Zuma drops ‘island’ plans -- but for all the wrong reasons
WHEN challenged in parliament this week, President Jacob Zuma competently provided the context to his comment that pregnant girls must be sent to Robben Island to get an education. He explained that he made these comments in 2009 and had invoked them because of a question that had arisen during a meeting with traditional leaders. He did not hold these views now. Fair enough. I got excited. Until he explained his reasons for jettisoning these antiquated and paternalistic plans. He dropped this agenda because “women said they do not want that”.
It was profoundly disappointing, albeit expected, that the president did not backtrack because he realised that his suggestions were unconstitutional and parochial. He discarded the argument, but did not change his mind about what he thinks should happen to pregnant children. For all we know, he still holds the view that pregnant girls must be banished and isolated, but he has merely stopped expressing that because women opposed him. Our president is patriarchal and sexist, I believe. But we must still try to educate him because there is no chance of his colleagues, especially in the Ministry of Women, doing so.
That the president believes teen mothers must get an education is commendable. That he recognises that teen pregnancy is a problem is also welcome. And, yes, we have sadly come to a point where we commend the president for grasping the most basic things. Zuma would have achieved more if he demonstrated a deep reflection on his “change” of tune. We would be in a better place if he had displayed a depth of interpretation and regard for this social issue. All we know is that he changed his mind because there was an outcry, not because he sees anything wrong with his view.
He is clearly not applying his mind to the abundant research on teen unprotected sex and pregnancy. I am sure there are many teenagers who have sex because of desire and curiosity. But there are many others who are forced into these situations because of parental neglect, poverty, substance abuse, rape — even by their fathers, priests and teachers — and of course, a lack of role models.
Must they all be sent to this island? And in explaining his backtracking, the president did not in any way express that he had been persuaded that any intervention should also target boys and men who impregnate these girls. Once again, women’s and girls’ bodies became the very ground on which to trample on their rights.
Zuma’s modification did not take cognisance of this reality. If you consider the scale of absent fathers in our society, both among teenagers and adults, you will realise that pregnant teenagers are not the only problem that should keep us awake. Research by the Institute of Race Relations indicates that the “typical” child is raised by a mother in a single-parent household. The children have absent but living fathers, and black children, in 2009, had the lowest proportion of present fathers, at 30% . Where should we send the absent 70% of fathers, Mr President?
Three years ago, the South African National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence reported there was an alarming increase of underage children in treatment centres and that among teenagers, 69% of respondents in a survey said drugs were freely available.
Coupled with that, the South African Depression and Anxiety Group reports that the country has the eighth-highest rate of suicide in the world and one in four teenagers has attempted suicide. Furthermore, one in three hospital admissions for suicide involves young people.
The president has enough information to teach him that teen pregnancy is a complicated phenomenon that cannot be fixed by glib and scandalous pronouncements. His change of heart must happen because of an authentic reflection on the issue, rather than the banal reason he has advanced.