This is because in many cases participation rights tend to clash with protection rights. It can be difficult to decide whether protecting a child is more important than allowing them participation. A good way of explaining this would be by using the case of a boy named Hiep as an example. Hiep is a street boy who lives in Vietnam. He moved away from his disadvantaged home in the country, to work in the city of Hanoi. Hiep was able to earn enough money to support himself and to send a little extra to his struggling family. He also managed to pay for his further studies and had aspirations of attending university. The Vietnamese Government however set up a repatriation programme and sent all children working on the streets in the city back to their parents and home towns. They did this because there was growing international concern about child labour. It was believed that children needed the support of their parents. This was however a step in the wrong direction for Hiep. He was sent home, where he put more financial strain on his already struggling family. He was also not able to pay for his classes to further his education, and was too old to qualify for the free education provided by the government. Clearly Hiep was competent and capable of supporting himself as he had been doing so for the last two years. But because the government had decided to take a protectionist approach of upholding his rights, he was not able to have a say, and ultimately was unable to participate in the decision to move him back home (Chapter 4, pp.145-146). This is what it all boils down to, whether or not a child is capable or competent to make decisions on their own behalf.
Liberationists believe that children are incompetent because all of their decisions are made for them by their parents or by their governments. They believe that children should be liberated and allowed to have participatory rights in any and all decisions in their lives. This way helping them prepare for life on their own by allowing them to take full responsibility for their decisions. Therefore if someone had taken the time to listen to Hiep, they would have realised that the repatriation would not benefit him or his family, and then the government could have perhaps come up with a better solution to his predicament. John Holt (1975) argues that children’s rights will never be truly fulfilled, until they are given all the rights that adults have (Chapter 4, p.149).The problem with the liberationist approach however is that we all know that for example, babies cannot drive cars, and so, what is the point to giving children these rights if they are not able to use them? Similarly the protectionist or caretaker approach also does not have the answer to when a child is competent to take on adult responsibilities and rights. They do however; in contrast to the liberationists argue that children are incapable of fully understanding the consequences of decisions that need to be made in life. They argue that children do not have full autonomy. Children are seen as part of a family unit, owned by their parents until they reach the age of eighteen. This age restriction of eighteen, which supposedly is the universal age of when a child reaches full maturity and competence, was set by the UNCRC. This is the age when children become adults in the eyes of the government, and will then be awarded with full adult rights. The problem with this is that there is actually no specific age at which each individual person reaches a specific level of maturation or understanding and competence (Chapter 4, p.149). In reality competence is closely tied to cultural context. This is why many countries have changed their laws with response to the UNCRC.
Many societies cultural beliefs also, do not tie in with the westernised understanding of the child being referred to as an autonomous individual as stated by the UNCRC. To many societies the child is seen as part of a family and community unit. If something is done within that community or family by anyone, the deed will not only benefit themselves, but many. A two way street where parents have responsibilities towards their children, and children have responsibilities towards their parents. In addition, to a society with cultural beliefs such as early marriage for example, a right to protection up until the age of eighteen is not appropriate. Because these married children will then have to be competent to run a home and will have responsibilities towards their family (Chapter 4, p.159). So somewhere along the line the decision has to be made whether a child should be protected or whether they should be able to participate. The example of Hiep used earlier, illustrates how a child’s perspective and an adult’s perspective of the best interests of a child, do not always coincide. The UNCRC, broadly speaking, demands that a child’s welfare and best interests are considered above all. But when the child’s voice is not heard, their best interests cannot be taken into full account. Many adults acting on the behalf of a child decide that a child’s best interests are best served by ignoring their wishes. An example of this would include, when courts overrule a child’s wish not to have surgery. In contrast to this for example in the Netherlands, children’s participatory rights are emphasized to such an extent, that children over the age of twelve, who are terminally ill, can request euthanasia if they so wish. These examples raise questions as to whether a child’s wishes, are actually in their best interests (Chapter 4, pp.147-148). This also demonstrates how it can be difficult to decide whether respecting a child’s right, does make their life better. Some children may relish the opportunity to participate and express their views. While for others this may bring unwanted responsibility. They may feel out of their depth making such important decisions, and this could adversely affect their overall well-being. For example having to choose which parent to live with when they are to get divorced. The courts may deem the child competent to make such a decision, but the child may prefer that the decision be made for them.
The overall conclusion to the debate of protection v participation would be simple to put to rest if all children were seen to be autonomous individuals who all mature and become full competent human beings at exactly the same age. Who can reason and understand consequences to very important life decisions and not feel as if they are overwhelmed by these thoughts. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world and things do not work in that way. There are many issues that need to be considered. Those such as a child’s social class, gender, ethnicity, religion and culture practices. The only fair thing to do would be to accord rights if a child can display competence within their own cultural setting. While the majority of governments and indeed adults support the idea that children should have the rights to protection, provision and prevention from harm. They do find it much harder to agree that children should participate if they are to enjoy full rights (Chapter 4, p.167). The UNCRC may have many criticisms, but they have put children’s rights on the agenda (Chapter 4, p.168). And as long as children have the right to participation, then they should be able to participate in life decisions if they so wish to.
Word count 1,678
References
Block 1, Understanding Childhood, Chapter 4, ‘Children and Rights’