In this column, I confront an argument that is usually employed in the multilingualism debate in Botswana. The argument simply put is that to appreciate Botswana’s multilingualism, the government should set local minority languages as national/official languages.
This will, above everything else, achieve linguistic equality. It is only fair and just, so the argument goes to have all languages at par. To adequately deal with the subject of whether the South African languages model could apply to the Botswana situation we need to first look at the South African model and inspect the language related legislation.
Just as section 78 of the Constitution of Botswana lists “Bakgatla, Bakwena, Bamalete, Bamangwato, Bangwaketse, Barolong, Batawana and Batlokwa Tribes,” as the ex-officio members of the House of Chiefs, so does section 6(1) of the South African constitution list: “Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu” as the official languages of South Africa.
The constitution then states what Vic Webb has previously termed the escape clause in Section 6(3)a: “The national government and provincial governments may use any particular official languages for the purposes of government, taking into account usage, practicality, expense, regional circumstances and the balance of the needs and preferences of the population as a whole or in the province concerned; but the national government and each provincial government must use at least two official languages.”
Section 6(4) further states that: “The national government and provincial governments, by legislative and other measures, must regulate and monitor their use of official languages. Without detracting from the provisions of subsection (2), all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and must be treated equitably.”
The constitution argues further that the Pan South African Language Board established by national legislation must, “promote, and create conditions for, the development and use of (i) all official languages; (ii) the Khoi, Nama and San languages; and
(iii) sign language; and promote and ensure respect for (b)i. all languages commonly used by communities in South Africa, including German, Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Portuguese, Tamil, Telegu and Urdu; and (ii) Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit and other languages used for religious purposes in South Africa.”
The South African constitutional language provisions are impressive. Unfortunately, as South Africans have come to realise linguistic “parity of esteem” and equitable treatment cannot be legislated. Education and economic benefit drive human linguistic choice and ascription of esteem. Additionally, as Webb has shown, the escape clause means that because of “usage, practicality, expense, regional circumstances and the balance of the needs and preferences of the population as a whole” provincial governments continuously fail to strengthen and use indigenous languages.
Just as the Botswana Constitution fails to list certain Botswana tribes in its section 77-79, so does the South African Constitution fail to include other languages spoken in South Africa in its constitution. For instance: Sebirwa, Camtho, Fanagalo, Gail, Khwe (est:1,100 speakers), Korana, Oorlams, Shironga, Swahili (est:2,000 speakers), Tsotsitaal, and Tswa (est:20,000 speakers).
Because of the constitutional linguistic provisions, South Africa has adopted a regionalistic approach to language with specific official languages being used and promoted in certain areas of the country. For instance the Northwest Province uses mainly Setswana and English. This has meant that provinces become more pronounced tribal territories, each staking its authority over a chunk of South Africa by asserting and insisting on its regional language.
The question of whether the South African language situation can be replicated in Botswana is a common one. Botswana can do much to promote other languages represented in the country.
However I am not sure the South African route is attractive. First, what most seem to forget is that the South African population is far much larger than that of Botswana. Its population is about 48.5 million people, which is over 22 times the population of Botswana. South Africa has about 10 million Zulu speakers; 3.5 million Setswana speakers; 2 million Tsonga speakers; just over a million Swati speakers; 4.3 million Southern Sotho speakers; 4.1 Sepedi speakers; 700,000 Ndebele speakers; 3.7 million English native speakers and 4.8 million Afrikaans native speakers.
Large numbers of native speakers justify the recognition of multiple national languages. However in states with smaller populations such as Botswana and Lesotho where there is a single dominant language, it is much more plausible to establish the common language as a national or official language. However, the need to protect and promote diverse minority languages of Botswana is something that both parents and government are still to attempt effectively.
Some parents are still ashamed of their minority languages, while on the other hand the government is still indecisive on indigenous minority languages. Something however tells me the problem of Botswana is not a language one; instead it is a tribal one. The language war therefore becomes the metaphor of tribal wrangling.
The fight between Tswana speaking tribes and those which speak minority languages, for instance, is much more pronounced and vicious compared to the one between minority languages and English although the ubiquity of English is pronounced in all official domains.
So here we are; we may think we are fighting a linguistic war ÔÇô arguing for linguistic equality when in actual fact we are actually engaged in tribal wars which simply gain expression through language.
