The dominance of English in the public domain is often defended in the name of “nation building”. Those who resist it are accordingly condemned as being nostalgic for the past and undermining the formation of a new South African nation.
We regularly hear that one lingua franca, English, is necessary to prevent social disintegration on an ethnic basis, and to ensure the continuance of South Africa as a unitary state.
This logic is strongly reminiscent of the ideas of an influential movement in the United States, the so-called “English only” movement.
US English, the leading organisation in this movement, is committed to having English declared the official language of the country. Although many people do not realise it, the US does not have an official language. While English dominates in practice, non-English speakers claim certain language rights like bilingual education, ballot papers in languages other than English and the right to use their languages in the workplace. These are the “compromises” that US English would like to see abolished.
It is a controversial issue, given the rise in the number of non-English speakers, — especially Spanish speakers — in the US, the de facto bilingualism of a state like Miami and the possibility that Puerto Rico — currently a bilingual entity — may become an American state in the future.
US English regards English as one of the few unifying factors among the diversity of cultural and religious groups in the US.
To prove their point, they often refer to the example of their northern neighbour Canada where, according to them, the recognition of French next to English as an official language has led to the danger of schism on the part of French-speakers.
Many critics have, however, pointed out that, ironically, it was precisely the initial refusal to recognise French in addition to English that caused the alienation of Francophone Canadians.
There was a time when French-speaking citizens wanted nothing more than that Canada as a whole should have two official languages. However, the resistance to this on the part of the government, and the half-hearted implementation once the principle had been belatedly accepted, led to widespread cynicism. French-speakers started to insist that the predominantly Francophone Quebec become unilingually French, and that English be strictly circumscribed there. When the Canadian government eventually decided to apply the bilingual principle consistently, it was too late. The language groups had become alienated from each other and support for the independence of Quebec had already increased considerably.
The same process took place in Belgium. There it was the refusal to fully recognise Dutch next to French that led to alienation between the language groups.
A useful contrast is supplied by Switzerland, where the national identity never coincided with adherence to one language. Because Switzerland has always recognised French, German, Italian and Romansch, most Swiss citizens tend to identify strongly with the state and, according to surveys, regard themselves as Swiss first and only subsequently speakers of a particular language.
Developing-world countries like India and Eritrea also recognise various languages, thus succeeding in maintaining a strong national solidarity among their citizens. The precise way in which the different languages are accommodated differ from country to country, but all successful multilingual states have this in common: that they do not attempt to force any one language on the populace.
In our country, too, there is a real danger that the misrecognition of our rich language diversity by the government and public institutions could lead to greater inter-ethnic hostility in the future. Language has had too loaded a history in our country to disappear overnight as a political factor. The longer this issue is neglected, the more we play into the hands of those who practise ethnic politics, and seek to promote a sense of alienation among their constituencies. It is not the “language fanatics”, but precisely those who defend monolingualism, who undermine nation building.
In his recent book An Ordinary Country, the veteran leftwing activist Neville Alexander makes a strong plea for a one-nation model as the best option for South Africa. In doing so, he rejects the “many-peoples” model of Afrikaner nationalists, the “four-nations” (or “races”) model of liberals, and the “two-nations” model of Africanists and the Black Consciousness Movement. It is thus all the more striking that Alexander criticises sharply the government’s preference for English as lingua franca of South Africa. This, he believes, can only undermine the building of a united South African nation in the long term. What Alexander pleads for here does not differ much from what he had written years ago in his classic One Azania, One Nation.
Until recently, Alexander was still a voice calling in the wilderness. However, the founding of the Multilingualism Action Group, and other similar initiatives where speakers of the different languages join forces to promote multilingualism, may be an indication that South Africans are beginning over a broad spectrum to prefer the Switzerland option to the Canada option. One can only hope that the English proficient elite will be able to relativise their class interests sufficiently to see that it is in the national interest that this tendency be strengthened and supported.
All South Africans — including English speakers — who wish to see the dawn of a truly new South Africa must come to recognise that nation building requires, not one language, but multilingualism.
Gerrit Brand is a post-doctoral fellow in the department of philosophy at Stellenbosch University, a co-worker of the Taalsekretariaat and secretary of the Multilingualism Action Group