Discipline Without Violence…

In the span of a few weeks, Ghana’s public discourse was forced into a difficult reckoning about authority, discipline, and the treatment of young people.

A local assembly member in the Western Region was reported to have coerced two teenagers into sexual activity as punishment after finding them in a compromising situation. ( find story here; https://3news.com/news/western-region-assembly-member-who-caught-2-teenagers-in-a-compromising-situation-forces-them-to-have-sex-as-punishment)

A violent clash at Swedru School of Business left eight students injured and triggered police intervention. (find story here; https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Police-investigate-violent-clash-at-Agona-Swedru-Athletic-games-2022860)

Amidst all this, some members of the public in parts of the country have called for the return of corporal punishment. Some renowned educationists and policy groups have pushed back, warning that caning does more harm than good.

These are not isolated stories. They are connected by a deeper question: what kind of authority does a modern society wish to exercise over its young?

The alleged actions of the assembly member demand unequivocal condemnation. If verified, forcing minors to engage in sexual activity under the guise of punishment is not discipline. It is abuse. It is an assault on bodily autonomy and a gross misuse of public office. Elected officials hold delegated power. That power exists to protect the vulnerable and uphold the law, not to improvise humiliating and harmful sanctions outside it.

In a constitutional democracy, punishment is neither theatrical nor arbitrary. It is governed by law, by procedure, and by a commitment to human dignity. When a community leader bypasses those guardrails, he does not restore order. He erodes it.

The school clash in Swedru, though different in nature, exposes a parallel failure. Violence among students does not emerge in a vacuum. It signals weaknesses in supervision, in conflict resolution systems, and in the emotional climate of the institution. When adolescent disputes escalate into physical confrontations requiring criminal investigation, something foundational has gone wrong.

In the wake of such incidents, it is tempting to reach for what feels decisive. Many parents, worried about indiscipline, have argued that the removal of corporal punishment has stripped teachers of authority. The cane, in this telling, once commanded instant respect.

But respect born of fear is brittle. It rarely outlasts the presence of the authority figure. Research across multiple education systems has shown that physical punishment can increase aggression, deepen resentment, and damage trust between students and teachers. It may suppress behaviour temporarily, yet it does not cultivate self-regulation. It teaches compliance, not character.

The question, then, is not whether discipline is necessary. It is. Schools cannot function without structure. The real question is how discipline is exercised.

There are credible alternatives. Positive behaviour frameworks establish clear expectations and consistent consequences while reinforcing good conduct. Restorative justice approaches bring students face to face with the harm they have caused and require them to repair it. Counseling services and trained guidance officers help address underlying issues such as trauma, peer pressure, and family stress. Structured extracurricular engagement channels adolescent energy into sport, debate, music, and service. None of these approaches are soft. They demand time, training, and institutional commitment. But they build internal restraint rather than impose external pain. A school system that relies on physical force has not built the internal capacities necessary for durable order. It has defaulted to the most immediate instrument available.

A mature society does not confuse harshness with strength. It understands that authority gains legitimacy when it is predictable, lawful, and proportionate. The assembly member’s alleged conduct represented the opposite: impulsive, humiliating, and unlawful. Violence among students represents a breakdown in preventive systems. The return of corporal punishment would risk compounding these failures rather than correcting them.

The path forward is more demanding. It requires investment in teacher training, in school counseling, in clear disciplinary codes that are actually enforced. It requires parents to see discipline not as spectacle but as formation. It requires public officials to model restraint and legality, especially when confronted with behaviour they find objectionable.

Young people test boundaries. That is as old as civilization. The measure of a society is not whether its youth err, but how adults respond. If the response is coercion and humiliation, the lesson absorbed is that power, not principle, governs. If the response is firm, lawful, and oriented toward growth, the lesson is different.

Schools, local assemblies, and law enforcement bodies are not merely administrative units. They are classrooms in citizenship.

The incidents of recent weeks are troubling. They also offer an opportunity. To reject abuse without equivocation. To confront school violence without nostalgia for the cane. To build systems that discipline without degrading.

Order achieved through fear is fragile. Order grounded in justice and consistent practice endures. The choice between the two will shape not only classrooms, but the civic culture those classrooms produce.