South Africa is an incredibly diverse country, with 11 official languages and dozens of distinct ethnic groups. Zulu is the mother tongue for approximately 23 percent of South Africa’s population, but is spoken by about 80 percent of the population of the province of KwaZulu-Natal.
As a legacy of the apartheid era, much of South African education takes place in English, particularly at the university level. But even at the primary school level, UKZN Vice-Chancellor Renuka Vithal noted that, “You can come through the schooling system without learning any of the indigenous African languages. It is surprising that this is still the case, nearly 20 years after apartheid [racially-enforced segregation] ended.”
The language question in South Africa, as in many other developing countries, is closely tied to the question of national identity. While Zulu is the most common mother tongue in South Africa, Xhosa (16%), Afrikaans (14%), English (10%), Sepedi (9%), Setswana (8%), and Sesotho (8%) are also widely spoken.
Because the postcolonial boundaries often amalgamated a wide variety of national groups, boundaries between the nation and the state rarely corresponded. Postcolonial governments thus faced a challenge of developing a common sense of identity across a variety of national and ethnic groups. This was often referred to as nation-building. But national identity cents on a wide variety of variables: religious beliefs, traditions, and customs, shared history, a common language, and so on.
While UKZN’s move was welcomed by some, others argued that the move was just a political ploy to garner the favor of South African President Jacob Zuma, who is Zulu.
What do you think? Is the kind of common language education being imposed by UKZN necessary for nation-building in South Africa? Or does it violate the rights and freedom of students to chart their own course of study? Take the poll or leave a comment below and let us know what you think.
The shipment raises concerns about the viability of intervention in the Syrian crisis. The Yakhont system has advanced radar guidance systems that would enable the missile to evade ship defenses. The United States argues that the missile system would force any potential naval operations further off Syria’s coasts.
First, by following through on the sale agreed to in 2007, Russia demonstrates its ongoing support for and commitment to the Syrian regime. The sale highlights Russia’s desire to prevent possible Western intervention. It also suggests that Russia would likely oppose efforts to secure approval for such intervention through the United Nations Security Council.
Second, the sale may also raise concerns on the part of Israel about the potential transfer of weapons from Syria to its Hezbollah allies in Syria. Israel has already warned Syria that such a transfer would cross red line that could prompt a new wave of Israeli airstrikes against Syrian forces.
What do you think? Could Russia’s weapon sales to Syria undermine potential resolution of the Syrian crisis? Leave a comment below and let us know what you think.
Climate scientists yesterday warned that the earth had crossed an important milestone. For the first time in 3 million years, the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere exceeded 400 parts per million. The last time CO2 levels were this high was during the Pliocene era, when temperatures were 2 to 3 degrees Celsius higher and the earth was in a middle of a prolonged warm period.
It’s important to remember that the 400 ppm figure is a bit arbitrary. CO2 levels have been flirting with the 400 ppm level for several months. But the overall upward trend in CO2 levels does pose reason for concern. Scientists warn that failure to stabilize CO2 levels at less than 450 ppm could have catastrophic climate effects. But over the past fifty years, CO2 levels have been on a steady upward march (see graph below), and they show no signs of leveling off.
Carbon dioxide levels can be seen climbing steadily in Scripps data from the last 55 years.
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego
But reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere presents a classic free rider dilemma. Collectively, we face dramatic consequences: increasingly erratic weather patterns, declining overall food productivity, rising sea levels, desertification, and so on. But any individual country’s actions are unlikely to have a significant impact on the overall trend. Thus it is in every country’s individual self-interest to continue business as usual, and rely on other countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In doing so, they capture all of the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while paying none of the costs. Every state behaving in a rational and self-interested way leads to the worst possible outcome—a classic example of the prisoners’ dilemma.
Yet we also know that there are several strategies to overcome the prisoners’ dilemma. Iteration (repeated plays) and communication (which leads to confidence building and trust) can overcome the otherwise nihilistic outcomes of the dilemma. The question, of course, is whether or not governments can work to overcome the dilemma in time to prevent the worst effects of climate change.
What do you think? Will governments be able to collectively address the challenges posed by climate change? Or are we locked into a nihilistic outcome, as the prisoners’ dilemma would suggest? Take the poll or leave a comment below and let us know what you think.
Bethuel Kiplagat, Chair of Kenya’s Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commission in 2010.
The BBC is reporting that a long-awaited report investigating violence and human rights abuses in Kenya will recommend some prosecutions of key officials for their roles. The Truth Reconciliation and Justice Commission was established in the aftermath of post-election violence that rocked Kenya following the 2008 presidential elections. However, its mandate was broader and included looking at past injustices from the Kenyan independence in December 1963 through the disputed February 2008 elections. According to the BBC’s coverage, Ahmed Sheikh Farah, who sat on the committee, indicated that “victims would be happy” with the recommendations but also warned that “we have been centered on reconciliation—healing, unity, that kind of focus.”
The report comes at an interesting time in Kenya’s political history. About six weeks ago, Uhuru Kenyatta won the presidency and was sworn into office. However, Kenyatta has been charged by the International Criminal Court with orchestrating some of the violence following the last presidential election. That violence resulted in more than 1,500 deaths and displaced more than 300,000 people from their homes.
Truth and reconciliation commissions are interesting instruments. They are generally charged with revealing wrongdoing rather than achieving justice per se. And they have been growing in popularity in recent
Archbishop Desmond Tutu presides over South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
years. One of the earliest was Argentina’s National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons (the Comisión Nacional sobre la Desaparición de Personas, or CONADEP). CONADEP was established shortly after the collapse of Argentina’s military government in 1983, and was charged with investigating the fate of the estimated 30,000 persons who were “disappeared” by the Argentine government between 1976 and 1983. Perhaps the most famous was South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), which was established in 1995 and was charged with witnessing and recording the crimes and human rights abuses committed by both state and opposition forces during the apartheid era. Other notable examples include Brazil’s Comissão Nacional da Verdade, which is currently investigating human rights abuses by the country’s former military government, and Canada’s Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which is currently investigating human rights abuses in the country’s residential school system for the Canada’s first nations.
Most truth and reconciliation commissions represent an effort to expand understanding rather that to achieve justice. They generally lack the power to prosecute offenders. Indeed, in many cases, like the South African TRC, individuals offering testimony before the commission were generally granted amnesty for any confessions they offered. The emphasis, in other words, is on promoting transparency and providing a historical record and testimony rather than on achieving justice in the traditional sense. But this also a source of controversy, as victims can sometimes feel as though the perpetrators of violence and human rights abuses can escape punishment.
What do you think? Do truth commissions represent an instrument of justice by witnessing and providing a historical record of human rights abuses? Or do they undermine justice by permitting human rights abusers to escape criminal prosecution? Leave a comment below and let us know what you think.
