The ANC and Ideology – IV

In my ‘The ANC and Ideology – I’ of 9^th September I pointed out how blind and unthinking ideology can completely negate the good intentions behind the framing of social, political and other systems of thought.

The ANC has shown itself to be particularly adept at this form of intellectual suicide. Many years after winning the fight with which it so exclusively identified itself, the ANC still has to make the transition from a ‘liberation’ movement to an effective and consistent party worthy of the role and responsibilities of national government and regional – even global – leadership in line with the economic infrastructures inherited from its former enemies.

Through a mix of plain old incompetence and a more sinister campaign of deliberate ‘blind-eye’ politics (for example, denial of the link between HIV and AIDS, denial of the scale and severity of runaway crime in South Africa, denial of the existence of a crisis in Zimbabwe and its impact upon South Africa, etc.), the ANC has deluded itself into believing that it need never change from the simplistic and authoritarian politics of the fear-inducing slogan and street marches which it believes fully and completely characterises the outlook and demeanour of the South African population.

Recent events on the South African political landscape (viz: the schism developing within the ANC) might be demonstrating to all and sundry that the ANC may well have been fooling itself for a little longer than many ordinary South Africans are prepared to accept.

However, this post is not about the splintering of the ANC (perhaps I shall indulge myself another time), but rather about the ANC’s language policies.

Much as it might desire to be otherwise, South Africa is very similar to the rest of the African continent in that, for very good historical, geographical and social reasons, it is hugely fragmented linguistically.

Spearpoint has no clear idea of how many different languages and dialects there are in South Africa, other than there are a lot. Most of these are fairly clearly defined geographically with plenty of overlap. The main exceptions are, of course, English and Afrikaans which, by and large, extend throughout the entire country (although there are still areas in South Africa where English is not known enough to enable ordinary conversation and Afrikaans is the fall-back – inconvenient for Spearpoint-types who, for one reason or another, cannot or will not speak what can be a baffling Creole tongue with apparently randomly variable grammar, syntax, spelling and pronunciation that oft-times appears to defy any logic known to Man).

No doubt with the initial intention of inspiring feelings of inclusiveness, the ANC, upon its donning the cloak of power in the mid-1990’s, decreed the policy of recognising fully eleven official languages (including English and Afrikaans) in South Africa.

However, Spearpoint would contend that the ANC, in adopting and promoting such a wide range of official languages, has seriously stepped on its own shoe laces in attempting to convince people that it was capable of giving everyone what they wanted.

Consider the implications.

An official language is one that has to be accommodated in all legal, parliamentary and commercial transactions.

In theory, any such language must be available, on demand, in any official literature, correspondence and dialogue. Translations must be produced; translators must be schooled, trained and paid; equipment and resources must be provided.

The cost implications – particularly for our emerging Third World economy – are staggering and, quite simply, unaffordable.

The entire system is also unwieldy, cumbersome and very time-consuming in the production of its end result. It is also prone to political manipulation.

However, these are not the main concerns.

What exercises Spearpoint regarding South Africa’s language policy is that it is doing nothing to prepare and equip ordinary South Africans for interaction with the rest of the world.

Notwithstanding considerations of national pride and the wishful thinking of the ANC, the lingua franca of the planet is the English language. Other important historical languages are French, Spanish and Portuguese but it is English that is predominant. Even Mandarin, spoken by a majority of the world’s population, is not foisted upon the world simply because it is too damned difficult to master sufficiently for even ordinary commercial and political intercourse. English, by comparison, is simple in its alphabet, grammar and logic whilst being fully capable of expressing the most intricate and complicated concepts yet devised by Man.

With this in mind – and from a practical standpoint – what then is the logic in educating our children in what are effectively local and parochial languages? School children and university students will never use, for example, Afrikaans, Zulu, Xhosa or iSotho outside of their villages and provinces. Commercial and political discourse beyond those places will never be in anything other than English or, less and less as time goes by, the other colonial tongues.

Spearpoint is not here advocating that local and indigenous languages should be allowed to wither and die – quite the contrary, in fact. Such languages are tremendously important in the identification and transmission of any number of cultures and perspectives. Let those languages be taught and studied – but not at the cost of mastery in the English language.

Keep in mind, also, that every local African (and non-African) language, once exposed to English, has adopted a host of English words and expressions as convenient shortcuts – some so much so that some tongues now resemble more Pidgin languages rather than the linguistics of their ancestral tongues.

Written and spoken fluency in English is one of the keys to the treasure box of international knowledge and skills so desperately needed in the Third World. Our children can never hope to have access to the myriad of international opportunities if they are unable to use and understand the written English language or if they are unable to speak it without some horrendous and caricatured dialect or accent.

The ANC fails its people when it actively works to promote indigenous languages at the expense of the lingua franca of the world. It denies ordinary people those tools which would be otherwise available to enable individuals to better fulfill themselves and it denies the economy of this emerging Third World country the expertise to venture, with confidence, into the wider world of education, commerce and politics. The ANC holds back its supposedly beloved South Africa by its insistence on what it perceives to be the only politically correct ideology of encouraging a legion of relatively unknown tongues to seek equality with the only language that is, to all intents and purposes, universal.

Given the character of the ANC leadership and the manner in which it understands, exercises and applies power, it is, perhaps, no great surprise that the ANC has chosen this excessive language policy. There is little appetite in the ANC for the intellectual empowerment of any group outside of the ANC elite – people tend to become troublesome and difficult to gull when they are overly educated and exposed to ideas and concepts not sanctioned by the ruling politburo; government then becomes difficult and more open to unwelcome scrutiny by those not sharing the benefits of being in charge and control of national resources. To divide, conquer and suppress one’s own constituency requires economic, geographical and intellectual isolation of whatever groupings may exist within one’s own borders – and, if the pronouncements and actions of the ANC over the past fifteen years or so are anything to go by, such isolation is the very bedrock of ANC theory and practice.

Spearpoint.

2nd November 2008