Based on a paper presented at a Human Development and Capability Association Conference in Athens, Greece.

1. ''We appear as prisoners under the
academic roof'': Fear an impediment to
the formation of citizens' capabilities in
Zimbabwean teachers colleges?
Tendayi Marovah
T: +27(0)51 401 9111 | info@ufs.ac.za | www.ufs.ac.za

2. AIM OF PAPER
 I am mobilising Sen’s five instrumental freedoms within the capability approach in order to
examine the operationalisation of citizenship education in two Zimbabwean teachers’
colleges.
 The dimensions of citizenship I am particularly interested in are:
a) Active participation
b) Deliberations
c) Critical thinking
T: +27(0)51 401 9111 | info@ufs.ac.za | www.ufs.ac.za

3. ARGUMENT
 Fear and suspicion are not a good grounding for citizenship education.
Against Sen’s instrumental freedoms it does not look very hopeful for
citizenship education in Zimbabwe in particular (some of the data confirms
this).
T: +27(0)51 401 9111 | info@ufs.ac.za | www.ufs.ac.za

4. BACKGROUND
 Contested democratic space
 Introduced in 2002 technical colleges and 2004 in teachers colleges
 Political, economic and social developments
 Response to Higher education not producing sufficiently:
a) patriotic citizens
b) responsible citizens
c) citizens endowed with national values and national identity
T: +27(0)51 401 9111 | info@ufs.ac.za | www.ufs.ac.za

5. BACKGROUND
 Teacher education as a vehicle for the production of citizens that suits the
Zimbabwean state but it does not mean that it might work perfectly as
projected. There might be gaps and opportunities in its operationalisation.
 The key question is, does it contribute to an expansive notion of citizenship
understood as human development?
 I want to focus on issues of fear and suspicion which emerged and think
about how this resonates or not with the formation of critical citizens.
T: +27(0)51 401 9111 | info@ufs.ac.za | www.ufs.ac.za

6. METHODOLOGY
 Data was collected from students, lecturers and policy stake holders using interviews,
focus group discussions (students only), document analysis and observations.
 A total of 32 participants were engaged five lecturers (N=5) and twelve students from each
college (N=24) and two policy stakeholders (N=2)
 Following the data collection the issue of fear and suspicion emerged in as overshadowing
a thin line of critical engagement
 Names of colleges and all participants anonymised
 Sen’s five instrumental freedoms were used to make meaning of the data (not vice versa)
T: +27(0)51 401 9111 | info@ufs.ac.za | www.ufs.ac.za

7. FINDINGS
 Fear relating to political freedoms (to determine who should govern them and on
what principles)
Thesbe (CTC, Std) identifies fear caused by belonging to different political parties.
According to her “because of political fear and political differences, you are scared
to say something because you are afraid of the consequences associated with this”
 Fear relating to Social opportunities ( opportunities / arrangements that the
administration makes for education, health care and other essential community
facilities for its citizens)
Cecilia( GTC, Std) describes fear of being laughed at “In our lectures there is a
tendency to laugh at each other when you do not express yourself clearly. At times
you will not be sure of whether your point is valid or not so you will be afraid to say
something because you may be asked to give evidence.”

8. FINDINGS
 Economic Freedoms (opportunities and freedom to use the economic
resources of their polity)
Thesbe (CTC) “At least working for the government is more secure. I am
guaranteed that after finishing training I will get employed. Had it not been for
that I would not be a teacher.”
 Transparency Guarantees (guarantees for openness)
Sinampande’s (CTC, Std) fears emanate from the way the course was introduced:
This course what introduced by those who are at the top and we are not
sure of who is who we will be having a lot of good points to share but it’s
difficult when you do not know who you are dealing with. With you we know
a little bit but we continue to be suspicious we believe that you may be one
of those from the central intelligence organisation. So we may not
necessarily be free to contribute given the fact that we think this course was
introduced by ZANU PF so as to advance its own interests. That is one of
the major challenges.

9. FEAR OVER TIME
• Guveya (GTC, Std) says “I think the fears come from the
few past years, in 2008, in which people were violated due
to discussing these political issues, so that is where the
fear comes from”.
• Mr Taguta (GTC, Lect)
Yes we have critically looked at the formation of GNU its
weakness, we discussed that with our students and tried
to show that the GNU was formed because ZANU PF had
lost, In terms of those issues we don't mince our words
because it’s an academic platform that has no politics, so
we really done that…

10. BETWEEN HOPE AND DOOM
• Muchetura (CTC, std)
And then at the end of the day I had to realise that I just
have to be myself and say out my views at first we would
write essays biased towards the question so that you won’t
go astray. But at the end of the day we were told that you
should balance your arguments, you should analyse, and
look at both sides of the story and then pass your
judgement that is when we realised that it has nothing to
do with their status or anything.

11. DISCUSSION
• Fear as a slippery and complex concept. (Unfreedom)
• Shirlow and Pain’s (2003, p23) “fear is constructed in
different spaces at different scales”.
• It “mediates between the individual and the social” Bourke
(2005, p354).
• It is not a naturally occurring element but it is a result of a
complex matrix between individuals, their fellows and their
economic and socio-political circumstances.

12. DISCUSSION
• “Fear and well-being are inextricably linked” (Jackson,
2011, pp39-40).
• When people (authorities) have a vested interest in
motivating people to react they may try to capture their
attention through fear…fear is regularly employed because
it works and it generates attention and draws audience.
• There is a fine dividing line between creating an informed
citizenry and creating a fearful citizenry (Boyd, 2012).

13. IMPLICATIONS
 The voices of participants seem to agree with Russel (2009) that fear has a
treacherous, destructive and yet effective impact on the way we engage each other in
the process of forming critical citizens through NASS. Chirongoma (GTC, Std) says this
more correctly in his words “ room for critical thinking is very limited”
 As such increased societal fear has important implications for the formation of citizen
capabilities and should be considered.
 As societies continue to be more networked there is need to be more committed to
the formation of critical democratic citizens by removing barriers to critical
engagement.
 Intended educational out comes are not necessarily realised