Chronicle Editor
Michael Mhlanga
We come to the third and final part of this series meant to spark a conversation on establishing a Youth Commission in Zimbabwe.
The three-part series seeks to explain the process of policy making, the oversight of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee and this final instalment offers a prospective outlook of the Youth Commission.
The focus of the first part was on the fundamentals of policy making which I think are crucial in this historic moment of establishing this entity. So far, as I stated in part one, I found South Africa to be an informative case study of what Zimbabwe is intending to create. South
Africa had a National Youth Commission until 2009 which was repelled by the National Youth Development Agency.
This will be a credible cases study to learn from as Zimbabwe intends to replicate.
In part two, last week, the focus was on two (2) oversights (communication and policy stakeholder inclusion/exclusion) by the Honourable Mathias Tingofa-led Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Youth, Sports, Arts and Recreation.
The preceding weeks’ arguments were attempts to provide a clear roadmap in this third instalment which provides a prospective outlook in establishing a legitimate, credible and effective Youth Commission.
Media’s silence: How “un-importance” has been created
A key takeaway so far as testified by the public hearings conducted across the country is that media, both public and private as prominent actors in policy-making have not given attention to the Youth Commission public hearings, and that has created a huge information gap.
The absence of hyped attention to the subject by media gives a perception that it is not an important subject.
When media pays less or no attention to an issue, citizens not only remain uninformed on the subject, but are conditioned not to think about the issue as an important one.
Civil Society’s silence: How “un-importance” has been entrenched
Equally, the less activity of civil society, particularly youth organisations in policy education to their constituencies not only creates an uninformed deliberation on the subject by those who attend, but it also gives an impression that it is of less importance considering that citizens in our polarised communities rely on CSO narratives mainly.
The grown dependency on CSO agenda setting confirms the powerful position occupied by non-state actors in policy perceptions and giving it traction — so far, the policy process of the Youth Commission is fledgling, not only owed to the shortcomings of the legislators/ legislature but also key actors in policy making have shortchanged the process and the beneficiaries.
Political parties’ silence: How “un-importance” is exposing duty failure
Political parties are instrumental in educating their party members on specific policies and inform them on ideological underpinnings that should be visible in the policy being proposed such that at such public hearings, there is contestation of ideological infusions that should characterise the policy.
At this point where one would suspect that political parties would have a huge appetite on youth demography incentives, I shudder to think how the silence of political parties on the issue is hypocritical and parasitic.
Political parties bank on the youth bulge votes, campaigns and mobilisation, actually the biggest threat to political party survival is the “Youth discontent”.
This could have been an opportune time for political parties to educate, train and draw up informed policy frameworks that could have been submitted during the public hearings. Sadly, the Youth wings/ assemblies are silent and inactive on this pertinent subject.
Again, there is a policy flaw when such a key actor seems disinterested on a youth incentivising issue but comes around to proclaim the interests of the Youth.
Breaking the silence to mend policy making flaws
The actors I have mentioned in this part, coupled with the legislature which represents the Government are existing institutional structures which have a powerful influence on the policy process.
They affect which institutions take the lead on particular issues, the level of involvement and communication between policymakers and technical experts, the role of interest groups and community groups, the balance of power between national and regional interests, and the role of the bureaucracy.
To make this work effectively in the most immediate future so that many social, political and economic problems affecting the most productive populace, three institutions should come together.
Technocrats, bureaucrats and non-state actors should begin a robust conversation and activity on the subject otherwise such a noble policy of a youth commission will never see the light of the day.
Technocrats include scientists, academicians, public health professionals, and other experts who provide information to identify the extent and nature of the problem raised by Believe Guta in a letter dated 2 August 2018 and extensive problems specific to youth as well as technical analysis of its causes and solutions.
At this time technocrats should be interested in pursuing solutions to the inherent problems affecting youth who are inclusive of students, young professionals and the unemployed and generating interest and funding to support further research.
Universities through academic research on this subject should be well funded in the most immediate so that informed and concise position papers will be used to inform the next stage of policy making: Formulation.
The second group; bureaucrats should bring knowledge of Government institutions, including how institutions can address the issue at hand.
In any case, bureaucrats are interested in using the Government structure in the manner best suited to addressing issues and often seek to maintain or expand the current bureaucracy.
Even with the existing contestations on the frustrating red tape, we cannot ignore the pivotal role of bureaucracy in its scientific management nature and how it can be instrumental in contributing to an effective policy.
Ultimately, interest groups which are generally formed to represent the concerns of particular groups of people (e.g. people living with HIV/Aids, people with disabilities, religious groups, physicians, and parents) are central to this policy.
They should begin to make sure that the group’s interests are heard and considered in policy decisions.
The policy process improves significantly when many people and organizations have the opportunity to participate.
Given that poverty, violence and systematic exclusion affects all parts of society, only the most highly participatory processes can give a voice to all concerned.
Online Reporter