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.

Language is for all of us the lifeline connecting us to the pulse of our culture. It is the tool of the legislature, executive and judiciary as well as other public and private institutions. In a nation as diverse as South Africa language is an important topic. It is an instrument of both domination and liberation. Our collective identity as a nation has transcended one whose cultures were first divided by words to one now united by the words of our constitution. Against the backdrop of South Africa’s history, diverse cultures and colourful multilinguism, it is not only important that there are proper safeguards to protect this vast array of interests; it is also mandated by our constitution.
In light of the above, the Foundation wishes to voice its concern about the proposed 2011 South African languages bill which will become the new South African Languages Act if accepted by Parliament. 

The bill has a rocky past. Section 6(4) of the constitution states that national and provincial governments must organize and monitor their official language use by means of legislative as well as other measures. In 2003 the South African languages bill was introduced and this bill was, in a broad sense, a good and reasonably acceptable attempt from our lawmakers to give adequate effect to the constitutional imperatives laid down by section 6(4) of the constitution. In March 2004 the Department of Arts and Culture stipulated that the bill must be debated in Parliament between 2004 and 2007. In October 2004 there was a meeting of the National Language Forum, during which it transpired that Cabinet had rejected the bill. During July 2007 Cabinet decided that the language bill was to be withdrawn from the legislative process.

More recently a national language bill for South Africa has resurfaced as a topical issue resulting from a summons that was served by an attorney from Brits, Cerneels Lourens, in August 2009, in an endeavour to enforce the promulgation of the South African languages bill (Lourens vs The President of the Republic of South Africa and others, 2009). The intended South African languages bill would thereby become the South African version of a national language act. In his ruling of 16 March 2010 the judge ultimately found that the adoption of a national language act was not a constitutional obligation but nevertheless ordered the national government to regulate and monitor the use of the official languages by means of legislative and other measures (Lourens vs The President of the Republic of South Africa and others, 2010). The order obviously does not exclude the adoption of a national language act. In a sense thus, Lourens’ application was successful. From a constitutional and practical perspective and if one regards section 6(4) of the constitution, the bill is long overdue.

In general, the constitution makes broad provision for the protection of all languages in South Africa. It recognises that the official languages shall enjoy parity of esteem and that national and provincial government must use at least two official languages. It also makes provision for the PanSALB and declares that where it is reasonably practicable, everyone has the right to receive education in the official language of their choice in public educational systems. Paramount to the concern about the 2011 bill are three factors:

The 2003 Language bill;
The words “parity of esteem” and “equitable use” in section 6(4) of the constitution; and
The principle of multilinguism.

The 2003 bill was a practical piece of legislation, whereas the 2011 bill is not and does no more than to provide a rigid and legalistic document to satisfy the High Court order handed down in the Lourens-matter. In simple terms the 2011 bill does less to promote the language provisions in the constitution than the 2003 bill.

The 2003 bill:
Sought to promote South Africa's linguistic diversity by encouraging respect for Ianguage rights;
Promoted multilinguism (and this is exactly what section 6(4) of the constitution sought);
Promoted equitable use of all official languages of South Africa;
Would have better enabled all South Africans to use the official languages of their choice; and
Provided for a regulatory framework to facilitate the effective implementation of the constitutional obligations concerning multilinguism.

This is not done by the 2011 bill. On the contrary, the 2011 bill solidifies billinguism rather than multilinguism and this contravenes section 6(4) of the constitution. Further commendable provisions in the 2003 bill, which have been completely omitted from the 2011 bill, included the following:

A well set out clause containing the objects of the bill entrenching the concept of multilinguism;
A praiseworthy and practical set of guiding principles for when the bill (Act) was to be interpreted enshrining linguistic diversity in pursuance of the constitution;
A language policy clause providing for the implementation of all eleven official languages on a rotational basis thus giving practical effect to the “parity of esteem” and “equitable treatment” of all official languages;
The provision for language units with a wide array of powers and functions including reporting to Parliament and streamlined co-operation with the PanSALB;
Development of all South African languages as required by the constitution;
A centralized and decisive role to be played by the PanSALB also enunciated in the constitution; and
A remedies-clause setting out in unambiguous terms the remedies available to an aggrieved party in a language issue/dispute arising from the bill.

The provisions of the 2003 bill definitively ensured that the PanSALB, which up to now has been a white elephant, would have had more mechanisms at its disposal in language issues which in turn would have enabled it to more successfully perform its constitutional mandate. This has been completely ignored by the 2011 bill as the PanSALB has effectively been written out of the 2011 bill and this is unacceptable.

Thus rather than a languages Act promoting the spirit of multilinguism and the constitution, we unfortunately now have a completely negated and watered down 2011 Language Bill which will not satisfy nor serve South Africa’s diverse multi-linguistic democracy effectively nor provide the practical answers to South Africa’s wide array of linguistic challenges.

It is crucial that legislation pertaining to language in South Africa, must enshrine the status of all official languages and give effect to section 6 of the constitution, specifically section 6(4). This is fundamental because it will ensure that all official languages are properly developed, enjoy parity of esteem as well as equitable treatment. The 2011 bill does not do this.

Language is powerful tool. As a people who collectively speak 11 official languages and our rights to enjoy them are constitutionally entrenched, we should collectively voice our concern that the 2011 languages bill does not give effect to these rights but rather severely limit them. Aldous Huxley put it in simple terms: “Thanks to words, we have been able to rise above the brutes, and thanks to words, we have sunk to the level of the demons.” We must, as a people, rise and engage government about the 2011 languages bill, voice our concern, and together arrive at practical solutions regarding language use in South Africa using our constitution as text and our collective love of all our languages and our rights thereto as the fountain pen in writing a better languages Act for South Africa.