Imagine receiving a letter informing you that your social grant application has been rejected. The letter is written in technical English and refers to regulations you have never seen. It states that you may appeal but the procedure and deadline are not explained in the language you understand best.
The government may claim that it has informed you but information that cannot be understood is not truly accessible.
This is the contradiction South Africa must confront during Heritage Month. Every September, we celebrate our heritage through traditional clothing, food, music and dance. These expressions matter but heritage is more than public performance. It also lives in language. Language allows communities to preserve knowledge, explain their experiences and pass their identity from one generation to another.
African languages are celebrated culturally but remain marginalised institutionally. They are welcomed on Heritage Day stages but are rarely treated as languages of legislation, public policy, higher education and government administration. We allow African languages to carry our history while denying them sufficient power to carry our rights.
South Africa recognises 12 official languages, including South African Sign Language. Section 6 of the Constitution acknowledges the historically diminished status of indigenous languages and requires the state to elevate their status and advance their use. The Use of Official Languages Act 12 of 2012 also requires national departments and public entities to adopt language policies. The legal foundation exists. The main failure is implementation.
English remains dominant in laws, policies, official notices and administrative decisions. Citizens are still expected to know the law, comply with government requirements and challenge unfair decisions within specified periods. This expectation is unreasonable when the state has not ensured that people understand the rules governing them.
Conversational English is not the same as legal English. Terms such as procedural fairness, administrative action and prescribed minimum benefits can confuse even proficient English speakers. A worker may sign a contract without understanding its conditions. A patient may not understand a hospital complaints procedure. A parent may struggle with a school admissions policy. A community may be expected to comment on a municipal plan written in technical English.
Language access is therefore a human rights matter. Section 9 of the Constitution guarantees equality. Section 32 protects access to information, while section 33 guarantees lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair administrative action. These rights become difficult to exercise when people cannot understand the information or decisions affecting them.
Giving everyone the same English document may appear equal but it does not produce substantive equality. Formal equality asks whether everyone received the information. Substantive equality asks whether everyone has a fair opportunity to understand and use it.
Language barriers also weaken public participation. Communities cannot comment meaningfully on a proposed law or policy if they do not understand its purpose and consequences.
Public consultations conducted mainly in English may satisfy an administrative requirement while excluding the people most affected. Attendance is not meaningful participation when citizens cannot confidently enter the discussion.
During Heritage Month, the government should move beyond speeches and adopt a practical language access programme. Parliament should publish plain language summaries of important legislation in all official languages. Government departments should communicate decisions concerning social grants, housing, healthcare, education and land in the preferred official language of the affected person wherever reasonably possible.
Municipalities should publish by-laws and service information in the languages most widely used in their communities. Draft policies must be translated before public consultation, not after adoption. The government should also establish a legal language unit involving lawyers, translators, linguists, universities and the Pan South African Language Board. This unit should develop standardised terminology and verify translations.
Some may argue that translation into 12 languages would be expensive and could create legal uncertainty. These concerns are valid but they do not justify permanent exclusion. Implementation can be progressive. The government can begin with laws affecting basic rights and essential services. It can provide authoritative translations, plain language summaries and community education materials for different purposes.
The cost of translation must be compared with the cost of misunderstanding. Language barriers may cause missed appeals, unfair administrative outcomes, exclusion from services and ineffective public participation. Constitutional rights require resources. Accessibility cannot be treated as an optional expense.
Written translation alone is not enough. Information should also be shared through community radio, audio recordings, accessible digital platforms and South African Sign Language. Universities must develop African languages as languages of law, science and public policy by investing in terminology, dictionaries, textbooks and professional translation.
English did not become dominant because it is naturally better at expressing complex ideas. It became dominant through colonial administration, education and institutional power. African languages will grow as languages of law and scholarship only when institutions deliberately use and invest in them.
The true test of linguistic recognition is not whether an African language appears on a Heritage Month poster. It is whether that language helps a citizen understand a government decision, participate in policymaking, challenge injustice and claim a constitutional right.
Our languages must not only carry our songs, stories and history. They must also carry our laws, policies and rights. Heritage without institutional power becomes performance, while rights without understanding remain promises on paper.
Awam Mavimbela is a PhD candidate at the University of the Free State, a registered social worker, columnist and a published author.