking is prevalent, there is much more violence in those areas than in any other areas. Barkley A. R, a psychologist, is supportive of that view.
This is also buttressed by evidence to the effect that the use of corporal punishment is not only ineffective but may trigger criminal, anti-social, violent, aggressive behaviour later in life; and has been linked to many adult problems. Children do not understand why they are being punished, they are of the view that they are being caned because teachers are out to control them. However, a child psychologist and writer, Fitzhugh Dodson, is of a slightly different view since he advocates for both whipping and restrain.
Before the banning of corporal punishment, the policy in Zimbabwe was that “Every Head should strive to cultivate a school climate where pupils will/can develop internal discipline which is not initiated by fear of punishment. Corporal punishment is an admission that the school has ultimately failed to ‘correct’ the child,” (MoESAC, 1999:7).
An instrument that was being used before the banning of corporal punishment stated that corporal punishment could only be used in cases of insubordination, indecency or other offences of similar gravity. It further stated that the punishment was supposed to be inflicted only on boys on the buttocks with a suitable strap, cane or smooth light switch. At one time, an education official alluded to the fact that a cane could not be used since it was implied by virtue of it not being supplied by the Ministry of Education.
In essence, in as much as there was a policy that corporal punishment could be used under those circumstances, the Government never supplied the canes thereby insinuating that the policy was only meant to be carried out on paper and not in reality.
In a research paper titled “The Social Impact of the Zimbabwean Crisis on Access and Quality of Education: Examining Teachers’ Unruly Practices in Rural Secondary Schools, Samuel Kapingidza had this to say: “There is noted increased use of corporal punishment in schools due to weak professional leadership and lack of supervision.”
In essence, he was saying that because the educators no longer have time with their pupils, they resort to canning in order to compensate their shortcomings in terms of leadership.
During some discussion, the former Minister of Education David Coltart pointed out that violence against children affected them physically and psychologically. This is buttressed by a number of incidences that occured after school authorities administered corporal punishment on children.
Some of the well known cases include a Mwenezi teacher who beat up a student and the student suffered brain damage. A Chinhoyi student by the name Moreblessing Musiiwa was beaten to death by a teacher under the pretext of disciplining him. More recently, an Epworth headmistress beat up a student, it is said the student later died due to the injuries.
Being a signatory to the United Nations on the Right of the Child Convention (Zimbabwe ratified the convention on the 11th of October 1990), Zimbabwe is bound to take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to eliminate these practices.
