A close analysis of the bill’s contested clauses reveals that language policy is indeed on the agenda. The act’s proposals however, are the result of repetitive themes of anti-constitutional exclusion and subpar education to the detriment of the most socio-economically vulnerable children of previously disadvantaged backgrounds. These just so happen to be children for whom Afrikaans would not necessarily be their home language, and so it is government’s assessment that the more appropriate use of resources would be in service of as many learners as possible and not just a minority, who would still have the avenue and option to be educated in Afrikaans, as well as other languages.
Afrikaaner-centred interest and lobby group Afriforum insisted that a proposed education Act amendment to be the “biggest single challenge for Afrikaans cultural communities since 1994”. This statement implies fears of a cultural erasure through institutionalisation, a narrative that mirrors the rally cry “you will not replace us”, chanted by torch-carrying neo-nazi protesters in Charlottesville in 2017. The optics of the anti-BELA bill protest were undoubtedly evocative, the choice to gather at the Voortrekker monument in Pretoria is a pointed statement. Afriforum gathered around 40 organisations to their cause, including member of the government of national Unity (GNU), the Democratic Alliance (DA).
One questions what it says that the DA chose to publicly take on board Afriforum’s position as their own- it is not counterintuitive to the work and mandate of their being party to a national coalition government? Can the move by the Democratic Alliance to choose to publicly align itself with a minority rights interest group on the BELA Bill, over the prioritisation of first meaningfully engaging with the GNU government which they now form a part, be read as indicative of the divisiveness to come?
Although both the African National Congress (ANC) and the DA are economically aligned on liberal open market policy positions such as the unbundling of Eskom, in cases where they diverge on policy position, the question arises on whether it is in the South African public’s best interest for the divide to be taken into public arena, to be deepened, instead of meaningful work of negotiation and deepened collaboration that coalition governments have the potential to deliver on.
The fact that the DA’s position is one that places minority interests over this, is of some concern, and read analogously, this could be the beginning of the DA putting their narrow interests over collaboration, which does not bode well for a party already framed as being narrowly representative having to enter into the decision making political arena as not just representing their own interests, but as representing an entire country as members of the GNU.
The bill stipulates that the head of the Education Department (HOD) may order a directive to a public school to adopt more than one language of instruction, should the need arise, based upon “the best interests of the child, with emphasis on equality as provided for in section 9 of the Constitution and equity... the changing number of learners who speak the language of learning and teaching at the public school; the need for effective use of classroom space and resources of the public school”.
In weighing up the preservation of the homogeneity of a community enabled by singe medium language policy that serves a minority, versus the constitutionally enshrined imperative need to provide education to all in light of South Africa’s past as the preamble states, Afriforum’s appeal to conservatism may appeal to a community which feels, however justifiably or not, that they are under attack, a dangerously divisive narrative not to be taken lightly.
Nothing in the policy proposal suggests Afrikaans schools will be eradicated in their entirety. The policy expresses the the HOD will only make directives in the case where it will best serve the needs of learners to receive fair opportunity to access education, there will be plenty of opportunity throughout proposed changes in language policy for genuine consultation. The allocation of education resources is a key consideration, the constitutionality of singular language uses given the (changing) demographics of communities.
Language reform as transformative policy has been a subject in much of higher education, giving rise to movements such as Open Stellenbosch and in light of Rhodes must fall. The pressure to formulate new approaches to language policy on the basic education level arises as a result of multiple nationwide scandals predominantly taking place around single-medium afrikaans schools. For instance, students being denied admission to a school justified by a single-medium language policy in which Afrikaans being the language of instruction, excluded members of the community from sending their children to these schools. Despite the community becoming more diverse, these schools upheld their single-medium language of instruction policy, which was effectively exclusionary of many historically disadvantaged black students.
The Bela Bill proposed language policy reforms come into being in light of years of evidence for the need for further cultural integration in schools. Racist incidents seemed to be a constant feature of the school environment, racism fueled by underlying exclusionary practices. In an effort to better integrate schools and serve not just the needs of communities who are already adequately served by single medium Afrikaans schools.
The difficulty in navigating language policy reform, is that language being so closely tied to identity poses a problem in a multilingual multicultural society such as South Africa, where, as the preamble to the preceding Education act of 1996 states, there is a need to ensure fairness in light of South Africa’s unequal past, and the government bears the responsibility to fairly distribute access to education for all.
Comments
Post a Comment