Estudios empíricos sobre el control de la comprensión de textos en lengua extranjera

Thus far, this chapter has examined the most significant actors in the child labour debates in Bolivia, unpacked these debates, and explored the significance of rights to organised working children in order to further understand their position within the child labour debates. This chapter now discusses these unpacked debates, and the rights discourse from organised working children, in relation to the literature and theory that this research is grounded in: the conceptual framework based on childhood studies, children’s citizenship and children’s rights. Looking through the framework inspired by childhood studies, citizenship and rights, allows us to examine and discuss these debates from a different perspective and more through the lens of childhood studies. This has been tentatively discussed in the chapter, but in no great detail. Following this section is the chapter summary and conclusion.

162

The idea of living rights helps us to understand the significance of rights for organised working children. This, as previously mentioned, suggests that children ‘interpret and give meaning to their rights, based on lived experiences, socio-economic realities, various social relationships, and ideas of right and wrong’ (cited in Hanson and Nieuwenhuys, 2012, p.10). We can see here that organised working children have made sense and understood their rights, giving priority to the right to work, based on their own individual, familial and the national context in Bolivia. Fundamental to this is the social relationships that these organised working children have, through the organisation of the NNATs, whereby they can share their experiences and gain a sense of belonging as well as gain professional support from the other organisations which work with NNATs. At the same time, working children in Bolivia also contested their rights. They contested the rights as granted to them by the authorities of the ILO, and also by their own state. This is an integral part of the notion of living rights – challenging rights as only those that are codified. Thus, organised working children transcend the traditional idea that rights are merely those that are enshrined in law: rights from above. However, there is also an acceptance on the part of organised working children of rights from above and codified rights, as they codified their own rights in a draft law, mirroring common texts and invoking human rights language. The campaign and subsequent claim for the right to work by working children, is an example of a living and localised rights understanding, as well as a claim for rights from below.

Furthermore, we can apply the idea of enacted citizenship to understand the significance of rights, and the working children’s movement. Organised working children have practiced their citizenship outside of formal participatory processes: writing their own law, marching on the streets – and even just working when laws and standards said they shouldn’t and couldn’t. Children view their work as something valuable and dignified in the present, not only in the future. These children have engaged in actions of

citizenship, including making rules of social existence and exercising freedoms, such as speaking out and campaigning, to achieve their own rights. These children, similar to their challenge on codified rights, also challenge their citizenship based on status. Their claims, practice of working and mobilisation are exemplars of enacting their own citizenship.

163

In addition, this discussion does not intend simply to highlight just a case of children having rights, or children even having the right to work, or indeed, provide a soft critique of the UNCRC. In light of the critique by Reynaert et al (2009), it shows a complex web of rights, of which children have a nuanced understanding and relationship with. In terms of rights, this research shows that, despite the oft cited ‘landmark’ treaty of the UNCRC, that children contest and seek to claim different rights, in this instance the right to work. The ‘universality’ of the convention is also thrown into question, given the way that children and other Bolivian actors have questioned the ILO in saying that the context of Bolivia, where children commonly work, must be taken into consideration.

4.5.2. Childhood norms and ideals

Through these debates over child labour in Bolivia, there is evidence of differing views on childhood, manifest in a conflict over ideals and norms of childhood. For example, the ideal vision of a protected childhood encouraged by international standards (towards work and more broadly) does not include a childhood spent actively campaigning for the right to work, formulating a law or involved in violent clashes with national police in the streets, during the aforementioned protests in December 2013. In some ways, this childhood experience has more in common with adulthood, and can be considered somewhat deviant from the expectations and experiences of a ‘normal' childhood in an international context.56 This childhood experience has also bestowed upon children both

positive and negative aspects to work; children now have the right to work and participate in political processes, but they had to fight for it and suffered violence.

It was highlighted during various interviews with members of working children’s unions and the Ministry of Labour that Law 548 refers to working children and not child labour. Liebel (2015) also points out that the law refers to protection at work as opposed to protection from work, which has previously been the norm in standards on child labour. In doing so, it also supports the agency of children and recognises them as social actors, by not defining them as something to be protected in the context of work, but rather accepting and respecting their decision to work.

56 One could add that the ongoing (at the time of writing, November 2019) climate change protests by

164

Law 548 then, at once complements and rejects current international standards with respect to norms around childhood. These are arguably standards of a middle class and minority world childhood whereby childhood is seen as a time to be dedicated to education, play and leisure, not work. The new code supports and rejects this; education should be of a primary concern, but work is acceptable too. By proposing that participating in work as well as formal schooling is part of childhood development, the code crosses the normal/other binary on childhood, which have previously suggested that work and education are not considered compatible within childhood. By giving them the right to work, and recognising the value and importance of children’s work, the code strikes a new position amongst historic and contemporary global child labour policies. In so doing, the code demonstrates a perceived value not only to children’s work, but also to the children who work, and therefore bestows upon child workers not only responsibility, but also legal rights and protection.

4.5.3. Agency and participation

A fundamental element of childhood studies has been focussed upon children being entitled to express their views, influence and also make decisions that relate to them. What the debates in this chapter show us, is that children are challenging what their best interests are. It is a challenge against the Western, or Northern childhood hegemonic discourse that children, fundamentally, should not work, which is linked to the perception of child labour as a negative. In addition, this research shows that children’s participation is not tokenistic, in their view, and that now they have the right to work they feel valued, and their work feels valued.

The last point is important because the involvement of children in drafting the law could easily be criticised, as has previous child participation, as tokenistic (Holzscheiter, 2016). Working children’s organisations, both worldwide and in the Bolivian case are representative of only a small minority of working children, and thus an even smaller minority of children in general. Invernizzi and Milne (2002) believe that the majority of such movements tend to be an amplification of the adults behind them and their participation is considered as manipulation or, in many instances, tokenism. However, with this case it is not so. Tony and other NNATs members stated how serious dialogue (between NNATs and the Government) was seriously taken into account for the first time. In other words, this dialogue and working together between the NNATs and Government

165

in creating the law, was considered seriously (at least by the side of the NNATs), and not just tokenistic as some children’s participation has been. As Chapter Two noted, discussions on children’s participation rights have become a norm in children’s rights practice and policy, but the value of such participation has often been questioned as insincere and unrepresentative (Reynaert et al, 2009). In this example, it is the opposite.

The prior discussion on rights also shows that children do express, and are capable of expressing, their agency. This is a fundamental element of childhood studies. What this research adds to the field, is that by understanding their rights, claiming rights, taking on and demonstrating responsibility, the children in this study express a particular form of agency, namely political agency.

Also relevant is the idea of a paradox of agency, stemming from Hanson’s work (2016). Agency is afforded to children only if they can make the ‘right’ decision. At the international scale, the ILO and Unicef do not feel that working children should be afforded opportunity to speak at international conferences on matters concerning them, including having any say in international laws and standards. At the national level, children have had some political representation and involvement in committees (Comités

de Niñas, Niños y Adolescentes), as well as in creating Law 548, but cannot vote.

Organised working children directly challenged this by writing their own law, believing what they had to say was worthy and valid.