Bruno de Kalbermatten

Ladies and Gentlemen:

About thirty years ago, I attended a meeting organized by the “Canton de Vaud”, one of the states of Switzerland which was reorganizing the local high school.  On this occasion, one of the teachers made the following declaration which I would like to bring to your attention:

I quote:  “It is time to take the child’s education away from the parents’ influence, so that all children do have the same chance”.

This was shocking to me as I had never heard such a statement before, and since then, I could never forget it.

Other thoughts came to my mind.  Is this statement:

1. Ridiculous? -because a teacher who would dedicate his time, of course limited, to a class of 15 to 25 students, would also have to take care of his own children ?

2. Impossible? -due to the different levels of the students, vacations, school changes, interruptions as well as differences in the educators’ sensitivities?

3. Scandalous? -by the realization that one of the fundamentals of society, the family, could be condemned in the name of so-called “leveling”?

It is, of course, necessary to position this statement relative to the events of May 1968. However, even if such a declaration would not be accepted today, we have to admit that several changes are leading to the same result.

Let us mention a few of them:

1. the mono-parental situations with their respective difficulties,

2. the legal acceptance of the various homosexual solutions,

3. the necessity of professional training which is misunderstood, and which does not pay enough attention to education and to the development of the personality,

4. the emancipation of youth and in particular that of young girls, which allows for the creation of “couples” to replace parents.

And now, some examples to illustrate some of the above-mentioned points :

• Some weeks ago, one of the major French radio stations announced during “Women’s Week” that 46% of the girls who were 15-16 years old were first and foremost concerned by a maturity able to give them independence and freedom, and only 2% really had love interests.  I do not judge – I only state.

• Several articles recently published in our local press included points-of-view from women who have attained important managerial positions.  They were asking themselves how to manage freedom, their profession, and motherhood – this within the frame of women’s friendship, not necessarily homosexual.

I am not a sociologist whose purpose is to present to you the positive and negative elements of our society, nor do I want to analyze the situations that exist in developing countries where the still high birth rate creates problems of existence and education for many children of families often abandoned by the father. 

I can, however, speak of the observations I have made within an industrial circle – the one I know well, as it is ours, and which includes between 240 to 260 apprentices.

Our training manager is of the opinion that training and education may be divided into three distinctly different groups which are a result of different backgrounds:

So you see that for the apprentices, competencies are divided according to the plan presented, i.e., 15 - 16 points for the company, 10 - 11 points for the family, and 5 - 6 points for the professional school.

The importance of the central column is clear and represents the essential component of the family.

According to this educator, 25 – 30% of the students do not come from a well-balanced family background.  In this training, we can see that about 50% of the competence is of a professional nature and 40 – 45% is the result of a large number of qualities related to education, to the more or less positive environment, to the quality of the parents, brothers and sisters, and also the choice of friends.

It generally appears that 75% of the students who live in a well-balanced family have a real benefit compared to the others.  Those youngsters will then have better stability, adapt more easily, and have a greater capacity for listening.

It is also interesting to know that constructive confrontation within the family circle can also be a formative element.  A young person must go through a period of frustration and opposition which defines its “limits”.

This feeling of frustration – so important for life in society – must not only exist with the parents, but also with brothers, sisters and colleagues.

A well-balanced environment (without taking into consideration school or professional training) is essential, and gives us two answers with regard to the statement made by the professor mentioned at the beginning of this presentation.  I repeat this declaration:

“It is time to take the child’s education away from the parents’ influence, so that all children do have the same chance”.

Answers:

1. Yes, children who do not live in a family environment do not have the same chance.

2. The objective is not to fight against those with the most chances (or opportunities) but to improve the situation for those who are deprived.

Today, too much importance is given to people on the fringe, and lonely people who, because of political or social pressure, or pity, receive more attention than normal families do.  This arrives often to the detriment of educators of normal classes.

Generally speaking, we can say that children – our future – still do not have the right place and favorable environment they should have in our society.

I do not have time to develop these topics in detail.  I would like only to mention a few points: such as more freedom in the selection of schools, support of certain private schools, housing, support to mothers, cultural development, sports, scouts and other activities for youngsters, and urgent better control of the “media” that very often destabilize young people.

A good balance, a code of ethics, an adequate spiritual circle and competitiveness are essential for youngsters to be able to meet future economic challenges.  Jobs will no longer be lifetime employment, but often limited contracts. Family stability will be modified because of this need to adapt. This kind of difficulty will also be the company’s responsibility which will no longer be able to act without taking the employees and their families into consideration.

The commitment goes even beyond the company’s circle.  Society and the state also have to show more clearly their support for the role of the family, the basic unit that must be protected in a world that rather tends to make it explode.

We can point out here the cohesion of the Jewish culture that has been firmly maintained (we could say in an almost exclusive way) even if several states did not support it and at times, fought against it.

Our youngsters must know there is only one permanent thing:  it is the permanency of change. Those continuous changes and the adaptation of the “homo economicus” will be made without too much difficulty if young people are supported, surrounded by love and are open to advice during the difficult moments of their lives. However, for years, favors go to individuals rather than to families, mothers rather than fathers, and adults rather than children.

Politics (for taxation purposes) make housing more expensive. The lack of vital space for housing is a good example.  Despite the relative wealth of the Swiss, our lack of vision when speaking about the necessity of adequate housing in order to allow for fulfillment of a family is disturbing. It is not uncommon to state that among European western countries, Switzerland has the lowest percentage of homeowners. In Switzerland, the prices for pieces of land have, in some way, been artificially raised (under the pretext of preserving nature) but in fact, our housing problem exists because of selfish, local and regional reasons.

I feel more concerned by a slogan that says:  “135 to 150 m² apartment for all the families with 2 – 3 children” rather than individual support to the mothers who remain at home”.

Support to the family “core” rather than the individual should be a priority. I admit that the health and education quality of the parents are factors of wealth that are unique and cannot be replaced.

• Strong and cohesive stand against the state

• Increased resistance in the face of economic and health problems

• Cultural exchange and contribution, common sense, understanding of ourselves and others, meetings within a spiritual dimension

•  Men and women complementing each other

• Better social status

• Job sharing

•  Constructive confrontations within the family

Let us now talk about insurance for the future.  It is clear that the quality of the family is not sufficient to ensure the future if this same family does not assume the fertility required for development, and particularly for the renewal of generations.

The decline of the birth rate in our western European countries  is very impressive; however, not very surprising.  The emancipation of women, the not very serious declarations of the "Club of Rome”, as well as some questionable analysis on over-population, make our western countries the first ones to have adopted the recommendations for one or two children per family.

What is the current world population?

Looking at this transparency which shows very different situations, we observe that :

1. Big countries are sparsely populated – For example:  Brazil, the countries of the ex-Soviet Union, the United States of America and Canada – we could add Africa (North Africa excluded).

2. The birth rate has fallen in the last 25 years –For example:  from 5.7 to 3.5 per woman in Brazil and from 6 to 2.6 children in China (a rate which is still high, not due to space but to local economic possibilities).

3. On the other hand, in the countries of advanced economical development, the demographic evolution is going down, justifying the statement made at the Conference of Budapest in 1975: the best contraception is development.

This is absolutely true to the point of becoming a concern for our countries. Among the existing numerous statistics, one assumption that comes to mind with the following figures is:

Diagram 4 – Between 1970 and 2015

Recently, I heard that Switzerland’s population growth was negative despite the fertility of immigrants who adapt themselves very quickly (often by necessity) to their new environment for cultural, educational and also cost of housing.

Only a century was necessary to cut the French fertility in half. China reached this decrease by half  in 15 years. In Italy (usually one of the countries with large families) the birth rate is also falling exceptionally quickly.  It is now in first place with –57%, ahead of Spain.

The period considered is correct, the year 2025 being “tomorrow” for the children to be born in the next few years.

We also have to say that, with the reduction in the birth rate, the children, the future of humanity, will be less supported as interests will be moved to the growing power of older people.

It is clear that divorce also represents an important slowdown relative to a well-balanced birth rate.

Why such a quick development?

Is this a definitive evolution or a new fad?

We have to recognize that the rapid pressure on consumption has effectively created some necessities that cannot easily be supported by a family with three children.  For example, freedom of some, impacts the freedom of others.

The possibility for a woman today to seek a lucrative and interesting job may represent an educational and positive factor for the child.  However, very often it is above all a personal and liberating factor for a woman which leads her to compensate for the absence of a man who himself is subjected to heavy professional stress.

It is also true that the economy today is focused short-term whereas the family is a long-term option.

To summarize, in 2025 our countries will probably have twice fewer youngsters than in 1970. If we consider the medium age, the weight of older people will be approximately three times that of the younger generation.  The resulting social costs are troubling.

The trend is significant.

Another slide shows the pyramid-shaped diagram representing the present population by age groups in Zurich.

The number of young people is insufficient compared to the number of people over 65 years old.  Today, everyone is getting older, and the renewal is not as it should be.

We also observe the progress of women, which is a consequence of longer longevity.  I do not think that women’s longevity is really a gift for them if they are not supported by some precious goods such as children, grand children or nephews.

We have to keep in mind that the family has been, and will remain, the basis of our society.  As such, the family has existed before the states and consequently merits a preferential situation.

The conclusion is relatively simple.  It is absolutely necessary that the birthrate per woman, which has fallen under 2, if not 1.5, grow again up to 2.1 or 2.2. The actual tendency is not favorable.  If nothing is done in Europe, nature being faced with this terrible void, it will be filled more and more by non-Europeans with new and different cultures, thereby creating serious problems which will be very difficult to master and assimilate.

In conclusion I would like to say:  priority must be on the child and on the parents.

No more violent TV and continuously projected sexual movies.

The family is an essential factor which should assure our future within a society in which we hope to continue receiving the benefits of ethical, spiritual, cultural, and social values – values that we still consider as very important.