The debate about condoms in schools is not new in Zimbabwe, and even beyond.
by KEMIST SHUMBA
Primary and Secondary Education minister Lazarus Dokora is on record denying adolescents access to condoms, despite the glaring evidence of their early sexual debut and sexual activeness.
However, he must not delude himself to claim victory in this regard. Those who are pro-social justice and keen to stem the Aids scourge will forever nag him, until he wakes up from his extraordinary slumber.
I am not apologetic on this one.
Dokora is an educationist, who knows nothing about public health or health promotion, but the way he is so adamant, one may be tempted to think he is a health expert.
Seeking the counsel of those who know is a sign of intelligence. The voice of the chairperson of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Health, Ruth Labode, always falls on deaf ears.
It’s pathetic!
I foresee Dokora getting a rude awakening, similar to that which his counterpart, South Africa’s Health minister Aaron Motsoaledi, had when learners ambushed him at the recent 21st International Aids Conference, Durban 2016, demanding that condoms be distributed in schools, pronto!
As such, my simple message to Dokora is: There is no room for “moral entrepreneurship” in HIV prevention. Give the learners condoms and save their precious lives! We are tired of trailing behind others in the region.
At least South Africa has revealed that there is work in progress through the Department of Basic Education’s draft policy on HIV, STIs and TB, which will enhance learners’ access to condoms.
Being at the helm of the Education ministry, what are you doing in terms of learners’ sexual health needs? Please, minister, remember that in HIV prevention, no response is a response! If anything, you are not reticent.
You emphatically said: NO to condoms in schools! Please do not fool yourself to think that by dismissing critical issues in Parliament or through State media, you have solved the problem on the ground. No!
As I write this article, I am fully cognisant of the fact that this is a thorny issue, so highly contested that those who are quick to judge are likely to hastily dismiss my views without getting to the gist of my argument.
This is not surprising since we are aware that responses to Aids were and continue to be both moralising and stigmatising (Schoepf, 2004).
However, my argument is simple. It essentially focuses on two related issues: health and human rights.
Seemingly unrelated, human rights and health are actually intertwined. I advance the argument that placing human rights at the core of HIV prevention efforts constitutes best practice, and research has shown this.
Given that Zimbabwe is among the 14 priority locations identified as HIV hotspots in the region, Dokora may not be aware that in-school adolescents have, of late, secured themselves a position within the ranks of those called key populations, of course through factors beyond their control.
The need and urgency to save this particular group is indisputable, especially to those who are in touch with reality.
Unfortunately, Dokora seems to be aloof, still clinging onto the “don’t” paradigm, which is archaic, to say the least.
But what about the 4 500 Grade 7 pupils who fell pregnant in 2016 alone? What about the Murongwe Primary School pupil, who gave birth during exams?
Secondly, Zimbabwe has ratified several of the key United Nations Human Rights Conventions, which include the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention on the Right of the Child, and it is regrettable that the same child, whose interests Dokora claims to be jealously safeguarding, is being inadvertently exposed to avoidable risks.
In this regard, who then is the child’s enemy: The one who calls for condom access to be increased or the one who frantically thwarts such legitimate and pro-health efforts?
Given that both HIV prevalence and incidence are high among in-school adolescents, coupled with unplanned pregnancies, it is only necessary to closely examine a labyrinth of factors, which include structural limitations that are exacerbating this particular trend.
It is a known fact that condom access is limited among adolescents, particularly in resource-constrained contexts such as less economically developed countries, which include Zimbabwe.
However, given that condoms are the first line of defence in HIV prevention makes it necessary to consider increasing access to this preventative technology.
In one of the studies conducted in Zimbabwe, learner participants succinctly described abstinence, which is the only response authorities base their preventative efforts on, as merely “a textbook solution” (Muparamoto and Chigwenya, 2009).
It is against this backdrop that those who are interested in the health and well-being of the youth in schools consistently reiterate the need and urgency to empower the youth through increased condom access; of course, accompanied by adequate information and skills impartation.
In order to ensure that learners do not get the wrong impression that increased condom access is a licence to promiscuity, a robust, efficient and sustainable sex education should accompany the condom distribution drive.
This would help to make learners aware of the dangers associated with early involvement in sexual activity, and also that condoms are not 100% effective, since user expertise as well as the condition of the condom itself, among other things, can compromise its theoretical efficacy.
To conclude, I reiterate that denying adolescents access to condoms is a violation of their right to health and well-being.
Kemist Shumba is a DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Human Development PhD Fellow in Health Promotion at the University of KwaZulu-Natal’s School of Applied Human Sciences. His interests are: Adolescent sexual and reproductive health matters, HIV prevention, health rights activism, and social justice. Email: kemishumba@gmail.com