Previous| Next | Content| Main |Home 

OSSREA and the Language Question

The Organisation for Social Science Research in Eastern Africa (OSSREA) uses the English language as its medium of official communication. The use of English as the organisation’s official medium is enshrined in Article II of its 2003 Constitution. This article, however, also states further that the situation is so “… PROVIDED that the Congress (hereinafter provided for) may approve the use of any other language as and when the need arises”. This means OSSREA is open to the introduction of another language as its official medium to replace the English language as and when the need arises. However, we don’t see in this provision any element allowing the introduction of a number of languages as the organisation’s official media. Thus, if our interpretation is correct that the organisation is open to the introduction of any language other than the English language as its official medium, then the “language question” in the sense of whether or not this organization needs to adopt this or that language as its official medium is perhaps not an issue. (We use the word ‘perhaps’ to accommodate any possibility of a wrangle over which that other language should be). And for much of its area of operation, the language question is certainly not an issue in relation to the targeted participants in OSSREA’s activities, namely graduate and post-graduate scholars, nor to the directly targeted immediate consumers who are mainly policy makers in the governments of its member countries. Most of these individuals or groups of individuals, even in some member countries where English language is not an official medium, are likely to have some grasp of that language and may, therefore, fairly participate in OSSREA’s activities or access somewhat this organisation’s research products.

In this paper the language question in regards to OSSREA is being raised in relation, first, to grass-roots level consumers, namely the people who policy formulation and implementation usually target and who have been noted to have interests in some of OSSREA’s array of research products. Secondly, the language question is being raised in relation to some new participants in the new OSSREA member countries where the English language is neither the only language nor the official medium.

The first category comprises various individuals or groups of individuals who are proficient in local African languages but whose trades or activities are touched or affected by some of OSSREA’s research undertakings. These may be people like beekeepers, traders, artisans, etc. at the grassroots who are aware of some OSSREA’s research or research outputs, which they want to directly access. The way things stand so far is that such people need to wait for policy formulation and implementation based on the insights of such research material before they benefit or else have the material translated to them by somebody. This need not be so because, first, these products may be lying around for sometime well before they get the attention of the policy makers or before the translation becomes available; and secondly, not all OSSREA’s products necessarily get accessed and digested by policy makers before they reach the beneficiaries in this category of consumers. This category would benefit greatly if the material they need gets translated in to the language(s) they speak through some programme initiated and/or sponsored by OSSREA. As we have hinted above we are aware of the existence of this category of individuals and we believe OSSREA’s use of one or other local languages in this manner or in carrying out its research undertakings can help it fulfill its mission of “promoting the development of a distinctive African tradition in the study of, research and training in the social sciences” by enabling it to trickle or flow down directly to grass-root level beneficiaries. For such category OSSREA can also later consider whether only translations would suffice or to also adopt some local language of wider communication as its formal working language alongside English or other language. Our reason for suggesting this is that the African systems of formulating and implementing relevant policies based on research products, such as those of OSSREA, do not seem to be moving on efficiently. These hurdles have caused the majority of the African population to fail to benefit from these precious products.

The second category of people in relation to whom the language question arises is, as we have mentioned above, individuals in the new OSSREA member countries where the English language is not official or is a semi official, medium. For example in this regard some calls for consideration of using an alternative language for running its programmes have come from one such member country, Mozambique. OSSREA has formally received suggestions for allowing Portuguese as its official working language for that country in order to attract a more vigorous participation in its activities.

To get the gist of the language question with respect to OSSREA’s activities and the reception of such activities in its area of operation, we briefly review, the organisation’s mission, history, relevance and prospects in its expanding area of operation in the eastern and southern African region. This helps us to determine how relevant it would be for OSSREA to take on board, in a loose or a strong way, some other languages as its official or semi-official medium.

2. OSSREA: Mission and Progress

The Organisation for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA) was founded in April 1980 by a few social scientists in the region as a regional research network. Its 2003 constitution mandates it to open membership to 22 countries in eastern and southern Africa and also allowing for “any other country whose membership is accepted by the Congress” (p. 14). In the list of 22, the countries which are yet to join as members are Comoros Islands, Djibouti, Madagascar and Seychelles. However, among the 18 who are currently members, 14 are former British colonies. Of the remaining 4 are: Ethiopia and Eritrea (formerly one country) where the English language has been in use as one of the official media; Rwanda - French speaking but has recently adopted the English language as another official medium, and Mozambique – Portuguese speaking but has also adopted English as the official medium.

The current membership so far confirms the position of the English language as the dominant medium, especially among the groups targeted by OSSREA research activities, i.e., scholars and policy makers. This is in agreement with our observation in the introduction above that these groups have the opportunity to acquire knowledge of the English language. The former colonial languages adopted as official by OSSREA’s member countries have been labeled broadly, Anglophone (=English speaking), Francophone (=French speaking) and Lusophone (=Portuguese speaking), labels they share with other countries all over the continent. It is known, however, that in spite of these language labels, the majority of the people in these countries are speakers of one or several of the many local African languages spoken in their areas. Among the local African languages in OSSREA’s areas of operation there are some which have acquired the status of languages of wider communication and also of official and/or national languages in some countries. These include languages such as Arabic (Sudan, Somalia) and Kiswahili (Kenya, Mozambique, Rwanda, Somalia, Tanzania, Uganda). Furthermore, despite the adoption of these major foreign languages as official/national mediums and in spite of their powerful position reinforced further by the globalisation process, still even among the intellectuals, the concept of African Linguistic Nationalism (ALN) remains quite strong (Simala 2001:309-325)¹. As defined by the author, ALN is “an intellectual and social movement for which the focus on indigenous languages is a central issue” (p. 313). The movement aims at “strengthening African national feeling so as to avert the threat of linguistic extinction”. We are aware how precarious such a position can be to OSSREA, which is heavily dependant on foreign funding. However, if its mission is to be fairly fulfilled, some form of balancing may have to be sought to enable the majority to benefit directly from its research undertakings/products.

OSSREA’s area of operation is yet to expand. We have, however, noted that the four countries that are yet to formally join the organisation as members are all French speaking. Hence, it may be interesting at this juncture to see, especially how Rwanda and Mozambique (formerly non- English speaking countries) have been faring in OSSREA’s activities. A glance at the composition of member countries’ participation in OSSREA’s Gender Issues and Social Science Research Competitions for the years 2001, 2004 and 2005 indicates that Rwanda never featured at all in these competitions while Mozambique featured only once (in the 18^th Social Science Research Competition). Although some of OSSREA’s Anglophone members have also not featured in these activities regularly, this may simply be because their membership is just too recent (eg. Namibia and Somalia).

Our discussion below focuses first, on the former non-English language speaking countries because their frequent or infrequent featuring in OSSREA activities could, respectively, encourage or discourage the other eastern African countries that are yet to join as members. We know, however, that a lot of other OSSREA activities are taking place in these countries, albeit through some costly interpreting or translating. From Mozambique, for example, we once received this note from the Chapter’s Liaison Officer: “our [2004] conference was in Portuguese with simultaneous translation for those who needed it in English, which made it very costly”.

This makes Portuguese OSSREA’s official medium at this Chapter level and English serving just as another language for translating or interpreting. At this point one might wonder as to who, really, needed English language translation. In short, this means that although the English language is OSSREA’s official medium, some of its activities are now being conducted in other languages at some chapter’ level. We suspect what we see in Mozambique could also be the case in Rwanda.

The Mozambique Liaison Officer further availed to us a copy of an e-mail communication she had sent to OSSREA’s Executive Secretary requesting the language question to be raised and discussed at the Liaison Officers’ meeting. Indeed, this issue was raised in the 2005 meeting where OSSREA responded by indicating it readiness to fund translations or interpretation of some of its works and activities just as it has been doing in some of its major meetings/conferences.

We have indicated above that OSSREA probably needs to do a little bit more than just funding translation or interpretation. Under the circumstances such as those prevailing in Mozambique (and, probably, Rwanda), OSSREA must of necessity clarify the status of its official medium by reminding everybody, for example, that English is the language of its official communication and translations/interpretations be for other languages. Also, as indicated above, OSSREA may need to do some balancing to ensure that its mission is properly and correctly fulfilled. To “promote the development of a distinctive African tradition” necessarily calls for inputs not only of the data collected from us but also of our inner [distinctions], which remain fused with the majority of our peoples’.

What we have said of Mozambique and Rwanda is also still the case within some English language-speaking members of OSSREA. In some of these countries the competition with English comes not from other former colonial languages but some local languages of wider communication such as Arabic and Kiswahili. And here, we need to report that even in the English language-speaking Tanzania where Kiswahili is also the official and national language we have been under a very strong pressure to allow for some OSSREA activities (especially from presentations some national workshops) to be conducted in Kiswahili. We once allowed one paper in Kiswahili to be presented at our 5^th National Workshop and, fortunately, none of the workshop participants required interpretation or translation. However, in reporting back to OSSREA there is certainly a need to have its contents translated. So far, although we have not sought permission from OSSREA, the local Tanzania Chapter committee agrees to allow the Kiswahili original with English language resume to appear in the forthcoming publication of its 5^th National Workshop Proceedings. And there were many such demands that we have had to push aside for fear of finding ourselves conducting OSSREA through a medium that is not the organization’s official medium.

All these indicate that, while the language question is not an issue of top priority in OSSREA, it is still an issue at the grass roots and at some academic levels particularly where the contribution is considered relevant to a wider public audience. We believe matters left for policy makers should also be considered relevant to a wider public audience and should, therefore, be made to flow directly to the public through some medium of wider communication.

OSSREA Newsletters, Vol. XIX No. 3 (October 2001); Vol. I, No.2 (June 2004); Vol. II,

No. 2 (June 2005) OSSREA. Addis Ababa.

Prah, K. K. 1997. Changing solidarities of identity, ethnicity, nationality and the search for democracy and development in Africa, in Eastern Africa Social Science Research Review (EASSRR) Vol. XIII, No. 2. OSSREA, Addis Ababa.

Simala, I. K. 2001, African linguistic nationalism and the discourse of globalisation. In Assefa, T. et al. (Eds). Globalisation, democracy and development in Africa: Challenges and prospects, OSSREA Addis Ababa.

Zimba, B. e-mail communication of 12^th April 2004.

 

* University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzaina

Back| Next | Content| Top| Main