Being seen doing something doesn’t make it the right thing to do

The news and reports surrounding the tragic death of Enock Mpianzi keep fuelling growing anger at the situation, Parktown Boys’ High and camp where the tragedy took place. Naturally there will be political will to do something about it … but what?

Political will is an awkward thing, and comes in two flavours; outcomes based and driven are how I like to describe them.

Outcomes based is pretty straightforward. You do something because you want a particular result. This method of engaging political will is positive in the respect that it is targeted, gets a particular job done and can be evaluated and measured.

Driven, which is more common, always has the same desired outcome … being seen to be doing something resembling a push in the right direction. As the public, we are often fooled into thinking this driven political will will take us where we need to go but, in truth, it only satisfies our desire to see something being done.

Economy crashes, we send a delegation to Davos, some people say the right things and we are happy, regardless of the results. Company goes bust, CEO is fired, shareholders are happy, even if the CEO had little to no hand in the bankruptcy. Arsenal keeps loosing, #WengerOut, fans are happy regardless of whether they will be sitting 10th a few seasons later.

Being seen to be doing something is the natural response leaders take because it is the immediacy that people have come to demand. There’s no cheering for strategy and long-term consideration, no time for research and conceptualisation, just doing something that seems to address the problem.

In light of recent events at Parktown Boys’ High, the latest development is a review of indemnity forms and requirement of permission for water-based activities. At first glance, sure, seems to make sense, but then as soon as you ask yourself whether any of that would have prevented what happened, you might find yourself thinking: “Well what’s the point?”

Let’s begin with indemnity forms. In their own way, they have some legal backing but very little if we’re to be frank. Sure, they can make a person acknowledge risk and a parent can make that acknowledgment on behalf of their kid but no document can absolve any person of any unreasonable negligence, let alone intentional fault, that causes damage and/or harm.

In short, you cannot sign away your legal protections against being harmed in context. This is even true in sports. In rugby, you expect a bit of harm and, given the context, being tackled, etc, is part of the contextual risk, but there are still rules – so if a player tapes watch batteries to their knuckles and throws a punch, they would have legal liability regardless of the aggression within the sport. Similarly in wrestling, should the WWE allow a stage light to fall off and into the ring allowing one athlete to beat the other with it, it would, even in context, be held liable regardless of any waiver signed by anybody.

Therefore, there is no amount of legalese that any attorney can contrive that will allow for limitation of liability in these circumstances.

Where these forms do have value is in the ignorance of the person who signs, believing they have legal force and are made to feel that way – they already feel too defeated to pursue any further action. Ultimately, the value of an indemnity form, for the most part, is less how legally tight it is and more how legally tight you can convince somebody it is to prevent them from taking any legal action.

The second response, requiring escalated permission for a water-based activity, assumes too many things that should not be assumed. Namely, that the department is jacked up to follow up with such permission, that the activity to be followed will be identical to the one claimed when seeking permission, that there will be some form of monitoring from the department’s side. Sure, in theory, a lekker idea, but I have my doubts that the department will have the means to make any of it a reality … but even if it did, it hardly has any direct limitation on causing harm to children. At best, it creates an accountability system.

Accountability is all good and well, but any justice felt by the accountable perpetrator will hardly be felt by their dead victim.

It all just seems like adding red tape to sidestep dealing with the issue while pretending to deal with the issue, and we should demand more from our leadership.

People don’t stop being negligent when they have to sign a form. That should hardly be surprising when it’s clear that people don’t even stop being negligent when lives are on the line. No. People only stop being negligent when they have a personal cost relating to potentially harmful outcomes of that negligence.

People only stop being negligent when their livelihood is on the line.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.