For a moment, I found myself in (partial) agreement with Jacob Zuma...
Reading news of the utterances of South Africa's president often leaves me cringing. I generally become aware of his verbal spews via online news websites and social media, as opposed to actually watching news or parliamentary broadcasts because actually listening to him speak his usual drivel is often more painful (and a longer process) than reading about it after the fact. From responsibility ducking regarding Nkandla to blaming Jan van Riebeeck for many and more of South Africa's ills and suggesting that warm water from a shower head will help to protect one from contracting HIV, there is very little that this man says that I think is actually worth the breath used to express it.
So aside from dodging more Nkandla-related questioning yesterday, Zuma has, once again, pissed off a huge number of South Africans by stating that teenaged mothers should be removed from their babies and sent "far away" to complete their schooling. If you haven't heard about it, you can read a report here. There has been a massive outcry; ranging from pure dumbfoundedness that someone – a president – could make such a statement (but I think most South Africans are getting accustomed to Zuma's idiocy and learning to take it in their strides), others asking why teen mothers should bear all the responsibility when it takes two people doing the horizontal tango to create baby and varied responses regarding the validity of his assertions (such as the implication that teen mothers fall pregnant in order to receive social welfare grants which are, in turn, not used for the benefit of the child).
I read all of this discussion with mixed feelings. How can a man who is reported to have fathered at least 20 children, both in and out of wedlock, feel that he is an appropriate person to pass out such a form of judgement onto others? Is judgement the correct term? I'm not sure, but to suggest sending these girls away to "an island" comes across as punitive, which implies that they were judged to have done something wrong. Debates regarding teen sex aside, for there would be an exhaustive supply of those, on a moral level I don't feel that a person with such colourful progeny should be able to criticise baby-making by any of the citizens of the country he presides over. The fact is that the president has been promiscuous and while I would hope that most people are brought up to respect sex, whether or not one consigns to religious beliefs regarding the act, a president should lead by example and if young, impressionable people see that the man holding the highest office in the country has a history of sleeping around, it is not somewhat implied that promiscuity is acceptable? And when this man and his family have also been found to have unduly benefited from over R200 million spent on "security upgrades" to his private residence, who is he to complain about government funds being misused?!
That being said, I found myself in partial agreement with our "esteemed" president. As far as suggestions of sending teen mothers away or forcibly removing their children are concerned, I think that, unsurprisingly, Zuma is far off the mark. But I do agree with him regarding the fact that these girls should finish their schooling and attempt to better their lives so as not to create burdens for grandparents (and, in turn, the tax payers).
However, the other aspect of this line of thinking is probably also ill-thought out by Mr Zuma. If these girls are forced to complete their schooling, how many of them are likely to find employment which offers livable salaries with only a matric certificate? Has this man looked at the unemployment stats? Oops, that would imply that Zuma is a competent leader... But let's also not forget that JZee himself cannot say that he completed his matric - yet another instance where the nation's leader proves to be a rather poor role model for the youth.
And as far as removing babies from the arms of their mothers, I suppose it would be presumptuous of me to spend even a second considering whether or not Zuma has any understanding of human psychology and the kind of emotional damage that such an action could have. Yes, there are probably numerous instances where it would probably be in the best interests of some of these babies to be separated from their mothers, but in general babies will probably be better off with their mothers, hopefully also their fathers, and their grandparents.
But let's not mince words here because the fact is that teen pregnancy isn't going to go away. One can argue about how to prevent it, the moral degradation of society, the impact of religious instruction, the economy-driven work requirements for parents to keep households afloat and a plethora of other factors, it all boils down to the choices of individuals (and their often over-boiling hormones). It's not a new thing. Is it more common now? I don't know. What I do know is that in this flawed logic presented by the president of our country, is an attempt to correct a symptom instead of targeting the actual problem.
What is the actual problem? The problem is multifactorial, far too expansive for me to hope to cover, let alone in a single (or even multiple) blogpost(s). But an important factor is the idea that people don't need to be accountable for their choices or responsible for their own well-being. The idea that we can blame others for our shortcomings, that others should bankroll our daily requirements. Rather like the ANC government throwing their shortcomings back to Apartheid. Rather like Zuma saying that corruption is a "Western" problem in an attempt to absolve himself of responsibility for being caught with his hands in the cookie jar. Rather like many ANC supporters who cast their votes in order to receive grants. Rather like government entities spending thousands (millions?) of taxpayers' hard-earned Rands on parties instead of providing the services they have been elected to perform. Dear President Zuma, if you think that teenaged girls are deliberately falling pregnant in order to receive grant money, wouldn't a better solution be to be more selective in determining who should and shouldn't receive grants? Oh wait, that would mean cutting off a huge portion of your votes. And maybe, Mr President, you should be a better example to the people of South Africa by taking responsibility for your ill-gotten gains.
So aside from dodging more Nkandla-related questioning yesterday, Zuma has, once again, pissed off a huge number of South Africans by stating that teenaged mothers should be removed from their babies and sent "far away" to complete their schooling. If you haven't heard about it, you can read a report here. There has been a massive outcry; ranging from pure dumbfoundedness that someone – a president – could make such a statement (but I think most South Africans are getting accustomed to Zuma's idiocy and learning to take it in their strides), others asking why teen mothers should bear all the responsibility when it takes two people doing the horizontal tango to create baby and varied responses regarding the validity of his assertions (such as the implication that teen mothers fall pregnant in order to receive social welfare grants which are, in turn, not used for the benefit of the child).
I read all of this discussion with mixed feelings. How can a man who is reported to have fathered at least 20 children, both in and out of wedlock, feel that he is an appropriate person to pass out such a form of judgement onto others? Is judgement the correct term? I'm not sure, but to suggest sending these girls away to "an island" comes across as punitive, which implies that they were judged to have done something wrong. Debates regarding teen sex aside, for there would be an exhaustive supply of those, on a moral level I don't feel that a person with such colourful progeny should be able to criticise baby-making by any of the citizens of the country he presides over. The fact is that the president has been promiscuous and while I would hope that most people are brought up to respect sex, whether or not one consigns to religious beliefs regarding the act, a president should lead by example and if young, impressionable people see that the man holding the highest office in the country has a history of sleeping around, it is not somewhat implied that promiscuity is acceptable? And when this man and his family have also been found to have unduly benefited from over R200 million spent on "security upgrades" to his private residence, who is he to complain about government funds being misused?!
That being said, I found myself in partial agreement with our "esteemed" president. As far as suggestions of sending teen mothers away or forcibly removing their children are concerned, I think that, unsurprisingly, Zuma is far off the mark. But I do agree with him regarding the fact that these girls should finish their schooling and attempt to better their lives so as not to create burdens for grandparents (and, in turn, the tax payers).
However, the other aspect of this line of thinking is probably also ill-thought out by Mr Zuma. If these girls are forced to complete their schooling, how many of them are likely to find employment which offers livable salaries with only a matric certificate? Has this man looked at the unemployment stats? Oops, that would imply that Zuma is a competent leader... But let's also not forget that JZee himself cannot say that he completed his matric - yet another instance where the nation's leader proves to be a rather poor role model for the youth.
And as far as removing babies from the arms of their mothers, I suppose it would be presumptuous of me to spend even a second considering whether or not Zuma has any understanding of human psychology and the kind of emotional damage that such an action could have. Yes, there are probably numerous instances where it would probably be in the best interests of some of these babies to be separated from their mothers, but in general babies will probably be better off with their mothers, hopefully also their fathers, and their grandparents.
But let's not mince words here because the fact is that teen pregnancy isn't going to go away. One can argue about how to prevent it, the moral degradation of society, the impact of religious instruction, the economy-driven work requirements for parents to keep households afloat and a plethora of other factors, it all boils down to the choices of individuals (and their often over-boiling hormones). It's not a new thing. Is it more common now? I don't know. What I do know is that in this flawed logic presented by the president of our country, is an attempt to correct a symptom instead of targeting the actual problem.
What is the actual problem? The problem is multifactorial, far too expansive for me to hope to cover, let alone in a single (or even multiple) blogpost(s). But an important factor is the idea that people don't need to be accountable for their choices or responsible for their own well-being. The idea that we can blame others for our shortcomings, that others should bankroll our daily requirements. Rather like the ANC government throwing their shortcomings back to Apartheid. Rather like Zuma saying that corruption is a "Western" problem in an attempt to absolve himself of responsibility for being caught with his hands in the cookie jar. Rather like many ANC supporters who cast their votes in order to receive grants. Rather like government entities spending thousands (millions?) of taxpayers' hard-earned Rands on parties instead of providing the services they have been elected to perform. Dear President Zuma, if you think that teenaged girls are deliberately falling pregnant in order to receive grant money, wouldn't a better solution be to be more selective in determining who should and shouldn't receive grants? Oh wait, that would mean cutting off a huge portion of your votes. And maybe, Mr President, you should be a better example to the people of South Africa by taking responsibility for your ill-gotten gains.
Comments
Post a Comment