12

When National Law and Culture Coalesce: Challenges for Children’s Rights in Botswana with Specific Reference to Corporal Punishment

Poloko Nuggert Ntshwarang and Vishanthie Sewpaul

Botswana has made several strides in its attempt to adhere to human rights standards, especially in relation to children’ rights. The country is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (UN, 1948); the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (UN, 1989), the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC) (African Commission on Human and People’s Rights [ACHPR], 1990), and the UN World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children (UNDSPDC) (UN, 1990). The CRC (UN, 1989) requires states to take

all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child. (Article 19)

The CRC and the ACRWC emphasize the right to be treated with dignity, protection, and integrity, with the CRC calling for children to be protected from “torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (Article 37), a right also enshrined in the UDHR.

Botswana promulgated the Children’s Act of 2009 (Government of Botswana, 2009), which is largely (but not entirely) aligned with the CRC and the ACRWC. Nonetheless, the use of corporal punishment (hereafter referred to as CP) in Botswana at family and state levels indicates that disciplinary practices that are normalized in law and culture are unlikely to be perceived as a threat to children’s rights and well-being. It is an anomaly that while adults are protected in law against assaults, children—who because of their age and size are more vulnerable—are not granted such protection.

The UNDSPDC (UN, 1990) asserts that “all children must be given the chance to find their identity and realize their worth in a safe and supportive environment, through families and other care-givers committed to their welfare” (Article 15). However, not every society conforms to established rights, largely because of entrenched and enduring cultural practices. The majority of countries do not prohibit CP in the home, even where it is prohibited in other spheres, and CP affects 80 percent of the world’s 1.7 billion children who experience violence (Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children [GIEACPC], 2017). Despite progress, with 53 states across the world now banning all forms of CP in all settings, 9 out of 10 children worldwide live in states where the law does not recognize their rights to protection from CP (GIEACPC, 2017).

Botswana is one of the few countries where CP is not prohibited in any setting and is one of six African countries with non-prohibition in all settings, with others being Mauritania, Nigeria, Somalia, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe (GIEACPC, 2017). Botswana’s Penal Code (Government of Botswana, 1964, Section 28); the Botswana Education Act (Government of Botswana, 1967, Sections 23 and 24); the Botswana Customary Law Act (Government of Botswana, 1969, Sections 21 (2)), and the Botswana Children’s Act (Government of Botswana, 2009) all condone CP of children. The Children’s Act (Government of Botswana, 2009) prohibits only “unreasonable” correction of a child by parents, thus allowing “reasonable” correction. The Children’s Act also expressly states that the legal provisions protecting a child’s dignity and prohibiting cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment do not preclude the use of CP (Articles 27 and 61).

CP is performed with the deliberate intention to cause pain on other persons to correct undesirable behaviours without causing injuries (Lansford, 2010). While Lansford emphasizes not causing injuries, the GIEACPC (2018) asserts that CP “includes any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light, as well as non-physical forms of punishment that are cruel and degrading” (emphasis added, para. 1). CP is an assault not only on the bodies of children, but their spirits; it is degrading and inhumane and produces enduring effects. The Government of Botswana rejected the recommendations of the international community to ban CP, arguing that “it is a legitimate and acceptable form of punishment, as informed by the norms of society” (GIEACPC, 2018, p. 5).

The norms of society and the legal sanction of CP in all spheres in Botswana enable its pervasive use. The state, as custodian of children’s rights, has an obligation to protect children, educate its citizens about the harmful consequences of CP, and foster positive parenting practices. The justification of the law being informed by “the norms of society” is akin to the tail wagging the dog, and the state abrogating its responsibilities. Legal reform is no guarantee of the protection and promotion of human rights, but it does play a huge role in enabling the achievement and protection of rights. At the very least, it makes the roles of advocates against the use of CP easier. It is harder to confront, challenge, and change harmful cultural practices when there is legal sanction for them.

Brief Literature Review

The use of CP in the home is not distinctive to African countries; it is practised in both Western and non-Western societies. With international pressure, advocacy, and public education campaigns, seven African countries have achieved prohibition of CP in all settings, while a further 18 countries have expressed commitment to banning CP in all settings (GIEACPC, 2017). The persistent use of CP across the world represents a major challenge in penetrating culturally entrenched parenting practices. The GIEACPC (2017) points to the double standards adopted by states, asserting that “too many governments claim to support ending all forms of violence against children while failing to prohibit violence disguised as discipline or punishment” (p. 4).

The normalization of CP to discipline children is endorsed by supportive societal attitudes and norms, even where CP is not condoned in law (Ellison & Bradshaw, 2009; Lansford, 2010). Renzaho et al. (2011), for example, found that parents used CP when the children failed to comply with their demands, and Weis and Toolis (2010) found that parents of African descent used parenting practices that valued respect for authority figures and unquestioning obedience to adults’ expectations. This coheres with the finding of Julius (2013) in the Kenyan context, where the majority (78 percent) of guidance counsellors expressed the view that CP was very effective or effective in disciplining children, yet paradoxically the majority of the 300 male and female learners, from day and boarding schools included in the study, believed that they should be referred to guidance counsellors, for assistance, rather than be subject to CP. However, Durrant (2000), a strong advocate against CP, discussed attitudinal changes following the legal banning of CP in Sweden.

There are several factors that contribute to the use of CP. These include: (1) the belief that it is the right and duty of parents to discipline children via the use of CP, as enshrined in the Biblical injunction “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly” (Proverbs 13:24, New King James Version); (2) in African traditional practices there is a pre-eminent respect for authority, elders, and customs, and there is a tendency to conflate fear with respect—and thus the misuse of values like Ubuntu and Botho, as discussed in chapter 1 (Weis & Toolis, 2010); (3) CP allows parents to feel in control and to ensure children’s compliance (Renzaho et al., 2011); (4) fear that children will become uncontrollable in the absence of the use of CP; (5) belief that CP shapes character and strengthens children’s moral development; and that (6) CP serves as a deterrent to undesirable behaviours (Gudyanga et al., 2014).

While CP gives parents immediate gratification, with children’s conformity and obedience (Bitensky, 1997; Gershoff & Bitensky, 2007), there is evidence that it has physical, psychological, and emotional consequences that impede healthy functioning. The negative consequences of CP have been documented in relation to decreased cognitive ability, poor academic performance, and school dropout (Ahmad et al., 2013; Gershoff, 2010; Tafa, 2002; UNICEF, 2014); manifestations of depression and anxiety in later life; reproduction of violence and aggression (Gershoff, 2010; Smith et al., 2004); inability to contribute to the internalization of ethics and desired societal values (Shumba, 2004); and poorer problem-solving skills (Smith et al., 2004).

Apart from its consequences, there are arguments that the use of CP is intrinsically unacceptable, as it violates the dignity of children; children are not property for parents to act upon as they please (Shumba, 2004). The distinction between CP and physical abuse is thin, thus the call for its total abolishment (Durrant, 2016; Gershoff, 2010; Lansford, 2010). However, Gudyanga et al. (2014), who approve of the use of CP under specific circumstances, argue that “the absence of corporal punishment is not a guarantee to achieving zero physical abuse of children” (p. 495). Given the size and age of parents compared with children, and the power differential between them, and the harmful effects of CP on a child’s sense of self (Bradshaw, 1996), its potential for physical injuries cannot be refuted (Gershoff, 2010). Parents might not intend to harm children, but the use of CP does cause emotional and physical harm (Gershoff, 2010; Lansford, 2010).

CP is abuse, but it also opens doors to other forms of child abuse. The frequent use of CP is associated with poor parent-child relations and poor attachment, as parents who use CP fail to build emotional bonds with their children (Gershoff, 2010). Parents are the primary caregivers who are supposed to ensure that children feel safe, secure, and protected, factors that are prized from an Afrocentric perspective. When children are exposed to pain by the very persons who are supposed to protect them, it contributes to mistrust and internalized shame, which may in later life manifest in codependent or survival personalities that typify a range of mental health problems, including addictive disorders (Bradshaw, 1996). It is against this background that this study sought to understand the parenting practices adopted by women across three different family structures.

Methodology

Guided by critical, structural social work theory (Mullaly & Mullaly, 2014), a cross-sectional qualitative, phenomenological research was conducted with 24 women, parenting children under 19 years of age from Selebi Phikwe town in Botswana. The main aim of the study was to understand the parenting practices of women with children in the following family structures: (a) female-headed families where the head of the family was employed; (b) two-parent families where both parents were employed; and (c) a two-parent family where the woman was unemployed and her partner was employed.

Snowball and purposive sampling strategies were used to select eight women in each category for inclusion in this study. Although these sampling strategies are haphazard and prone to researcher bias (Neuman, 2007), they were useful as they offered control over sample selection in relation to the required characteristics of the participants.

Data were collected using face-to-face interviews with the help of genograms and eco-maps to elicit data on the composition and structure of families, and on personal and family relationships (Rempel et al., 2007), and were primarily collected via home visits. Data were audio-recorded and transcribed, and thematic qualitative analysis was used (Babbie, 2016), with thick descriptions helping to retain the participants’ voices in the presentation of the data. All ethical research requisites in relation to doing no harm, maintaining confidentiality, informed consent (forms were translated into Setswana and the interviews were conducted in the local language, when necessary), assurance that participants could withdraw participation at any time, and ensuring anonymity in the reporting of the data, were assured. Ethical approval was granted from the University of KwaZulu-Natal Research Ethics Committee.

Key Research Results

One of the main objectives of the study was to understand whether family structure played a role in the types of parenting practices that the women adopted. The ages of the participants ranged from 31 to 52 years, with the average age being 42 years. The relatively mature age of the participants is linked to one of the inclusion criteria: that the participants must have parented at least one child who had reached adolescence or adulthood. As per the national norm, most women identified as belonging to the Christian faith. One woman had no formal education. Of those who had been to school, one-third acquired tertiary education, followed by 25 percent who had completed primary school, and 20.8 percent who had completed secondary school.

It was interesting to note that five of the eight women who held tertiary qualifications were from female-headed households, perhaps supporting the notion that women with higher educational qualifications are more financially independent, and three were from families where both partners were working. None of the unemployed women held any post-school qualification. Regarding CP, family structure seemed to make no difference.

The results of the study indicated that the entrenchment of CP in Botswana is deep, and it cuts across different family structures and socio-economic status, with most women (21) having used CP as a form of discipline. This resonates with Sebonego’s (1994) findings that CP was a universal form of discipline in Botswana, embedded in Tswana traditions. The results are presented under two key interrelated themes: (1) parental versus children’s rights and responsibilities; and (2) the normalization of the use of CP.

Parental versus Children’s Rights and Responsibilities

The findings of the study showed that there was limited awareness and understanding of the law pertaining to children’s rights in Botswana. All 24 women indicated that they had heard of children’s rights in the abstract, but the majority (18) were unaware of the Botswana Children’s Act (Government of Botswana, 2009). The results indicated that women who held higher educational qualifications, and who worked in specific sectors such as education and health, had an advantage in terms of access to the Children’s Act. Gorata, who was a 42-year-old single parent and a teacher, and had worked as a school guidance counsellor said:

I am aware of that. I have read it. It is helpful because it sends a reminder to the parent that one has to act in the best interest of the child. . . . It is helpful in curbing abuse of children. . . . Children sometimes misuse their rights, but they have to know them. A parent should teach her children about their rights. . . . I tell her [her daughter] that she should not use her rights to abuse me or to abuse others, because if one is not aware of his or her rights the child could take advantage of a parent’s lack of knowledge and abuse him or her. Sometimes when I tell her that I am going to beat her, she tells me that “this time when you beat me, I am going to the social workers to report you that you abuse my rights,” I tell her that “this house is mine, as long as you live with me and under my care, you have to listen to me, whether you have rights or not, we both have rights so we need to meet somewhere.”

Gorata’s narrative emphasizes both children’s and parental rights and responsibilities. Even with her background and knowledge, there was an overriding narrative of parental power over children. The discourse speaks to the lesser status of children, with the child’s dependent status translating into “you have to listen to me,” and to fear of parental abuse by children. Gorata’s knowledge of children’s rights did not prevent her from using CP. This coheres with the finding of Julius (2013) in the Kenyan context, which is discussed earlier.

The fear of giving up parental authority, and the possibility of the emphasis on children’s rights paving the way for parental abuse by children, was reiterated by Maano, who held a college diploma and worked as a nurse:

Yes, children abuse us. When you talk to today’s children, they talk about Childline, and children’s rights. . . . When you attempt to discipline a child, the child tells you “I will report you.” . . . I think children should also be taught about their parents’ rights, they should not only emphasize their own rights.

In desperation Maano said, “The law only pays attention to child abuse but overlooks parent abuse. Children abuse us, yes,” and she was of the view that the issue of parental abuse required urgent attention. Maano’s concerns bear some legitimacy, particularly in the face of lack of public education campaigns for children and adults on their reciprocal rights and responsibilities (which the ACRWC does pay attention to), and on the use of alternative, conscious positive parenting practices in the home, in schools, and in alternative care settings for children. While Mweru (2010) found higher levels of indiscipline among learners following the banning of CP in Kenyan schools, the author did not recommend its reinstatement, but called for education and sensitization about alternative forms of discipline.

Normalization of the Use of CP

The women’s knowledge about children’s rights did not translate into ensuring that those rights were respected. Sharon, who was a 43-year-old stay-at-home mum, adopted primarily authoritarian parental practices. She said:

I think I should discipline the child, I am not afraid to beat my child on the basis that my child has rights. My child cannot threaten me by telling me that he or she has rights and therefore she or he is going to report me for beating him or her . . . Sometimes when I listen to radio discussions about children’s deviant behaviours, I have heard parents complaining that we fail to discipline our children because of children’s rights.

Naledi, a 40-year-old unemployed woman, said: “I only heard about children’s rights but not that much. I know that we are not supposed to abuse children such as beating them too much.” Naledi’s view resonates with the Children’s Act (Government of Botswana, 2009), which approves reasonable use of CP. Regina, a 34-year-old unemployed woman with primary school education, who said she knew about children’s rights, indicated that they played no role in her disciplining her children. She said: “I beat them and when a person comes by and says, ‘their rights,’ I tell them to go away with them [rights] because I am disciplining my child.” She said, “I beat a child just right,” adding, “I never play with a child” (meaning she was hard on children when disciplining them).

Regina, as with the other participants, said she knew that the child had a right not to be beaten, but believed it was wholly okay for her to do so. The women expressed the view that they had to exercise control, and that it was their duty to discipline their children. Baboloki, who was from a female-headed family, and worked as a cleaner, said: “I like to talk to them before I introduce the whip, but when they do not listen or do as I want, I really discipline them,” while Lesedi asserted, “If one doesn’t beat them a bit one may find that one song is sung on a daily basis. Once you introduce a whip to beat them they will do as you want quickly.” The voices of the women support the notion of parents getting gratification from children’s immediate compliance and obedience, while failing to consider the long-term consequences of their actions.

As they did not know of the specific provisions of the Children’s Act (Government of Botswana, 2009) allowing for reasonable CP, the participants erroneously believed that all forms of CP were illegal. Their responses suggest that even if national law prohibited CP, they would most likely continue to use it. Disciplining of children was clearly not seen to be within the purview of the state, but as a private matter with the state having no right to intrude into the private space of the family. Given the extent of the normalization of the use of CP, this is not unusual. Julius (2013) reported that over 90 percent of the 300 learners in his study, in Kenya, reported the continued use of CP despite its banning, a finding reported by others such as Mweru (2010). The views of the participants were contrary to that expressed by the GIEACPC (2017), which proclaimed, “Violence is not a private matter that should be left to families to resolve, but a matter of human rights that states have a duty to uphold” (p. 11).

Kaone, a stay-at-home mum, who also believed that the law prohibited CP, had this to say: “Yes, . . . it is very difficult for me, when it comes to rights. . . . I just talk on the side saying, ‘Hey, these rights I think they have spoiled our children.’” Kaone went on to say:

If one gives her a few lashes she would go to the police. When you get there, they will tell you, “this child has rights.” When she is 19 years old! And then you ask yourself, they say she has rights, but she is 19 years old and I feed her and clothe her, but they say she has rights!

Kaone described how “I lashed them with everything I find near me. . . . And honestly speaking I lashed them too hard. . . . I beat children with anything” and talked about the intervention of the pastor at church in getting her to desist from extreme assaults on her children.

Koane’s utterances reflect the refrain of those who support CP about children’s rights “spoiling children,” and parental entitlement to discipline via the use of CP, as they are the primary providers for their children. Mareledi’s use of force is reflected in the following: “I would just look at them while they fight. . . . I would silently go to get a rod and whip them . . . and whip, whip, whip!”

Maipelo chuckled as she emphasized the severity of her use of CP: “I don’t really talk to a child many times. . . . I lash them, and I do it soundly.” Another participant asserted, “I used to beat him when he was young, he was naughty. He would go and play the whole day, he would come late. . . . When he comes I’ll whip him” (MmaThobo). While MmaThobo stopped beating her son as he grew older, Kaone felt entitled to beat up her 19-year-old daughter, as “I feed and clothe her.”

Of salience is that CP is often accompanied by negative verbal communication that is intended to belittle, humiliate, and emotionally blackmail children. In an extreme pronouncement, loaded with emotional blackmail with the injunction that the children owed her gratitude for being born, Sarah, a 52-year-old single parent with no formal schooling, said:

I also threaten to beat them or kill them. I also tell them that if I did not like them, I could have aborted them but the fact that I carried them in my tummy for nine months and bore them shows that I love them. They listen!

There was no reason to doubt Sarah’s love for her children, and she was unaware of the potentially destructive nature of her communication (see Bradshaw, 1996). The fact that parents do not intend harm, but inadvertently inflict harm in their day-to-day practice, calls for conscious, positive parenting educational programs.

Discussion of Results

The women’s accounts of the use of CP indicate that children are exposed to physical discipline from an early age, and for some it continues into adolescence. The women spoke of using CP not to hurt, but to “bring children in line,” with many of them being careful to differentiate between child abuse and discipline. However, the non-physical manifestations of CP in relation to a child’s poor sense of self and negative childhood life experiences can contribute to survival/codependent personalities (Bradshaw, 1996). Research evidence of CP being linked to school dropout, anxiety, depression, aggression, and anti-social behaviours, and reproduction of violence, are all ignored. The participants saw their actions as legitimate, and they disregarded children’s rights to be free from pain and suffering, and from inhumane and degrading conduct.

While the Education Act (Government of Botswana, 1967) specifies under what conditions and how CP is to be administered, and the Children’s Act speaks of “reasonable” use of CP, what constitutes “reasonableness” is open to interpretation. The findings of the study support Donnelly’s (1984) assertion that, in a cultural context where CP is a deep-rooted parenting practice, its potential for harm is often overlooked. Almost all the 21 women who used CP used the whip, and some talked about hitting children in anger. Therein lies one of the dangers in the use of CP; it is generally associated with hostile parenting, which Smith et al. (2004), in their longitudinal study in Australia, found produced adverse social and psychological consequences.

CP in Botswana is a normalized part of day-to-day practice that is replicated in the school setting. Some women indicated that when children complained about being beaten at school, they responded that teachers were doing it for the children’s own good. There is a paradox in teaching children non-violence by inflicting violence upon them. The use of CP denies children control, relegates them to subordinate positions, and contributes to intergenerational patterns of its use (GIEACPC, 2017). CP undermines the democratic ideals of society (Jotia & Boikhutso, 2012), and its immediate and long-term effects on children compromise the achievement of the 2030 sustainable development goals (GIEACPC, 2017).

An interesting finding is that the women had heard about children’s rights in the abstract, and expressed concerns that the focus on children’s rights, and the inability to discipline as they saw fit, would threaten parental authority. None of them were aware of the specific legal provisions in Botswana that allow for CP. Although they believed that the use of CP was illegal, they commonly used it as a disciplinary practice. The question that this raises is: If they knew that CP is sanctioned in law might it contribute to its greater use? At the very least for the women, such knowledge would have served to legitimate their choice of CP.

Child rights advocates, who support a child’s right to be treated with dignity, and with freedom from torture and inhumane and degrading treatment, experience greater challenges when structural conditions, rooted in legal frameworks, support CP. Given the ideological hegemony of deeply entrenched cultural beliefs and practices, it becomes more difficult when the law supports the violation of child rights. As ideology constitutes “socially, culturally and politically constructed” taken-for-granted assumptions (Sewpaul, 2013, p. 119), there is a need for counter-hegemonic discourses and practices. Such counter-hegemony can be provided through legal and policy reform and broad-based societal education that challenge cultural constructions of children as property to do as adults wish with them, and the way children are treated. Such reforms and education must be directed toward child-centred family policies, programs and laws where conscious, positive parenting practices are advocated for and supported.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Tearing up the roots of such an authoritarian and degrading parenting practice as CP is challenging, as it is normalized in law and in culture in Botswana. The results of this study show that CP is used by parents regardless of family structure and socio-economic background. The structural dimensions of law and culture intersect to play a critical role in maintaining and reproducing parenting practices that hinder children’s rights, particularly their right to protection.

Legal reform is central to challenging and deconstructing dominant constructions of children and the ways in which adults relate with them. The laws supporting the use of CP in Botswana must be amended to ban the use of CP. But beyond the law is the role of social workers as cultural mediators, as evidence suggests that banning of CP is insufficient to produce desired changes. Social workers need to engage communities in dialogue to challenge some of the taken-for-granted assumptions underlying CP by providing evidence-based research that documents the negative consequences of CP, and engage in public education about alternatives, embracing conscious, positive parenting practices.

The banning of CP, combined with public education, holds the potential for disrupting intergenerational cycle of abuse, and for reducing the long-term negative impact of CP on children, families, and society at large (GIEACPC, 2017). Such education must be underscored by emancipatory forms of praxis and consciousness raising, designed to disrupt deeply held myths and misconceptions. Harmful cultural practices endure, often from one generation into the next, as ideology constitutes false consciousness that one is generally not aware of (Althusser, 2006; Sewpaul, 2013). But this does not mean that ideology cannot be disrupted. Sewpaul (2013) argued that “if people are provided with alternative learning experiences whether formal or informal they have the ability to disrupt dominant thinking” (p. 119). The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2006) advises:

The first purpose of law reform to prohibit corporal punishment of children within the family is prevention: to prevent violence against children by changing attitudes and practice, underlining children’s right to equal protection and providing an unambiguous foundation for child protection and for the promotion of positive, non-violent and participatory forms of child-rearing. . . . The aim should be to stop parents from using violent or other cruel or degrading punishments through supportive and educational, not punitive, interventions. (Article 1)

Prevention includes having resources available to support families in changing their practices concerning CP.

Parenting is challenging and daunting, and parents need support with child rearing and positive parenting, which include the following key components: long-term solutions directed at children’s self-regulation; clear communication of expectations, rules, and limits; building mutually respectful relationships; teaching children skills for life; increasing children’s confidence and ability to deal with challenging life circumstances; and teaching courtesy, non-violence, empathy, human rights, self-respect, and respect for others (Durrant, 2016, p. 6). Activities such as public meetings, workshops, and media programs to educate families and the public about the effects of CP are needed to enhance positive parenting practices.

Educational programs, based on dialogue and the development of critical consciousness (Parsons, 1991) rather than didactic pedagogical strategies, have the potential to empower people. For example, in Botswana, issues concerning CP can be dialogued in “kgotla” and Parent Teachers Association (PTA) meetings. The “kgotla,” which is based on Afrocentric communitarian values, is a community-centred gathering place where members of a particular community meet to discuss various issues (Maundeni & Jacques, 2012). Education and sensitization about alternative forms of discipline can help community leaders, parents, professionals, and the community at large to rethink their stance on CP.

As professionals in Botswana, including social workers, are part of their socio-cultural and legal contexts, they are subject to the same dominant discourses and practices, and might have themselves normalized the use of CP (see IASSW, 2018). Research into the views of social workers, as was done by Julius (2013) with school principals, guidance counsellors, and teachers in Kenya, will be useful. Julius (2013) stated that over 90 percent of the 300 learners in his study, in Kenya, reported the continued use of CP, despite its banning, a finding reported by others such as Mweru (2010).

Social workers must engage in processes of ongoing self-reflexivity in order to be aware of the values and assumptions that they bring into their relationships in working with people, and they must work toward social justice by challenging all forms of discrimination, oppression, and transgression of human rights (Sewpaul, 2013; IASSW, 2018). Social work researchers, educators, and practitioners, in collaboration with other stakeholders nationally and internationally, must advocate for laws and policies that prohibit CP in all settings.

Parents in this study had no awareness of the long-term repercussions of CP on their children, and of their violation of children’s rights. Some of them were also concerned that the dominant discourse on children’s rights might hinder parental rights and contribute to the abuse of parents. While there are huge power imbalances between children and parents, and CP cannot be condoned, the concerns of parents must be addressed. Parental abuse by children is equally unacceptable. There is a need for broad-based community education that deals with parents’ and children’s rights and responsibilities, combined, when necessary, with individual, family, and small-group based interventions to deal with family conflicts and violence, and to enhance parent-child relationships.

References

African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR). (1990). African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. Banjul, GM: Author.

Ahmad, I., Said, H., & Khan, F. (2013). Effect of corporal punishment on students’ motivation and classroom learning. Review of European Studies, 5(4): 130–134.

Althusser, L. (2006). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (Notes towards an investigation). The anthropology of the state: A reader, 9(1), 86–98.

Babbie, E. R. (2016). The practice of social research (14th ed.). Scarborough, ON: Nelson Education.

Bitensky, S. H. (1997). Spare the rod, embrace our humanity: Toward a new legal regime prohibiting corporal punishment of children. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 31, 353.

Bradshaw, J. (1996). Bradshaw on the family: A new way of creating solid self-esteem. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications.

Donnelly, J. (1984). Cultural relativism and universal human rights. Human Rights, 6, 400.

Durrant, J. E. (2000). A generation without smacking: The impact of Sweden’s ban on physical punishment. London, UK: Save the Children.

Durrant, J. E. (2016). Positive parenting in everyday parenting. London, UK: Save the Children.

Ellison, C. G., & Bradshaw, M. (2009). Religious beliefs, sociopolitical ideology, and attitudes toward corporal punishment. Journal of Family Issues, 30(3), 320–340.

Gershoff, E. T. (2010). More harm than good: A summary of scientific research on the intended and unintended effects of corporal punishment on children. Law and Contemporary Problems, 73(2), 31–56.

Gershoff, E. T., & Bitensky, S. H. (2007). The case against corporal punishment of children: Converging evidence from social science research and international human rights law and implications for US public policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13(4), 231.

Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children (GIEACPC). (2017). Prohibiting all corporal punishment of children in Africa: An essential step towards fullfilling the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved August 2018 from http://endcorporalpunishment.org/wp-content/uploads/regional/DAC-briefing-2017-EN.pdf

Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children (GIEACPC). (2018). Corporal punishment of children in Botswana. Retrieved August 2018 from https://endcorporalpunishment.org/wpcontent/uploads/global/Global-report-2017-spreads.pdf

Gudyanga, E., Mbengo, F., & Wadesango, N. (2014). Corporal punishment in schools: Issues and challenges. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(9), 493.

Government of Botswana. (1964). Penal Code. Gaborone, BW: Government Printing & Publishing.

Government of Botswana. (1967). Education Act. Gaborone, BW: Government Printing & Publishing.

Government of Botswana. (1969). Customary Law Act. Gaborone, BW: Government Printing & Publishing.

Government of Botswana. (2009). Children’s Act. Gaborone, BW: Government Printing & Publishing.

IASSW. (2018). Global social work statement of ethical principles. Retrieved November 2018 from https://www.iassw-aiets.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Global-Social-Work-Statement-of-Ethical-Principles-IASSW-27-April-2018.pdf

Jotia, L., & Boikhutso, K. (2012). How corporal punishment undermines a democratic society: Is it necessary in Botswana schools? Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 3(2): 119–126.

Julius, M. M. (2013). An Assessment of the extent of use of corporal punishment in secondary schools in Muthambi Divison in Maara District, Tharaka Nithi County, Kenya. (Unpublished master’s thesis).: Kenyatta University, Nairobi, KE.

Lansford, J. E. (2010). The special problem of cultural differences in effects of corporal punishment. Law and Contemporary Problems, 73(2), 89–106.

Maundeni, T., & Jacques, G. (2012). “… and a little child shall lead them”: Utilising Kgotla meetings to empower children and the communities that nurture them. In T. Maundeni and M. Nnyepi (Eds.), Thari ya bana: Reflections on children in Botswana (pp. 74–80). Gaborone, BW: UNICEF and University of Botswana.

Mullaly, B., & Mullaly, R. P. (2014). Challenging oppression and confronting privilege: A critical social work approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Mweru, M. (2010). Why are Kenyan teachers still using corporal punishment eight years after a ban on corporal punishment? Child Abuse Review, 19(4), 248–258.

Neuman, W. L. (2007). The basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. New York, NY: Pearson Education.

Parsons, R. J. (1991). Empowerment: Purpose and practice principle in social work. Social Work with Groups, 14(2), 7–21.

Rempel, G. R., Neufeld, A., & Kushner, K. E. (2007). Interactive use of genograms and ecomaps in family caregiving research. Journal of Family Nursing, 13(4), 403–419.

Renzaho, A., Green, J., Mellor, D., & Swinburn, B. (2011). Parenting, family functioning and lifestyle in a new culture: The case of African migrants in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Child & Family Social Work, 16(2), 228–240.

Sebonego, M. M. (1994). Report of a case study: Child abuse and neglect (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botwana.

Sewpaul, V. (2013). Inscribed in our blood: Confronting and challenging the ideology of sexism and racism. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 28(2), 116–125.

Shumba, A. (2004). Pupil physical abuse by teachers: A child-rearing practice or a cultural dilemma? Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 8(4), 143–159.

Smith, A., Gollop, M., Taylor, N., & Marshall, K. (2004). The discipline and guidance of children: A summary of research. Otago, NZ: Children’s Issues Centre, University of Otago, and Office of the Children’s Commissioner.

Tafa, E. M. (2002). Corporal punishment: The brutal face of Botswana’s authoritarian schools. Education Review, 54(1), 17–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131910120110848

UN. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Geneva, CH: Author.

UN. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Geneva, CH: Author.

UN. (1990). World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children. Retrieved July 2018, from http://www.un-documents.net/wsc-dec.htm

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2006). CRC General Comment No. 8: The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment. Geneva, CH: UN. Retrieved November 2020 from http://endcorporalpunishment.org/wp-content/uploads/key-docs/CRC-general-comment-8.pdf

UNICEF. (2014). Hidden in plain sight: A statistical analysis of violence against children. New York: Author.

Weis, R., & Toolis, E. E. (2010). Parenting across cultural contexts in the USA: Assessing parenting behaviour in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse sample. Early Child Development and Care, 180(7), 849–867.