The views expressed do not reflect those of any POLICY WATCH SA clients
If Parliament and the Department of Social Development have their way, South Africa’s ‘older persons’ could soon find themselves responsible for mentoring (presumably) very much younger people in their social circles. Because clause 6 of an Older Person’s Amendment Bill now with the NCOP’s Social Services Committee requires the country’s senior citizens to “facilitate inter-generational dialogue and solidarity” in their families and communities, and to “play a role in mediation and conflict resolution”. This based on the assumed wisdom of old age, which the Bill calls “knowledge and experience”.
South Africa is notorious for its huge, generally race-based income disparities impacting – among other things – on the quality of education, healthcare, living conditions and myriad other issues affecting how people age. So, how many ‘older persons’ are equipped with the skills needed to shoulder such onerous responsibilities – let alone the energy or stamina? And precisely what is meant by the term ‘older person’ anyway?
It’s defined on the UN High Commission for Refugees website as referring to people “over 60 years of age” – although in countries “where life expectancy is low”, people in their 50s “may be considered older”. By contrast, ‘old age’ is defined by the American Psychological Association as referring to “people nearing and surpassing life expectancy” (Wikipedia). So, isn’t it rather naïve to entertain such Pollyanna, generalised notions of the capabilities of South Africa’s ‘older persons’?
Given the role they may soon be expected to play, in South Africa ‘older persons’ conjures up images of feisty, fit, mentally astute retirees – men of 65 or older and women of 60 upwards (Department of Justice & Constitutional Development). Yet depending on circumstance, many people in that category continue working well into their seventies. Should they, too, be expected or even obliged by law to shoulder responsibilities prescribed in the amendment Bill?
The misguided clauses 5 and 6 in this otherwise (presumably) well-intended piece of proposed new legislation completely overlook issues arising from these fundamental questions:
Is every ‘older person’ in South Africa capable of playing the role envisaged?
In what context?
And do those with the skills to do so necessarily want to (credibility in family and community circles notwithstanding)?
Turning to abuse – and provisions in the amendment Bill intended to strengthen measures already in place to protect the elderly from ill treatment – once again, in the absence of a clear definition of ‘older person’ how are we to know when to intervene and when not to? As a ‘rainbow nation’ renowned for its diversity, South Africa needs social services policy and law makers sensitive to the nuances of family dynamics in often vastly different cultural and socio-economic circumstances. And if the amendment Bill is any indication, there aren’t any in the (presumably) government unit responsible for drafting it. Nor do there seem to have been any culturally sensitive MPs in the previous Parliament’s National Assembly Social Development Committee, who passed the Bill shortly before the May 2024 elections.
The amendment Bill’s clause 5 is especially worrying. It requires “anyone dealing with an older person” to take “all ... measures necessary to eliminate traditional practices, including witchcraft accusations,” that might be perceived to impact negatively on that person’s “welfare, health, life and dignity’’. Surely “witchcraft accusations” should be addressed separately? And what about “traditional practices’’, norms and values with a positive effect on the lives of the elderly? Once again, surely it would be a mistake to overlook culture and socio-economic circumstance. Not to forget the value judgments required of caregivers, authorities and institutions responsible for the wellbeing of ‘older persons’ in situations requiring such interventions. In that context, the word ‘eliminate’ is entirely inappropriate.
A recent article in Radar Africa reminds us that “the status of elders varies across different African cultures and societies’’ – of which South Africa has many. “While some communities may hold elders in high esteem, others may have different structures of authority and respect’’. The same applies to South Africa’s numerous minority cultures. With that in mind, how suitable or even workable is the amendment Bill’s one-size-fits-all approach?
Which bring us back to perceptions of wisdom. Research conducted by the University of Waterloo’s Maksim Rudnev and the University of Johannesburg’s Veli Mitova found that “the core aspects of what makes someone wise are largely the same across cultures’’ (The Conversation). Apparently, two “key characteristics’’ of wisdom emerged from the study: reflective orientation and socio-emotional awareness.
According to The Conversation, “reflective orientation is about people who think before acting, carefully consider different perspectives, and use logic and past experiences to guide their decisions’’. People with socio-emotional awareness “are good at understanding and caring about the thoughts and feelings of others’’ – underpinned, in South Africa, by a deep-seated respect for “nature and divinity’’. The amendment Bill’s clauses 5 and 6 tend to suggest that all ‘older persons’ are automatically endowed with these qualities by virtue of well-advanced years.
At the time of writing, the Bill was still open for written submissions. Hopefully, these issues will be raised during the next round of public hearings.
Commenti