The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

The F W de Klerk Foundation is extremely concerned about the recent proposal by the Department of Arts and Culture that  “one of the official languages” that national government uses  “must be an indigenous language with historically diminished use and status”. Because the other language that Government is bound to use is English, the only conclusion that can be drawn from this proposal is that the Department wishes to exclude the use of Afrikaans as an official national language.

This is in direct conflict with section 6 (1) of the Constitution which recognizes Afrikaans as an official language and section 6 (4) which requires that “all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and must be treated equitably.” It also contravenes section 6 (3) (a) which states that when considering the adoption of official languages, government must take into account “usage, practicality, expense, regional circumstances and the balance of needs and preferences of the population as a whole or in the province concerned.”

Afrikaans is the third most widely used language in South Africa and the most widely used language in two provinces.  It is also widely spoken by other population groups in five other provinces.  It is inconceivable that national departments will be able to carry out their functions effectively in Afrikaans-majority provinces, and in providing services to the Afrikaans-language minority of seven million people, without communicating with citizens in their home language. 

This is so self-evident that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Department’s initiative is motivated by vindictiveness against Afrikaans-speaking minorities.  Such an attitude is in direct conflict with our national goal of healing “the divisions of the past”.  It also fundamentally undermines the rights of Afrikaans-speaking citizens to equality and human dignity. As such it cuts at the roots of the national consensus that we reached between 1990 and 1996 and undermines the foundations of national unity.

The Foundation will monitor the situation closely and will urge the government to reconsider this divisive proposal.