Serote (1999) in Science and Technology: Towards Prosperity in Africa makes a bold and yet disturbing claim: “Africa is the only continent where knowledge is imparted through languages, which are not indigenous.” Coupled with his assertion is the worrying observation by Batibo (2005) that most of Africa’s over 2000 indigenous languages are under threat of extinction because of the post-colonial language policies of many African states which prefer English or French as mediums of instruction. According to Batibo, at least 74.8% of the African languages are either moderately or severely endangered and 9.4% are extinct or nearly extinct. These observations must concern linguists, language researchers and sociologists based in African university on the place of African language in higher education.
The teaching of African languages in an African university, in particular, in Botswana, hasn’t attracted much academic debate. The literature on the nature and structure of a complete program aimed at developing an African language hasn’t been thought through and debated extensively. Since a people’s language lies at the heart of their identity and self actualization, minimum debate on the teaching of local languages at university has impoverished engagement on the subject of national identities and identities of African universities. We argue that one way of addressing the development of national pride and local languages is through the teaching of African languages at universities, not only to understand their structure, but to empower them to function in the various domains of language use in the society. For African universities to claim to be truly African, they need not only be in an African country; they must also devote sufficient intellectual capital to the development of African cultures, in particular, African languages. They must determine how such languages could be studied and developed to be functional languages in their territories. For Botswana, the first study on the structure and direction of Botswana’s education system and the position of languages, was submitted in 1977. The Report of the National Commission on Education (henceforth, RNCE) of 1977, chaired by Prof. Torsten Husen, Director of the International Education, University of Stockholm, Sweden, had at the core of its recommendations an aim to redress the historical imbalances brought about by Botswana’s position as a British protectorate. The commission therefore recognised in its preliminary pages that:
For 81 years until 1966 Botswana was the Bechuanaland Protectorate under British rule. Not surprisingly, the institutions and culture of the colonial power were imposed on the country. To some extent the indigenous culture became submerged and many Batswana were encouraged to believe that their own cultural inheritance was inferior to that imported by the British. With Independence has come the opportunity to reassess this situation, to reassert the national identity, and to build a society which gives expression to the noblest values from the past (Republic of Botswana, 1977:11).
The report recognized a need to “reassert the national identity and to build a society which gives expression to the noblest values from the past”. To create a unified nation and reinforce national cultural identity, the commission identified language in the educational system as a critical component. It argued that:
Language is one means by which cultural identity is strengthened, but education provides other ways to inculcate in every Motswana a sense of pride in and identification with his or her cultural heritage. … The education system should orient young people toward the social, cultural, artistic, political and economic life of their unique society and prepare them to participate proudly in it (Republic of Botswana, 1977:12).
Setswana was therefore identified as a language to be used to foster national unity and national cultural pride. Every Botswana national was urged to rally behind the national language.
The pursuit of unity calls for every Motswana to appreciate his or her rights and responsibilities as a citizen of Botswana, to become fluent in the national language, and to take pride in the national cultural heritage (Republic of Botswana, 1977:30).
Secondly, the curriculum of the school must stress national unity and national identity. A fundamental requirement is the national language, Setswana, must be mastered by all, for it is an essential means of communication between Batswana, and is the medium through which a great deal of the national culture is expressed (Republic of Botswana, 1977:31).
The essential recommendation of the commission was not to replace Botswana’s multilingualism with a single local language, Setswana. Just as English was an official language with educational and economic value, Setswana was seen as a national language functioning as a symbol of national culture, unity and pride. The limitations of the recommendations RNCE were, however, in failing to identify the role played by Botswana’s minority languages in the social and cultural life of the country. This contributed to their sustained marginalization and underdevelopment.
That being said, one of the commendable recommendations of the RNCE was the recognition of a university as a significant player in producing materials for the development of the national language, Setswana. It recommended that “the University should establish a Centre for Setswana Studies which could assist the development of Setswana reading materials” (Republic of Botswana, 1977:77). Such a centre would focus on “the development of and research into Setswana” (Republic of Botswana, 1977:178) ensuring that the university becomes relevant to the territory in which it exists. Over 37 years have passed since such a recommendation was made and still such a centre is yet to be established. Setswana’s importance has increased beyond the 1977 vision of the commission, to a regional language with African Union recognition. It is also informative to define and characterise Botswana’s linguistic landscape, which, because of its multilingualism, is typical of many African national territories.
A National Commission which reported in 1993 recommended a change in the policy so that English should become the medium of instruction right from the beginning of primary school, thus excluding Setswana from any such role. In terms of the development of African languages this recommendation was regressive. Instead of recommending a greater use of more local African languages, it recommended the use of English at the earliest level possible.
Educationally, the dominant status quo in government and private schools is that instruction is in English. Prior to the year 2000, the government decided to make all government schools ‘English-medium’ schools since it believed that students with a good command of English performed better in subjects taught in English. In the Revised National Policy on Education (henceforth RNPE), the government recommended that “English should be used as the medium of instruction from Standard 1 by 2000” (Republic of Botswana, 1994:59). Although this recommendation has been largely implemented, there are still some classes in government primary schools where teachers either codeswitch between English and Setswana or still teach elementary classes in Setswana (Nyati-Ramahobo, 1999:131). Setswana is also taught as a compulsory subject to all Batswana citizens from primary school to senior secondary school. At Botswana colleges of education, Setswana Linguistics and Literature are taught in Setswana while at the University of Botswana Setswana Linguistics and Literature is taught in English.
Setswana, however, is under tremendous pressure in the curriculum. While it is taught as a subject through primary and secondary education, it is considered to be of minimum value to the educational and economic development of the country. The RNPE has argued that:
The Setswana language is not viewed as an important factor in the contemporary economic and cultural life of the country and it is not seen as a vehicle for secondary or even tertiary education (Republic of Botswana, 1993:183).
The report however failed to demonstrate how Setswana language could be imbued with economic and educational value to make it relevant to its territory. Arthur (1997:230) has “demonstrates that an overwhelming majority of teachers reject the option of a Setswana-medium primary phase” while most teachers prefer English as “the sole medium of instruction throughout the primary school.” This largely demonstrates that our universities though based in Africa are largely linguistically irrelevant to their Africa; a sad state of affairs indeed.