Letter from America
October 30, 2006
By Professor Stanford Mukasa

Madonna's adoption of orphan calls for celebration not vilification
In today’s Letter from America Dr. Stan Mukasa argues that neither human rights groups nor Malawian adoption laws have served the interests of the one- year- old child who was recently adopted by Madonna.
……………………………………………………………………….
A simple case of adoption involving the mega star of pop music, Madonna, and a 13 –month-old child, David Banda, has thrust Malawi into the international news spotlight.
For a number of weeks now the main news coming from Malawi has been the so-called controversy surrounding the adoption of David, barely one month into his second year of existence in this world.
Hundreds of journalists and photographers have descended like news vultures on the poor father of David, Yohane.
Why a common procedure of adoption in which both Madonna and David’s father agreed should have caused such a controversy is mind boggling.
Many of these journalists went to Malawi to speak to David’s father. These journalists would have stayed at expensive hotels; rented vehicles and driven to Yohane's home; asked Yohane a question whose answer was already well known around the world; driven back to the hotel and perhaps flown back to their home countries!
On the way to and from Yohane’s village the journalists most likely passed thousands of destitute and poor families. This was probably not news to them.
It must have cost thousands of dollars to send the army of journalists to ask Yohane one question. Had the foreign journalists liaised with their Malawian counterparts and sent local journalists to Yohane the money saved could have been donated to the orphaned children.
Equally baffling were hordes of human rights organizations that have started a massive campaign against the adoption. They have argued that Madonna did not follow Malawi’s adoption laws.
Others have argued that Madonna’s lifestyle and history are not conducive to the proper upbringing of young David.
Yet others have tearfully complained that poor David was being yanked from his cultural roots to live with strangers, and that he would be deprived of his African identity for ever.
Madonna may not have an extensive experience with the Malawian culture but she was, in fact, nurtured in her music career by the African America hip hop music culture in New York.
Named after her mother she was born Madonna Ciccone in Michigan in 1958. In 1978, and at the age of 20, Madonna traveled to New York where she started her singing career. She says she had only $35 when she arrived in New York. Her musical career took off having been heavily influenced by the hip hop music style that grew from the African American communities in the Bronx.
Against this background Madonna has had a personal experience about what it means to be poor as well as the African American pop culture. While her personal fortune today is estimated at $500 million, a far cry from the $35 she reportedly had 28 years ago Madonna’s background reflects a great deal of intercultural interaction with the Black culture.
Madonna has always been an advocate of the marginalized members of society. Some of her songs have reflected this caring attitude. Her blockbuster hit song, Vogue, for example, spoke on behalf of gays and lesbians. Admittedly, Madonna’s lifestyle as a mega star in pop music has often been risqué, pushing the envelope to the edge.
Despite all this Madonna, who has two children, has been a caring and responsible parent. There are no reports of neglect or abuse of her children. In considering the future of David as a member of Madonna’s family it may well be important to factor in this aspect of Madonna character.
A great deal of legal arguments have been made on how Madonna won the custody of David. Human rights advocates have alleged that Madonna circumvented Malawi’s adoption laws which require that Madonna live in Malawi for at least 18 months. The same advocates have now sought the court’s ruling in their bid to block the adoption.
The underlying motive behind this battle would appear to be the fact that Madonna has now been cast into the stereotype of her lifestyle as a pop Diva. Even if she had stayed for the required 18 months another excuse would have been concocted to block the adoption.
The compelling question in the case of David is: What is in the best interest of the child? Have any of the Malawian laws operated in the best interest of David and his father?
Malawi has a population estimated at 13 million. Half of the entire population is below the age of 15. Over one million children are orphans. Malawi is one of the poorest countries in the world. Life is an uphill struggle for a large part of the population.
What Madonna did was to extend a helping hand to young David who was born in utter poverty and, according to his father, was destined to grow up poor. Thanking Madonna for adopting his child Yohane felt this was the best that could ever happen to young David because he did not expect his son to live long under those conditions.
What human rights advocates missed entirely was the definition of what was in the best interest of young David. Malawi’s adoption laws do not seem to serve David’s or other orphaned children’s interests.
They do not take into account the critical question that must always be asked: What is in the best interest of child? They have not explained how the interest of the child would best be served by an adoption law that has been superimposed on a community of impoverished and orphaned children.
What the law, in fact, says is: If David is suffering, and someone wants to adopt him, a period of 18 months must expire before David can be adopted. But what happens in the intervening period? Does the government play a caretaker role of improving David’s welfare, or is David expected to continue the life of misery until after 18 months?
Admittedly, the law expects the interested party to “first foster care the child for a period of not less that 18 months.” This means government will monitor how the interested party foster cares or takes care of the orphan, something which the very same government has failed to do in the first place.
The existence of over a million orphans living a dilapidated and squalid existence is an indictment against the very same government’s failure to take care of its people, especially children. It’s like a mother who failed to take care of her child requiring to evaluate other people wishing to take care of the same child!
Human rights advocates have also missed another important point. Madonna did not only adopt young David. She donated $3 million to help orphaned children. It is estimated that 4,000 orphaned children will benefit from this.
Madonna has also started a campaign to help the poor children in Malawi. Yet the same Madonna is being vilified for violating the adoption rules even though her actions have been clearly in the interests of not only David but 4,000 other orphaned children!
Human rights advocates should have been the first to celebrate a new and hopeful life for David. They should also have expressed an appreciation for Madonna who took this action on humanitarian grounds.
By their very actions the human rights organizations have scared off future potential adopters who feel all this negativism is not worth the effort to adopt. Ultimately the interests of the children are sacrificed on the altar of ill-defined adoption laws that have not clearly been seem to be protecting the children.