THE BOTTOMLINE – MAESTRO’S BIFOCAL PERSPECTIVE By MARISEN - TopicsExpress

THE BOTTOMLINE – MAESTRO’S BIFOCAL PERSPECTIVE By MARISEN ‘MAESTRO’ MWALE OF AUSTERITY MEASURES AND PARADOXES: THE CASE OF UPKEEP ALLOWANCES IN PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES AND THEIR NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES ON NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. Fact that University education is a privilege in Malawi that one needs to be proud of is unequivocal. It might not be an overstatement to purport also that not every Jim and Jack has the potential to grace the corridors of University. The privilege therefore needs be protected and enjoyed without unnecessary detractors if the final product is to be worth the salt. It is also pertinent to appreciate that University products are a vital human resource and it goes without question that they constitute the hub and cornerstone of any nation in all sectors of the economy hence the need to protect the integrity and welfare of undergraduates in institutions of higher learning and avoid unnecessarily compromising their wellbeing. Austerity measures are expedient economic prescriptions for any ailing economy and they are sometimes a necessary bitter pill and of course inevitable if the economy is to recover. However it also goes without question to attest that such measures also need to be applied with caution and prudence in other critical domains of the economy such as health and education without precluding or compromising such sectors in the final analysis. The question that might arise is where all this reminiscing is emanating from. The issue at hand concerns the unprecedented setting of a precedence of rioting, sit-ins and impasse in public universities emanating from one such austerity measure- The privatization of Catering and Cafeteria services – and the consequent introduction of erratic Upkeep allowances for students to make ends meet or fare independently. As we are going to press Chanco and Poly have been indefinitely closed and at Mzuni riots are becoming order of the day and monthly hullabaloo. What am I driving at? In every burning issue one needs to trace the intricate threads and webs of the complication. In the case in point, the gist of the matter is not only that the meager allowance cannot sustain the students considering the skyrocketing cost of living with prices of basic commodities exponentially oscillating on a daily basis. Rather the question we might be tempted to pose in this scenario although already alluded to would be why in the first place the student is at the University. Commonsense rationality tells me that the sole prerogative of the student is to learn and gain knowledge and eventually contribute in a special way to national development after graduation. Commonsense rationality also lends me to vouchsafe and believe that such learning cannot take place effectively in the face of unnecessary inhibitions and detractors one major one being on an empty stomach and the associated stressors of sheer contemplation about where to get the next meal. A scenario which is more likely and probable when one’s peanut, meager and inadequate allowance cannot sustain one for the entire month. It is within this background that one might argue the allowance system has more negative externalities from a humanitarian point of view especially if we accept that our object is to uphold the welfare of the student and protect the end product he will become in the final analysis. Privatization may have its expedience in terms of austerity and economic cost-effectiveness through its cost-cutting strategy in the running of public universities. However to argue that the measure is equally irrational and inhuman considering the fact that we are imposing an unnecessary burden and forcing our students to bear the brunt of austerity measures against their sole prerogative to attain knowledge and contribute to national development might seem tenable. It is quite pathetic to herald the struggles that the students are encountering because of the measure as was alluded in an article published recently in one of the papers about cases of malnourishment especially among the younger female students at Chanco. The article per se documents that some students in a bid to ration the meager allowance are surviving on Sobo and bread and even worse in case they exhaust the allowance and starve. It is also obvious that nutritionally the consequences of such on brain functions and information processing considering the fact that university students are obliged to use their brains might be detrimental. Not only that all these externalities boil down to the fact that we are unnecessarily putting the health of our future leaders in jeopardy. Attesting therefore that by applying austerity measures to the university system we are unnecessarily complicating and compromising standards might not be an exaggeration. It is even more pathetic if we observe that it is the underprivileged students that are suffering the most from the policy with implications of blatant discrimination and non-inclusiveness. The paradox and million dollar question arising would be why we should impose austerity measures on innocent students when day in day out national resources are being drained and squandered sometimes without any streak of remorse. Are we not paying lip service or practicing double standards as leaders or are we in essence not destroying the same future of our nation we purport to uphold in greater esteem by exposing our students to unnecessary hardships. The bottomline is that when we weigh the costs and benefits of this so called cost-cutting privatization strategy of allotting upkeep allowances - albeit meager - to students against the original strategy in which the university provided subsidized catering and cafeteria services to all students – the latter seems to be more expedient because it absolves us of a host of complications such as the hullabaloo of riots and impasses that are irking the public universities and even indefinite closures such as has been the case with Chanco and Poly. Above all else considering the contribution that university graduates bequeath the nation after gracing the corridors of university, it would not be an overstatement to attest that such outweighs the costs of subsidizing catering services in the final analysis. It is therefore expedient to weigh the pros and cons of our austerity measures on especially critical domains of the economy before we implement them. It is also pertinent to stipulate that any compromise to the University educational system implies a comprise on the final graduate and that that has far reaching ramifications on overall national development not only for the current generation but even for generations to come. Therefore it remains pertinent to highlight above all else that the lip service and double standards accorded not only the case in point but even regarding the political will in funding institutions of higher learning will only serve to cripple national development in the final analysis.