Languages are key to our lives and also to the building of nations. The many languages in Africa complicate communication, but are central to our heritage and culture. Just think of the many different San languages spoken by relatively few desert people – and in the rest of Africa the proliferation of languages is considerable compared to the rest of the world. The complexity of these issues demand dedication and lot’s of good will as we strive to make the best of our situation in the global village.
These issues also impact directly on our Churches too and it does seem very clear that communication will be more and more in English as time moves on, but hopefully we can maintain a high standard of isiZulu/seTswana too. There is no question that this language issue is something our Seminary and its postgraduate students should put their minds to very seriously in research and strategic planning.
Read here, what the De Klerk Foundation has to say:
“South Africa’s multilingual nature is of such central importance to our character as a nation that language rights were entrenched in the founding principles of the Constitution. Nevertheless, government has done little since 1994 to carry out its constitutional responsibilities relating to language policy. In 2003 it tabled a comprehensive South African Languages Bill that would have provided a rational framework for language policy – but then inexplicably withdrew the legislation.
Its lack of action prompted Cornelis Lourens, a private citizen, to approach the courts to force government to adopt a proper language act in accordance with its responsibilities in terms of S. 6(4) of the Constitution. In March 2010, the North Gauteng High Court found that the national government had, indeed, failed to carry out its responsibilities and ordered the Minister of Arts and Culture to adopt appropriate legislation within two years.
The result is the South African Languages Bill, 2011. However, a cursory reading reveals that the government has done the absolute minimum to comply with the court order and that the Bill still falls far short of meeting the requirements in S.6 .
Last week the Foundation submitted comments to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Arts and Culture. It observed that language rights had been included in the founding principles because they are indispensible to the achievement of other founding values in the Constitution. Human dignity was closely linked to people’s perception of the worthiness and value of the language in which they perceived the world and expressed their innermost views and opinions. Equality could not be achieved if the language in which people expressed themselves did not enjoy parity of esteem. The rights assured by the Constitution would be seriously limited if government did not communicate about them and provide the services on which they depended, in languages that people could understand best.
In the Foundation’s view the 2011 Bill did not meet the requirements of S. 6 because, in particular, it made no provision to promote South Africa’s indigenous languages as required by S. 6(2) of the Constitution; and because it made no provision for the adoption of language policies by provinces and municipalities in terms of S. 6 (3).
The Foundation noted that whereas the first object of the 2003 Bill was “to give effect to the letter and spirit of section 6 of the Constitution”, the first object of the 2011 Bill was simply “to regulate and monitor the use of official languages by the national government for government purposes.” It further noted that the Bill did not include a language policy but postponed this critically important constitutional requirement for another 18 months. It also appeared that the envisaged language policy would be adopted by way of publication in the Gazette. The Foundation felt that such an important policy should be adopted by legislation in the National Assembly, rather than by government fiat.
It accordingly recommended that the 2011 Bill should be withdrawn in its entirety and that the 2003 Bill should be reintroduced with a number of additions. It supported the guiding principles of the 2003 Bill but felt that they should be strengthened by including recognition of the rights, wherever practicable:
• to communicate with, and to be served by, national, provincial and municipal government in the official language of choice;
• to use the official language of a person’s choice in court proceedings; and
• the right of everyone to receive education in the official language or languages of their choice in public educational institutions.
The Foundation suggested a language policy in terms of which each government department would, at the national level, adopt two official languages on the basis that one of the national languages would be English. One third of departments would choose their second official language from the isiXhosa, isiZulu, isiNdebele, siSwati group; one third from the Sapedi, Sesotho, Setswana group; and one third from the Afrikaans, Tshivenda, Xitsonga languages. Each national department would, at its offices at the provincial level, use English and the language most widely spoken in the relevant province.
Each provincial government would use English and the language – or languages – most widely spoken in their province as the second, or if they so wished third, official language. Each municipality would use English and the language – or languages – most widely spoken in their cities.
In all cases, appointments to, and promotions in, departments at all levels of government would require proficiency in the relevant official languages. Governments at all levels would also provide incentives to officials to learn additional official languages.
In addition to the practical entrenchment of South Africa’s ten indigenous languages as languages of government, the Foundation recommended the following steps to promote their further use and development. The government should, in consultation with the relevant universities, appoint a university, or universities, to promote the use and development of each of South Africa’s indigenous languages with a view to their development as academic languages of tuition; the training of teachers, journalists and language practitioners in the languages concerned; and the development of literature, books and publications.
The Foundation recommended that the monitoring function required in S.6 (4) should be carried out independently by the Pan South African Language Board (PANSALB), which already had such a function in terms of its founding Act. PANSALB should be further strengthened by setting up subsidiary language councils to monitor and promote the use and development of each of South Africa’s indigenous languages. The Foundation also recommended the appointment of a Language Ombudsman within PANSALB’s framework.
Finally, the Foundation recommended that the relevant legislation should be amended to ensure that everyone has the right to receive education in the language or languages of their choice in public educational institutions in accordance with S. 29 (2) of the Constitution. It recommended that all provincial languages should be taught in schools to the level of Grade 12 and that mother-tongue, wherever practicable, should be used for the first six years of education. The Foundation also expressed the need for indigenous languages to enjoy special protection from the overwhelming impact of English, if they were to survive as languages of education.”
Wilhelm's space 