Introduction

Historically used as a form of corporal punishment and repeated for generations as a disciplinary practice in Africa, the use of the cane remains a sensitive issue when traditions that justify it are confronted with children’s rights. On one hand, some parents and educators consider it an effective way to correct children and a demonstration of their commitment to their upbringing. On the other hand, the practice is increasingly being questioned because of the psychological and physical consequences it can cause.

A Practice Deeply Rooted in Mindsets

In Côte d’Ivoire, the law is clear: any form of physical violence against children is prohibited. Yet, in many mindsets, giving up the cane can sometimes feel like giving up a particular vision of education. For some parents, it remains a reliable way of instilling values such as respect, obedience, and discipline. The issue also remains sensitive in classrooms. Although corporal punishment is now prohibited by school regulations and educational authorities, the cane still persists informally in some schools. It sometimes survives through habits and deeply rooted patterns of authority inherited from older educational models.

The Weight of Initiation Traditions

The idea of disciplining through the cane also resonates with certain initiation practices, such as generation festivals. In these traditions, young people may be subjected to whipping as part of a meaningful rite intended to transmit values such as patience, inner strength, courage, and respect for elders. Within such cultural practices, the intention behind the act is often presented as more important than the act itself. However, this justification has clear limits: an act of violence, even when carried out in the name of education, can still cause physical and emotional harm, humiliation, and trauma. This is precisely where the tension lies between preserving cultural values and protecting children’s physical and moral integrity.

A Practical as Well as a Legal Question

For many parents, the issue is more moral than legal: should they follow the law or uphold the principles they were raised with? Many grew up being beaten themselves and simply reproduce the disciplinary methods they experienced. Under such circumstances, asking them to abandon the cane without offering concrete alternatives may be perceived as a direct challenge to their parental role and may raise concerns about the loss of certain values among children. Some educators and child development specialists therefore advocate alternative approaches, such as setting clear rules, explaining the consequences of inappropriate behaviour, temporarily removing a privilege, or encouraging children to make amends for their actions.

Conclusion

The cane embodies a conflict between cultural heritage, parental authority, and child protection laws. While some continue to defend it in the name of tradition and education, the law remains clear: no child should be disciplined at the expense of their dignity or physical integrity. The challenge today is not to eliminate authority, but to rethink it. Educating without the cane does not mean leaving children without guidance. Rather, it means transmitting values of respect and discipline through nonviolent methods that can be equally effective.