a Law and the administration of justice
b Equality of opportunity
c History
d Civic and social rights and responsibilities
e Consumer [buyer] rights
f Violence
g Identity
h Experience of human rights education at school
Due to national circumstances there were minor variations in the questionnaire put to students. Each section was preceded by an introductory statement and, before they started, some were told, "You have been selected to take part in an important study involving selected young people in four Commonwealth countries - Botswana, India, Northern Ireland in Britain and Zimbabwe. It aims to find out what you know about human rights and similar issues, and will assist schools in future."
The introduction was, You see a policeman catch someone who is running away with an article taken from a shop. [Six questions follow, and students were asked to tick or answer YES or NO to each. The last two questions are open ended.]
i Would you expect the policeman to beat the person and put him or her in prison? ii Would you expect the person to be tried in a court of law?iii Would you expect the person to have a [friend] or lawyer who can examine witnesses and plead in his or her defence?
iv Would you expect members of the public to watch the case being tried in court?
v Would you expect that the judge or jury will not decide as to whether the person stole the article until after they have heard the case?
vi Would you expect that the policeman will take a [bribe either from the thief or from the shop owner?
vii In this incident, what do you think should happen?
viii From your experience, what do you think would really happen in practice if this incident took place near where you live?
The aim of this group of questions was to see whether students understood that extra-judicial action by police is unlawful; that a person accused of theft has a right to a trial; that an accused person has a right to defense; that trials are held in public; that a judge or jury should not decide until they have heard the case.
The key findings here were:
i That the samples were able to distinguish between might happen in practice, and what ought to happen - that is to say they had a good grasp of the human rights principles which should apply even while they recognised that there could be unlawful action by the police or the public. Hence 40.5% of the Botswana sample and 72.1% of the Indian sample expected that a policemen would beat the person and put him or her in prison. However 91.6% of the Northern Ireland sample did not expect this and, while 41.1% of the younger Zimbabwe group expected a beating to happen, 88% of the 16 year olds did not.
When pressed to ask what would happen if the incident occurred in their neighbourhood 50% of the Indian sample expected unlawful action by the police. In Botswana only 30% replied, of which half said that the crowd would beat up the thief. In Northern Ireland 17.3% thought the due process of law would be followed, 16.4% thought the offender would be given a second chance, but 11.7% thought that violence would be used, or guilt would be assumed, or the judge would be over-influenced by the police evidence.
But, answering the open-ended question on what should happen, 70.1% of the Botswana respondents said that the police should act according to the law and follow the set procedure. In India, 40.7% talked of compassion, leniency, and the social causes of crime while not ignoring the judicial process; 33.7% stressed trial and punishment according to the law, but also mentioned humane treatment; only 17.9% supported the idea of police beating up the person.
Only amongst the older group in India (Class XI students) was there a majority which expected a bribe to be taken (53.3%). In Botswana 30% expected a bribe to be taken and in Zimbabwe the 16 year olds were slightly more pessimistic than their juniors - 25.3% expected a bribe to be taken. In Northern Ireland only 6.1% expected a bribe to be taken, while 75.7% did not.
ii That the samples understood that a person accused of theft was entitled to a court trial. The responses here ranged from the lowest expectation in India (where 67% expected this to happen, while 31.4% did not) up to Zimbabwe, (where 88.8% expected this to happen). In Northern Ireland the expectation of "due process" was slightly higher among female and younger students, and there was a significant difference between the lower expectations (71.8%) in a "Protestant" all-boys urban secondary school, as compared with the much higher expectations (93.2%) in a "Catholic", coeducational, rural secondary school.
iii That the samples had a good grasp of the concept of innocence until guilt is proved, and that an accused person is entitled to a defence. The lowest margin answering YES to the question about a lack of prejudgment by judge or jury was in India (70% YES to 28.1% NO), but it was still overwhelming. The YES response came from 71.3% in Botswana, 84.6% in Northern Ireland and 89.2% in Zimbabwe. In Northern Ireland there was a difference along the religious divide, with the "Protestant" group more likely to anticipate that a case might be prejudged than the "Catholic" students.
Similar majorities thought that the accused would have a lawyer or friend to help defend them, although there were differences by age. In India 8% more of the older group expected the person would have a lawyer, whereas in the Zimbabwe sample 70.5% of the 14 year olds but only 60.9% of the 16 year olds expected this. In Northern Ireland there was again a distinction on the religious line, with the lowest expectation (71.8%) being in the "Protestant", all-boys, urban secondary school and highest in the "Catholic", all-girls, urban secondary school (94.7%).
iv The least confident response concerned justice being seen to be done, and public access to the courts.
In Botswana, the concept of public access was held by a relatively small majority - 57.5% to 40.5%. In India, 69.2% expected the public would be able to watch, with a greater expectation among the older group. In Northern Ireland a majority - 56.5% to 43% - did not expect the public to be able to watch the trial. In Zimbabwe 69.1% of the 14 year olds and the same percentage of 16 year olds expected the public to attend.
The explanation for the Northern Ireland response may have been threefold: that the students knew that the Juvenile courts, with which they might have most contact, are not open to the public; a belief that all courts in Northern Ireland are not open to the public due to the prevailing security situation (although this is not true); or a view that members of the public would not be motivated to attend a mere shoplifting case.
In conclusion: It could be said that most secondary school students understood the concepts illustrated, but significant minorities did not. The public justice system in any country, to be democratically effective, needs the consent and understanding of virtually the whole population. This section of the survey reveals significant between-country differences, and that there was not always a progression between the younger and older age-groups. It was noteworthy that in Botswana and India, where expectations of police and public behaviour were pessimistic, students retained an accurate, rights-based view of what ought to happen.
The introduction was, You see four persons applying for a job who have the same qualifications and the same experience. Two are men and two are women. The persons come from different races, cultures and religions [also tribes, languages and castes]. What do you think will really happen in practice? [Five YES/NO questions follow, and then an open-ended question.]
i The person will get the job who is most like the people making the appointment in terms of their sex, race and religion [also tribes, languages and castes]?ii The person will get the job who performs best at the interview test?
iii One of the two men will get the job?
iv Either the youngest or the oldest of the four will get the job?
v Will three of them have reasons for complaints if the one who performed worst at the interview test was given the job?
vi Who do you think should get the job?
The object of this group of questions was to get students to think about equality of opportunity in employment; specifically they had to consider the situation in their own societies with regard to similarities between those appointing to jobs and those appointed, the acceptance of "quality" or meritocratic criteria, racism etc. gender equality and ageism. Finally the open-ended question required them to suggest what they thought was a fair basis for an appointment.
The key findings here were:
i That the samples showed some confusion as to how far meritocratic considerations currently apply to appointments to jobs in their own countries. The first, second and fifth questions represented different ways of coming at this issue, and the answers did not tally, thus:
% YES
|
|
Like appointers i |
Best at interview, ii |
Justified complaint, v |
|
BOTSWANA |
43.0 |
86.0 |
63.0 |
|
INDIA (14) |
37.5 |
71.9 |
53.1 |
|
INDIA (16) |
46.7 |
64.5 |
60.5 |
|
NORTHERN IRELAND |
57.9 |
67.3 |
85.5 |
|
ZIMBABWE (14) |
49.5 |
70.1 |
71.1 |
|
ZIMBABWE (16) |
56.5 |
81.5 |
74.7 |
(Nb National teams in India and Zimbabwe provided a comparative analysis of responses at around 14 and around 16 for all questions, whereas in Northern Ireland these differences were only reported where significant and in Botswana it was not possible to make this analysis.)
There is an obvious contradiction between the idea of likeness to the appointing persons in gender, ethnicity, religion etc and the more open, meritocratic idea that the "best at the interview" should get the job. Similarly, although the four countries do not share equally in a "complaining culture" over employment, and there are significant differences in legislation and the state of the labour market, one might expect a greater parallelism between the answers about the best interview performer getting the job, and the justice of complaints if, instead, the worst interviewee is offered the post. Only for the older group in India and the younger group in Zimbabwe was there an approximation between these two responses.
ii In spite of this confusion the final, open-ended question showed that the samples were overwhelmingly of the opinion that the best qualified, in terms of skills, qualifications and experience, should get the job. This view was expressed by 82.5% in Botswana, 85.9% in India, 83.7% in Northern Ireland, and 81.6% in Zimbabwe (where significantly more of the older group than the younger group stated this.)
iii That, although all countries had seen campaigns for gender equality, at least a third and sometimes nearer a half of the national samples thought that a man would always get the job when male and female applicants were equally qualified. Only among the younger Zimbabweans was there a majority which believed that the man would get the job (by 51.5% to 48.5%), but the comparable figures expecting a man to be appointed were 46% in Botswana, 32.7% in India, 39.7% in Northern Ireland and 46.2% among the older Zimbabweans.
iv That ageism was perceived as less significant than sexism. In no country was there a majority for the view that youth or age would be decisive in obtaining a job. The view that in practice neither the youngest nor the oldest would get the job was held by 56% in Botswana, 83% in India, 76.2% in Northern Ireland (where female students were more likely than males to take this line), and 64% in Zimbabwe (where younger students were more likely to respond in this way.)
In conclusion: Most of this section required students to focus on their own countries, looking at different dimensions which might apply to recruiting procedures, and only at the end were they asked to state what they thought ought to happen. The questions were not easy, since in every country "ideal" fair employment practices can be subverted and in India (where 5.8% said that the most needy should get the job and another 4.5% referred to the most qualified and needy) a policy of affirmative action reserves jobs for depressed classes (eg Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) and in some situations for women. The most striking result was the support for a nondiscriminatory approach based on merit: over 80% of each country sample believed that the best qualified person should get the job, irrespective of race, culture, religion, sex or age.
The introductory statement was, Colonialism, which is the owning of one country and the control of its people by another country, is now thought to be wrong. [Five questions follow, which may be answered STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, DON'T KNOW, DISAGREE and STRONGLY DISAGREE; the first three relate to attitudes to colonialism, the second two to the period after independence; the last question is open-ended.]
i Do you think it is wrong because the country that owns another is taking money and riches from it?ii Do you think it is wrong because people in every country should be free to choose their own leaders/government and way of life?
iii Do you think it is wrong because people in the colonised country have to obey orders from the government of another country?
iv When the country is independent and the people can choose their own government and laws, can you be sure that the rights of all the people in that country will be respected?
v Do people need to vote, to obey the law and take an active interest in what goes on around them if everyone is to be able to enjoy their rights?
vi What else do people in an independent country need to do to enjoy their rights?
The aim of this group of questions, which recognised that for most Commonwealth states their independence followed a period as colonies within the British Empire, was twofold. First they were asked to consider why they thought colonialism was wrong in a rights context (whether for economic or for political reasons); second, they had to say whether political independence actually guaranteed rights (as many independence constitutions aspired), and what more people could then do to enjoy their rights.
The key findings here were:
i The strongest agreement, in all four samples, was for the positive statement that people should be free to choose their leaders and way of life. Thus:
% AGREE + STRONGLY AGREE
|
|
Choosing leaders/life, ii |
Have to obey, iii |
Money and riches, i |
|
BOTSWANA |
70 |
56 |
61 |
|
INDIA (14) |
89.4 |
63.1 |
67.4 |
|
INDIA (16) |
89.5 |
79 |
82.2 |
|
NORTHERN IRELAND |
87.45 |
70.5 |
69.1 |
|
ZIMBABWE (14) |
89.6 |
58.3 |
82.3 |
|
ZIMBABWE (16) |
90.1 |
67 |
89 |
Except in Northern Ireland therefore the second most objectionable aspect to colonialism was the suggestion that economic resources were being extracted from the colony. The fact that the people in the colonised country might have to obey orders from the colonising power was seen as less important.
There were some more subtle aspects to this set of results, relating perhaps to the nature of teaching about recent history. For example in India there was a significant difference between the younger and older samples on the obedience and economic questions. In Northern Ireland, where contested histories of Britain and Ireland could add to confusion, there was evidence that the end of colonial empires had not been taught from a rights perspective. In Zimbabwe too a surprising 37.5% of the 14 year olds disagreed and disagreed strongly with the statement that colonialism is now thought to be wrong because it involves obeying another government's orders. In a generation born after Zimbabwe's independence a large group had no conception of the element of oppression in colonial rule.
ii The samples were uncertain as to how far political independence can guarantee rights in practice. In Botswana 50.5% agreed or strongly agreed that independence guarantees citizens, rights, but 34.5% disagreed and strongly disagreed. In India, 51% said that one could not be sure that rights would be respected while 48.7% said that one could be. Rural students in India were more than 10% more optimistic than urban students that independence and democracy guarantee rights. In Northern Ireland the largest group were the "don't knows" (37.9%), and more disagreed (27.6%) than agreed, strongly or otherwise (24.3%). In Zimbabwe, 58.8% of the 14 year olds disagreed as did 68.1% of the 16 year olds.
iii Most students recognised that they had to vote, obey the laws and take an active interest in what goes on around them if everyone is to enjoy their rights today. This recognition of the need for an active citizenship counted on support ranging up from 73% (Botswana) to 85.3% (India); however significant minorities, approximately a fifth in Botswana and Zimbabwe, disagreed. The open-ended question, although some students did not respond, reinforced the majority view that citizens have to participate if rights are to be enjoyed. The most popular single suggestion in each country was: in Botswana, the need for democracy (16.5%); in India, obedience to the law and performing one's duties (34.3%); in Northern Ireland, the need for representation and the opportunity to vote (17.3%); and in Zimbabwe, the fight for good governance (26.6% of the younger sample and 15.9% of the older group).
In conclusion: Although the creation of a modern Commonwealth of sovereign states is within living memory, these results show some ignorance of colonialism and the background to independence in the younger generation. In Northern Ireland, there is lack of identification with an independent state which could easily compare with the experience of the three other samples and in Zimbabwe, where the process leading to recognised independence was different from most other Commonwealth members, there was some lack of understanding. However, many students appreciated that political independence does not necessarily guarantee rights. In India, where leaders at independence saw this as a prerequisite but not a guarantee of democracy and human rights, there was an encouraging difference between the younger and older students. The older, class XI students showed a much clearer grasp, both of colonialism and the issues arising after independence.
The introductory statement was, Imagine you are a grown-up adult in your country. How important do you think it is for you and the well-being of your country that you and your friends should: [Six questions follow, to be answered VERY IMPORTANT, IMPORTANT, DON'T KNOW, UNIMPORTANT, VERY UNIMPORTANT; the seventh question is open-ended.]
i Vote in elections?ii Pay your taxes?
iii Know what your Government is doing?
iv Be free to join societies, political parties, trade unions, and to follow the religion of your choice?
v Support your Government and others when they try to provide homes for the homeless, better health care, more and better schools, jobs and food for the poor?
vi Act to support the homeless, health care, education, jobs and food even if the Government could not?
vii Is there anything else you could do to strengthen social rights and responsibilities as a citizen in your country?
The aim of this group of questions was to test basic citizenship commitments (the first three); the degree of backing for freedom of association, political freedom and religion (the fourth question); support for economic and social rights (the fifth question); and a sense of individual responsibility for economic and social rights (the sixth). This group of questions overtly matched the concept of rights with the concept of corresponding duties.
The key findings here were:
i The high importance attached to voting in elections and to knowing what the government does. In each country, with the exception of Botswana where 88% of the sample thought this was important and very important, over 90% of the sample agreed on the importance of voting. The highest response on voting was actually in India, where 82.6% thought it very important and 13.8% thought it important, totalling 96.4% in all. These figures were paralleled in the answers to knowing about the government's action. In Botswana 84% thought this important and very important; in India 95.1%, Northern Ireland 96.7% and Zimbabwe 93.1% of the samples said the same.
ii Support for taxes was rated lower than the importance of voting and knowing what the government does. In Botswana 68% thought this important and very important, but over 20% either did not know or thought it unimportant or very unimportant. In India, 94% thought it very important and important, with more urban and male students thinking it very important than did rural and female students, by margins of roughly 12-17%. In Northern Ireland 80.8% thought this important and very important, but this reaction was less true of the 14 year olds (76.8%) than of the 16 year olds (84.9%). It was also less true of pupils from the "Catholic" schools (74.7%) than those from the "Protestant" schools (90.3%) although the older "Catholic" group were significantly more aware of the importance of taxes. In Zimbabwe 84.2% of the 14 year olds and 92.4% of the 16 year olds thought this important and very important.
iii Support for government welfare programmes to realise economic and social rights matched the commitment to voting and knowing what the government does, but significantly outran support for freedom of association and for voluntary action in social and welfare fields. Thus:
% IMPORTANT + VERY IMPORTANT
|
|
Support government, v |
Act for welfare, vi |
Free to associate, iv |
|
BOTSWANA |
85 |
52 |
82 |
|
INDIA (14) |
95 |
84.4 |
75 |
|
INDIA (16) |
98.6 |
87.5 |
79.6 |
|
NORTHERN IRELAND |
97.2 |
74.8 |
91.1 |
|
ZIMBABWE (14) |
95.8 |
86.5 |
85.4 |
|
ZIMBABWE (16) |
100 |
95.7 |
83.7 |
iv Students had real difficulty in imagining what else they could do to strengthen social rights and responsibilities. The final, open-ended question was not administered in Botswana; in India 16.3% failed to respond, 32% failed to respond in Northern Ireland and in Zimbabwe 41.2% of the 14 year olds and 69% of the 16 year olds either failed to answer or gave irrelevant replies. Of those answers which did come, 20.2% in India suggested work to help the poor and needy, and the same percentage mentioned helping to promote people's awareness about their rights and duties; 25.7% in Northern Ireland listed various measures relating to law enforcement, taxation and anti-discrimination; and in Zimbabwe there was support for promoting peace and harmony, and improved dialogue between the government and people.
In conclusion: These Commonwealth samples demonstrate both a high and an equal understanding and support for political rights (voting and knowledge of government action) and economic and social rights (homes, health, education, employment, food). Although these were broad-brush responses they tend to show that there is no perceived hierarchy or differentiation between these two sets of rights. While there was considerable support for voluntary action in the welfare field the responses implied that governments are seen as having the critical responsibility here. That the interrelationship of rights and responsibilities is not fully understood was illustrated by the rather lower support for taxation and the freedoms of association. It is obviously impossible for governments to realise economic and social rights without taxation, and meaningful voting requires a choice of political parties in an atmosphere of free association.
The introductory statement was, As a citizen of your country you use many products, read newspapers, and listen to radio or watch TV. Then followed five questions, to be answered STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, DON'T KNOW, DISAGREE or STRONGLY DISAGREE:
i Do you think that a consumer is entitled to get money back if a product is not what it claims, or cannot do what it says on the packaging?ii Do you think advertising a product often involves exaggerating or lying about what it can do?
iii Do you think that radio and TV should give all sides of an event and not only report what Ministers and officials have to say about it?
iv Do you think it is always wrong/unfair if officials take bribes?
v Do you think that if a company or individual pollutes or damages their neighbour's land, property, animals, or the water they drink or the air they breathe, the company or individual should be prosecuted in court?
The aim of this group of questions was to see how far students might recognise that a citizen's rights are affected by misleading advertising or media reporting, by corruption among officials, or environmental pollution.
The key findings here were:
i With the exception of Northern Ireland, most of the samples thought it more important that environmental polluters should be prosecuted in court than that consumers should have a right to a refund if a product is not what it claims, or cannot do what it says on the packaging, thus:
% STRONGLY AGREE + AGREE
|
|
Product refund, i |
Prosecute polluters, v |
|
BOTSWANA |
58.5 |
68 |
|
INDIA (14) |
75.7 |
85.7 |
|
INDIA (16) |
77 |
93.4 |
|
NORTHERN IRELAND (14) |
100 |
88.8* |
|
NORTHERN IRELAND (16) |
97.2 |
88.8* |
|
ZIMBABWE (14) |
79 |
93.7 |
|
ZIMBABWE (16) |
83.7 |
87.9 |
* (The pollution question was not analysed by age in Northern Ireland)
ii Product refunds were seen as a more important issue than exaggeration or inaccuracy in the advertising of a product. Agreement or strong agreement to the statement about advertising ranged from 48% in Botswana, where the advertising industry is still relatively small, to 85% in Northern Ireland. In Zimbabwe there was a marked difference between the younger group, where 57.3% agreed that advertising often involves exaggeration or lying, and the older group, where 75% shared this opinion.
iii There was strong support for media impartiality in reporting, and reliance on all possible sources not just Ministerial and official ones. In Botswana there is no national TV, although South African TV is available, and radio reception is defective in remote areas. Even so, 67% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that broadcasters "should give all sides of an event", as did 90.7% in India and 91.1% in Northern Ireland. In Zimbabwe, as in India (where the difference was mostly in terms of strong agreement), the older group felt more strongly about this (in Zimbabwe there were 88% agreeing, among which 51.1% strongly agreed) than the younger 14 year olds (79.1% agreeing in Zimbabwe, among which 45.8% strongly agreed).
iv With the exception of Botswana, where only 58% of the sample agreed and strongly agreed that bribery is always wrong/unfair, the samples recorded overwhelming opposition to such corruption. In both India and Zimbabwe there was much stronger hostility to bribery among the older group of students. In India the strongly agree plus agree group was 76.9% at 14 and 91.4% at 16; in Zimbabwe 80.2% of 14 year olds and 93.4% of 16 year olds were agreeing and strongly agreeing. "Don't know" responses in Botswana, Northern Ireland and Zimbabwe may have reflected a lack of awareness of bribe-taking, particularly among the younger age groups.
In conclusion: The greater significance attached to redress against polluters, as against suppliers or manufacturers of products, suggests the strength of environmental awareness. The importance given to the need to get all sides of an event connects with the stress put on knowledge of government actions (see d above), and the degree to which students depend on the media for their knowledge of human rights (see h below). This section revealed strong inter-country differences. A striking aspect was the difference between the less rights-conscious response of the Botswana sample and the others, perhaps due to the relatively peaceful and homogeneous nature of Botswana society, where the national principles of Kagisano which are taught in school stress harmony and cooperation, and the risk of misbehaviour is less easy to imagine. The Northern Ireland response reflected some familiarity with the concept of consumer rights in products and services. In India and Zimbabwe the older samples were particularly hostile to officials taking bribes.
The introductory statement was, All countries suffer from fights and murders. Fights in the home can result in injuries. Violence is much worse where there is a war or civil war. Do you think: [Eleven questions follow, to be answered STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, DON'T KNOW, DISAGREE, STRONGLY DISAGREE; there follow two other questions to be answered YES/NO; the final question is open-ended.]
i Violence is never necessary, because it is always possible to settle an argument/issue peacefully?ii People who use weapons or violence do so because they think they are stronger?
iii People who use weapons or violence do so because they know they could not persuade their opponents without using force?
iv Friends and neighbours should do something if they think a husband is beating his wife?
v Friends and neighbours should do something if they think a wife is beating her husband?
vi Friends and neighbours should do something if they think parents are injuring their child?
vii Police are right to use any necessary force to stop a crowd rioting, or to prevent property from being destroyed?
viii Children should not be bullied by other children?
ix Children should not be bullied by their teachers?
x Children should not be bullied by their parents?
xi Nearly all Commonwealth countries have adopted the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.8 Have you ever been told in school what these rights are?
xii Does violence of any kind worry you now?
xiii What do you think should be done to reduce violence?
8 As at 1 January 1997 49 Commonwealth countries had ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The aim of this group of questions was to go beyond the concept that citizens have a right to a peaceful existence to explore why violence is used, domestic violence and bullying, the legitimacy of state violence, and knowledge of the UN convention whose article 19 is designed to protect children from violence.
The key findings here were:
i Most students in all samples were worried about violence, and most thought violence is never necessary because it is always possible to settle an argument peacefully. Percentages expressing worry were: Botswana 66.5%, India 72.4%, Northern Ireland 64.5% and Zimbabwe 78.1%. Percentages agreeing and strongly agreeing that violence is never necessary were: Botswana 70%, India 74.8%, Northern Ireland 61.7% and Zimbabwe 67.9%. It was striking that in Northern Ireland, the scene of conflict for over 25 years, average anxiety was lower than in the three other countries.
However there were significant within-country differences in these responses. In Northern Ireland there was a big difference between the views of younger and older students that "'violence is never necessary", with 74% of the younger group agreeing and strongly agreeing, compared with only 49% of the older group. In India there was a smaller difference between the two age cohorts, but still with the younger group agreeing more. In one Northern Ireland school, a "Protestant" rural grammar school located in an area of conflict over marching traditions, over 43% disagreed or disagreed strongly that "violence is never necessary." In India more older than younger students were worried about violence now. In Northern Ireland there were marked gender and communal variations, with 44.4% of boys as against 9.5% of girls saying they were unworried by violence now. Whereas 59% of students in an all-boys "Protestant" school said they were not worried by violence none of the female students in an all-girl "Catholic" school were unworried.
ii More students think that people resort to force because they know they cannot persuade their opponents without it, than believe that people use weapons or violence because they think they are stronger. There were variations on this response. In Zimbabwe there were lower levels of agreement and strong agreement to the idea that "people who use weapons or violence do so because they think they are stronger"; it is possible that the Zimbabwe students felt that, in reality, those using weapons and violence thought they were really weaker, and these were a last resort. In Northern Ireland, the "Protestant" rural grammar school in an area of conflict produced the highest percentage disagreeing with the idea that people use violence because they could not persuade their opponents peacefully - 41% -, nearly three times the average disagreement from the other four Northern Ireland schools.
iii There was a high level of agreement that domestic violence is morally wrong, irrespective of who the victim or perpetrator of the violence might be, and that external intervention by friends and neighbours is justified. Action to prevent wife-beating and child abuse had more support than action to prevent the possibly rarer case of assaults on husbands. Intervention to prevent injury to a child had less support in India than elsewhere. Responses were thus:
% STRONGLY AGREE + AGREE TO INTERVENTION
|
|
Child injury, vi |
Wife beaten, iv |
Husband beaten, v |
|
BOTSWANA |
78.5 |
79.5 |
69.5 |
|
INDIA (14) |
65.6 |
78.8 |
64.4 |
|
INDIA (16) |
71.7 |
86.8 |
72.4 |
|
NORTHERN IRELAND |
93 |
88.8 |
82.7 |
|
ZIMBABWE (14) |
90.6 |
81.3 |
78.1 |
|
ZIMBABWE (16) |
83.7 |
89.1 |
82.6 |
iv The samples agreed that police are right to use "any necessary force" to stop a riot or the destruction of property. Strong agreement and agreement percentages were: Botswana 67 %, India 81 % (with more support among older and less among female students); Northern Ireland 64 % (with major differences according to school type, age and gender; far more males than females agreed to police use of force; more of the older age group disagreed; "Protestant" students were more comfortable than "Catholic" ones, and the greatest disagreement came from an integrated school for both communities, where 38.1 % disagreed and strongly disagreed); Zimbabwe 85.1 %.
v Bullying is the type of violence of which young people may have most knowledge, and there was a consensus that it is unacceptable. In Botswana, 67.5 % agreed and agreed strongly that bullying by anyone is wrong. In India, 82.4 % agreed and strongly agreed. In Northern Ireland there was a slight downward gradient in responses, with the greatest disapproval of children bullying other children (96.3 % concurrence), followed by disapproval of children being bullied by teachers (94.9 %) and children being bullied by parents (89.3 %); female pupils showed stronger disapproval of bullying than males in all cases. In Zimbabwe, 80.2 % agreed and strongly agreed that bullying from any quarter was unacceptable, although 14.6 % disagreed or strongly disagreed.
vi There is widespread ignorance of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by all four governments in the sample countries by the time of this inquiry9. In Botswana 43.5 % knew about the convention, while 49.5 % did not. In India 67.9 % knew, but 30.8 % did not. In Northern Ireland 93.5 % did not know, and only 6 % said they had heard about the convention in school10. In Zimbabwe only 53.2 % of the younger group and 51.6 % of the older group said they had been told about it in school.
9 Botswana ratified the convention in 1995, Britain in 1991, India in 1992 and Zimbabwe in 1990.10 The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its report on British implementation in 1995, recommended that children should be taught about their rights.
In conclusion: Violence as an infringement of rights is of the greatest concern. Domestic violence and bullying are strongly disapproved of. When asked an open-ended question about what could be done to reduce violence in society the students' proposals mirrored those in adult society - a mixture of security and police measures on the one hand, with dialogue and non-violent negotiation on the other. The most remarkable finding is that a large number of youngsters have no knowledge of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, even though they may support some of its underlying concepts and are concerned about breaches. Article 42 of the convention says, "States Parties undertake to make the principles and provisions....widely known, by appropriate and active means, to adults and children alike." Responses from Botswana and India reflected the strength of the family as an institution. In Northern Ireland, responses revealed significant communal and gender differences. In India and Zimbabwe, there was evidence of a progression in understanding between the two age groups.
The introductory statement was, Each of us is unique [special] and together we have rights under the constitution, by custom and practice, by law and international conventions [agreements]. Then:
i Put in order (1,2,3,4,5) which of these rights is most important to you. Give (1) to the most important and (5) to the least important:The right to your name?
The right to your religion?
The right to go on living - the right to life?
The right to your own language and culture?
Your parents' right to bring you up as they wish, within the laws of your country?ii Choose the 5 most important words that describe who you are
The purpose of this brief section was to get a more individual response from students, recognising that in Article 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child the governments "undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity" and that identity issues form part of the maturation process of adolescence.
Key findings here were:
i That in three out of four countries the right to life was rated first, but thereafter there was considerable disagreement, thus:
|
|
Life |
Own name |
Religion |
Culture |
Parental |
|
BOTSWANA |
4 |
1 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
|
INDIA (14) |
1 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
|
INDIA (16) |
1 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
|
N IRELAND (14) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
|
N IRELAND (16) |
1 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
5 |
|
ZIMBABWE (14) |
1 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
|
ZIMBABWE (16) |
1 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
There were significant differences within each country's sample; for example, within Northern Ireland the right to life was ranked higher by female and "Catholic" school students, while religion was ranked high by more pupils from the two "Protestant" schools. In India 23.4°% of the sample did not understand the ranking system and their answers have been excluded; only 5.5% of students gave first rank to their right to religion. In Zimbabwe the age/school experience difference was marked, with older students rating parental rights as more important and the right to religion as less important then younger students.
ii There were major cultural differences in the way in which students described themselves. In Botswana, where only 52% had responded to the previous question and many found the questionnaire difficult, no information was collated here. In India, 40.7% described themselves as good citizens; other descriptors in descending order were the fact that they were students, their family, the fact that they were human beings, and their language or region. In Northern Ireland almost half the sample (49.5%) described themselves in terms of their personality, and 13.1% in terms of religion. In Zimbabwe there were significant differences between the younger and older groups, although both put first their bodily appearance and character (20.6% for the younger, 15.4% for the older). This was an expected adolescent response. After that the younger group stressed belief in their own religion (13.4% - but only mentioned by 3.3% of the older group) and love for their family and relatives (10.3% - and 8.7% for the older group). A significant description for the older teenagers was their own uniqueness (10.9%), which rated only 1% among the younger ones.
In conclusion: In all countries the students saw themselves in terms of broader rather than narrower identifications. Responses reflected cultural differences between the societies surveyed, with higher rankings for cultural and parental rights in Botswana and Zimbabwe, and a strong family identification in India as compared with the more individualistic society of Northern Ireland (where only 0.9% mentioned their family, friends and community in describing themselves). The strong emphasis on good citizenship in India may illustrate the sense of community in Indian society.
These questions were only put to the 16 year old, older sample. The introductory statement was, As you know, you are taking part in an important study involving selected young people in four Commonwealth countries - Botswana, India, Northern Ireland in Britain, and Zimbabwe. It aims to find out what you know about human rights and similar issues, and will assist schools in future. There followed nine questions, and one open-ended one.
i Have you discussed or learnt about human rights, and the sort of questions you have just answered, in any of the following over the past two years? [Answers YES/NO]In school?
In your family/home?
In talks with friends of your own age?
In listening to radio or watching TV?
In newspapers and magazines?
Anywhere else?ii In which of these have you heard most about these questions?
iii Which of these sources has been most helpful to you?
iv At school, do you think that your teachers are working together to make sure all students understand human rights, and the responsibilities that go with them?
v Is there anything more you think schools can and should do to help young people to understand the rights and responsibilities of a citizen?
The aim of this group of questions was to see how the older students saw their schooling, as compared with other sources of information and ideas about human rights; whether they had any sense of a cross-curricular or whole-school commitment; and whether they had any suggestions as to what more schools could do.
The key findings here were:
i Except in Botswana, where fewer than half said they had heard about human rights over the previous two years, 80% and above in the other three samples had heard about human rights. However there was a difference between Northern Ireland and Zimbabwe on the one hand, where radio and TV were seen as both the biggest and most helpful sources, and Botswana and India on the other, where schools gave most information and were most helpful. The three tables are thus:
% Hearing about human rights over the previous two years, by source
|
|
School |
Family |
Friends |
Radio/TV |
Press |
Nowhere |
|
BOTSWANA |
38.5 |
24 |
32 |
40.5 |
43 |
8.5 |
|
INDIA |
88.8 |
71 |
82.2 |
86.8 |
71.1 |
|
|
N IRELAND |
29 |
49 |
38 |
80 |
77 |
9 |
|
ZIMBABWE |
63.7 |
68.9 |
81.1 |
93.5 |
91.2 |
12.5 |
% Stating where they had heard most about rights over previous two years
|
|
School |
Family |
Friends |
Radio/TV |
Press |
No answer |
|
BOTSWANA |
24.5 |
3 |
5 |
9.5 |
2.5 |
55.5 |
|
INDIA |
45.4 |
7.9 |
7.9 |
25.7 |
6.6 |
6.3 |
|
N IRELAND |
10.4 |
12.3 |
2.8 |
47.2 |
12.3 |
15 |
|
ZIMBABWE |
22.7 |
8.7 |
5.4 |
42 |
20.5 |
4.3 |
% Stating which source was most helpful over the previous two years
|
|
School |
Family |
Friends |
Radio/TV |
Press |
No answer |
|
BOTSWANA |
16 |
7 |
6 |
12 |
11.5 |
54.3 |
|
INDIA |
31.6 |
9.2 |
15.1 |
30.3 |
9.2 |
4.6 |
|
N IRELAND |
11.3 |
10.4 |
8.5 |
36.8 |
14.2 |
18.8 |
|
ZIMBABWE |
15.2 |
13 |
14.1 |
34.8 |
20.7 |
2.2 |
In terms of hearing about human rights over the previous two years the high response from India is noteworthy and the very high scores from Zimbabwe may reflect the focus on human rights which followed the Commonwealth Heads' meeting in 1991, with its widely-known Harare Declaration. In terms of where most was heard it is worth pointing out again that in Botswana there is no national TV, radio reception can be defective in remote areas and newspaper readership is low. In the question on helpfulness, school was seen as third in importance in Northern Ireland and Zimbabwe; in India radio and TV were rated as almost as helpful as school, perhaps because the media deal with more current events and issues, perhaps more interestingly
ii Whereas most students in India thought their teachers were working together (67.1% to 30.9%), most in Northern Ireland, where Education for Mutual Understanding is intended to be a cross-curricular commitment, did not (by 71.7% to 21.7%). In Zimbabwe there was an even split - 50.6% thought their teachers were working together to make sure students understood rights and responsibilities, while 49.4% did not. Responses to this question were not collated in Botswana.
iii Students in all countries thought that schools could do more. In Botswana 23% said here should be more teaching of human rights in school; in India, where 73.3% wanted to see more done the practical suggestions were that schools should respect rights and duties in practice, and learning should not be restricted to textbooks; in Northern Ireland 34% wanted human rights classes; in Zimbabwe 78.7% wanted the school curriculum to include human rights.
In conclusion: There is a marked contrast in the findings from Botswana and India on the one hand, where school is seen as the most valuable source both quantitatively and qualitatively, and Northern Ireland and Zimbabwe on the other, where schools are not seen as the key information source, but the media are. In Northern Ireland and Zimbabwe also, the teachers are not seen as working closely together, which suggests that initial and in-service education of teachers are of crucial importance. When it comes to their suggestions for improvement, students give an overwhelming significance to the role of schools. School ethos and administrative practices are highlighted. The importance of the broadcasting media everywhere, in introducing issues of human rights to young citizens, is underlined.
