Search

This contribution summarises and assesses the applicability of and application to modern global democratic practices of Niccolò Machiavelli’s views about the theory and practice of political governance strategies during the Renaissance. Machiavelli focussed on how to promote transitions from feudal authoritarian and tyrannical governmental systems in his era to more stable, responsive and sustainable democratic governance systems. He developed a cogent and coherent governance approach during his career, from 1494 to 1512, as a senior strategic advisor, diplomat and official in the government of the “democratic” Republic of Florence. This approach was aimed at satisfying the main concerns and interests of the rulers as well as their subjects. His proposals combined strategies to satisfy the needs and desires of the population through responsive public services and facilities, supported by strong military back-up interventions to quell resistance to and uprisings against governments. His recommended strategies included morally and ethically doubtful propaganda, disinformation, deflection and even outright lies and, as a last resort, murdering perceived opponents where necessary. These “cynical” strategies afforded Machiavelli a very negative historical and modern reputation as an immoral, unethical power-hungry opportunist. Contemporary research into the driving forces behind different types of governance systems, however, is increasingly confirming the worldwide modern applicability and validity of these suspect practices of governments, including democratic governments. Machiavellian governance strategies remain “normal” democratic government practices today, although they are routinely disavowed. They include so-called “dirty hands” and “white lies” practices, which are not any different from behaviour alleged to be Machiavellian. Machiavelli’s influence on contemporary political practice can be illustrated by various examples in virtually all modern democracies. It is also illustrated by a number of National Party (NP) persuasion strategies in South Africa’s transition from apartheid to democracy in the 1980s and 1990s, inter alia through the work and advisory involvement of international intellectual thought leaders on transitions such as Samuel Huntington and Philippe Schmitter. NP leaders and government units under PW Botha and FW de Klerk used various Machiavellian double-speak persuasion strategies, deflection and deliberate disinformation campaigns aimed at white voter constituencies in particular in order to mobilise support for their respective transformation agendas. They also reneged on a number of political undertakings. These strategies contributed to bring about the end of apartheid and to manage a relatively peaceful transition to a more democratic post-apartheid political dispensation. Machiavelli’s relevance to and influence on contemporary democratic politics have in fact been significantly underrated. Many of his views for which he has been ostracised in the past have proved to be “normal” democratic governance assumptions and practices to this day, despite the fact that their ethical nature may be questioned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reassesses Niccolò Machiavelli's contribution to political governance theory and practice. At the height of the Renaissance, Machiavelli was one of the most influential intellectuals. He was also a consummate and influential senior strategist, diplomat, negotiator and public official in the "democratic" Florentine Republic from 1494 to 1512. He gained extensive governance experience before the republican government was toppled in a coup by a member of its former absolutist Medici rulers, and he was arrested as a traitor, tortured and exiled from Florence. He remained in exile until his death in 1527. Machiavelli lived and worked in turbulent times. The period was characterised by violent and brutal competition for power, status and resources among mostly still feudal city states, manipulated by an increasingly influential politically interventionist and corrupt Roman Catholic Church dominated for centuries by the powerful Medici family. Machiavelli had a cynical view of human interactions. He regarded life as a series of overlapping games that people play for different purposes in different contexts. Politics consist of a series of power games played between competing rulers, between a ruler and his subjects, and between different individuals and groups in society to promote their respective self-interests. Machiavelli completed his first book (Il Principe ["the prince"]) in 1513 for the primary purpose of winning favour from the new Medici dictator and probably also for his own survival. In it he advised Lorenzo de Medici that political history had proven that power politics requires a ruler to fluctuate between good and evil actions in order to maintain and consolidate his hold on power in the long term. He therefore recommended that Medici should not flinch from using deflection, disinformation, lies and other "unethical" means to achieve stable, sustainable good governance goals that satisfy the interests of both the ruler and his subjects. He even condoned merciless action (when necessary) against rebels who undermine and destabilise the ruler's control over society, because the masses only obey their rulers out of fear or contentedness and not necessarily out of loyalty. However, in his later publications he explained at great length how a responsive republican government, supported by a strong military capacity, can be the most stable and successful form of government, because it creates an equilibrium between citizen contentment and fear in society. Machiavelli gave ambiguous and mixed signals about the interventionist political role of the Catholic Church. He was sometimes very critical of this institution, which he regarded as a corrupt and self-serving manipulator of Renaissance politics, and yet, in other instances he put forward more sympathetic views about the potentially constructive and supportive role of religion in promoting good governance. From a modern democratic perspective, such seemingly contradictory statements afforded him the very negative reputation of being unethical, but, at the same time, have led to continuing speculation about the real motives for his enigmatic views. Over the last five centuries Machiavelli has therefore become highly controversial because of his allegedly "immoral" advice to the Medici dictators, who ended his career in Florence. The latest assessments of his work and of the rationality, cogency, coherence and logic of his arguments, however, increasingly indicate that for his time he was in essence a committed "democrat". He seems to have deliberately followed a very subtle and sometimes ambiguous writing style to survive personally in an antagonistic political climate and to regain his former job as a senior political official and counsellor in the Florentine government. For this purpose, he had to commit himself to accepting the cruel, authoritarian nature of the power politics of the prevailing Renaissance political and governance practices in order to try to effect an improvement in the democratic responsiveness, stability and sustainability of those systems. He therefore followed a deliberate strategy to try, on the one hand, to appease authoritarian rulers' power ambitions but, on the other, to explain how their reign could be stabilised and be maintained more sustainably through more responsive good governance practices. His advice therefore reflects the subtle ironies and apparent contradictions of the political game that he decided to play and to advance. What Machiavelli really wanted to achieve with his writings -- and what his relevance to and influence on contemporary democratic politics are -- has in fact been significantly underrated and needs to be reassessed in view of new research findings and conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The discourse on the restandardisation of Afrikaans often raises the issue of the negative consequences of a hegemonic standard variety in the Afrikaans classroom and how the school system has been using teaching materials such as textbooks to protect the point of view that the standard language is the only legitimate language. Various educators, researchers, linguists, artists, and language activists have spoken out about how Standard Afrikaans (Standaardafrikaans) alienates learners who are speakers of Cape Afrikaans and how drastic changes to the language form of Standard Afrikaans and language functions of varieties such as Cape Afrikaans are needed so that Afrikaans can serve the entire Afrikaans-speaking community. Yet the school context and textbooks are predominantly underutilised as a source of language legitimation in the course of the current discussion on restandardisation. Bearing in mind Haugen's (1987:637) view that changes to the language form should be implemented by educational institutions, this conceptual article investigates how the inclusion of Cape Afrikaans in textbooks can legitimise this variety and ultimately advance the restandardisation of Afrikaans. First, Odendaal's (2012:125-126) theoretical exposition of the concept of "restandardisation" is discussed. From her definition, the conclusion is made that restandardisation could be a social restitution aimed at democratising Afrikaans by using varieties such as Cape Afrikaans as a source to expand the standard variety. The democratisation of Afrikaans entails that varieties like Cape Afrikaans must be destigmatised by introducing it in authoritative spaces such as the education system. In this way, the prestige of the varieties is increased, and it is established as a legitimate form of Afrikaans. It is argued that textbooks possess discursive qualities that offer productive possibilities to promote the restandardisation of Afrikaans by establishing Cape Afrikaans as a legitimate language form. These discursive qualities of textbooks are explored, as well as how textbooks as linguistic resources bring about legitimation. Textbooks act as a form of discourse because they are presented in a specific language variety and take the form of a series of thematic and ideologically structured communications that circulate between a specific community of communicators. As the production of textbooks is controlled by the dominant groups and institutions (the publishing industry and/or state approval committees), textbooks tend to reflect the ideologies of the dominant group. A textbook therefore functions on the one hand as an instrument that contains knowledge considered legitimate by political authorities and on the other hand it forms part of socialisation processes. One of the primary functions of a discourse (here: in the form of textbooks) is to influence the experiences of the participants in the discursive practice (here: learners who work from the textbook). By using a specific language or language variety in textbooks, textbook users are socialised to regard such a specific language or language variety as the legitimate language, because the legitimate knowledge - as set out in the school curriculum - is presented in that particular language or language variety. Similar to discourse, textbooks are thus not only modelled on social values and traditions, but they also possess the ability to shape social beliefs and values. Fairclough (1995:131) argues that discursive practices - such as compiling and using textbooks - act in socially reproductive and socially transformative ways. Depending on the socio-political circumstances, textbooks have the ability to perpetuate existing social beliefs, or they can transform existing beliefs by exposing users to new knowledge and insights. Furthermore, textbooks also comply with Van Leeuwen's (2007:92) exposition of linguistic resources that bring about legitimation. Textbooks are linguistic resources 1) that are used by persons with institutional authority (educators) 2) during institutionalised social interaction (the teaching-learning process) 3) while containing official and approved knowledge that reflects the values and beliefs of society 4) and at the same time possessing the ability to influence users' scholastic success. This article explores how textbooks can be used as resources to legitimatise Cape Afrikaans. Drawing on Odendaal's (2012:462) restandardisation framework as a theoretical point of departure, this article illustrates how textbooks in the relevant phases can promote the legitimation of Cape Afrikaans and, ultimately, the restandardisation of Afrikaans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article offers a stocktaking and critical, meaning-searching interrogation of the humanities as collective at universities and in the twenty-first-century society. As a working definition of "humanities", the lexical definition of "any of the fields of scholarship taking the mental life and resultant cultural products of humans as its object of study" is accepted. To the humanities belong not only history and linguistics but also the group of fields sometimes named the social sciences, such as sociology, anthropology and political science. "An autonomous institution devoted to the advancement of various branches of higher learning" is taken as a working definition of a university. During its long history, this institution has acquired an unexchangeable, irreplaceable number of interrelated roles in society, namely teaching and research, community service of a particular kind, innovation, cultural preservation, transmittance and development, and societal critique. A set of powerful societal forces characterising the twenty-first-century society is gathering momentum today, including the ecological crisis, demographic dynamics (population explosion in the Global South, changing age profiles, migration patterns and an increasingly mobile population) and growing affluence as well as inequalities. Also part of these forces are a nascent knowledge economy, the fourth industrial revolution, the neo-liberal economic revolution, changing roles in the family and the workplace and the rise of tertiary social groupings, technological developments (the information, communications and transportation revolution in particular), the rise of multicultural societies, democratisation and individualisation, the rise of global political structures, the persistent but changed presence of religion in society and the rise of the creed of human rights as the new global moral code. These trends underscore even more the role and value of the university in society, including that of the humanities in universities. After having been on the periphery of society for centuries, the university as institution has, since the mid-twentieth century and especially since the global higher education revolution has commenced around 1990, moved to the frontstage of society. In view of the imperatives that the nascent, unfolding twenty-first century directs to higher education, this is a wholesome development, as is the swelling rise of enrolments in the humanities as part of the massification that is the hallmark of the global higher education revolution. In countries such as the United States of America, Turkey and Egypt, at any given point, the number of students of humanities at universities runs into the millions, while in the case of India, the figure tops the 12 million mark. The case for the humanities and enrolling in the humanities can be strongly argued from many points of view, not only in terms of the need of a schooled citizenry (or elite vanguard of the citizenry schooled in the humanities) but also from stark empirical evidence of individual and social rates of return (although the numbers of publications with these calculations are not at all sufficient). The biggest lacuna is the absence of research on the teaching and research of humanities at universities on the research agenda of the meteoric rise of higher education as field of scholarship in recent decades. Without denigrating or negating the importance of academic freedom and academic autonomy of faculty, such research is needed in order to construct a pedagogy of humanities and to guide faculty in advancing humanities at universities. In conclusion, some suggestions as to the research agenda for such a research project on the pedagogy of humanities at universities are made. These include teaching methods, learning methods, curricula, the need for a normative superstructure in the humanities, tracer studies (surveying both students and employers), individual as well as social rates of return analyses, student surveys and surveying students' sources of inspiration and motivation for enrolling in the humanities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sammendrag Fra og med 2020 trer regionreformen i kraft. Noen av målene med reformen er å effektivisere offentlig forvaltning og bidra til økt demokratisering. Dette vil også påvirke kulturminneforvaltningen. I denne artikkelen analyseres spenningene som framkom i høringsprosessen i forkant av at regionreformen ble vedtatt. Det legges spesiell vekt på hvordan representanter fra norske kulturarvinstitusjoner oppfatter demokratisering av kulturarven. Siden demokratisering av kulturarv også er et sentralt tema i det internasjonale forskningsfeltet kulturarvstudier (Heritage Studies), vil artikkelen utforske i hvilken grad de norske høringssvarene samsvarer med de internasjonale demokratiseringsdiskusjonene. Studien avdekker at det internasjonale forskningsfeltet og de norske institusjonene opererer med ulik forståelse av demokratisering. Den internasjonale litteraturen om demokratisering er emansipatorisk av natur og strukturert rundt et mål om å inkludere lekfolks syn på kulturarv. I den norske diskusjonen tas det derimot utgangspunkt i demokrati i betydning folkestyre. I artikkelen diskuteres det hvordan disse ulike forståelsene av demokrati potensielt kan utfylle og berike hverandre.

A variety of religiously inspired anti-social acts have recently been recorded worldwide and also in South Africa as such. Such acts attest to the fact that religion has remained a global bone of contention, and that efforts have to be made to address this problem, particularly in as far as it concerns schools and the place of religion in education systems. Organised education is generally grasped at as an instrument for the eradication of religiously intolerant behaviour and for the recognition of religious differences, thereby contributing to world peace (cf. policy documents issued by UNESCO). In theory, the problem can be alleviated through the promotion of an attitude of inter-religiosity and religious tolerance, among others, through education. However, before effort in this regard can be contemplated, one has to gain an understanding of the demographics of the world today, of the political situation and particularly of the religious nature and composition of the current world population. This background knowledge enables one to refl ect on the reasons for religiously inspired intolerance among individuals and among the communities they belong to, and particularly about the role of schools and education in the amelioration of the problem. In the research reported in this article, the social space and ethical action or function theory was employed as theoretical lens for examining education and education systems in the modern world, including how the demographic and other characteristics of the world are impacting on education and the systems in which it is provided, more particularly how the most recent developments have impacted the provision of religion education in schools. The theory posits that education and education systems respectively occupy unique social niches where people interact with one another for the purpose of realising commonly shared ideals and purposes. Each social system such as a school or an education system has a unique function in the world and should strive at executing that function effectively in conjunction and cooperation with all other systems in its life-world. This implies interaction between education (systems) and the prevailing demographics, the religious compositions of communities as well as political and economic conditions. Such interactions should furthermore be characterised by respect for the autonomies of the respective cooperating institutions such as parents, the state and religious groups. Interaction is in fact unavoidable because of the interwovenness of social groups: a particular child could at the same time be learner in a school, a member of a family, a member of the church and a citizen of the state. It is, inter alia, because of misunderstandings regarding the differences between the mandates of the different societal relationships that boundary trespassing occurs, for example in the form of abusing schools for non-educational purposes. Schools are teaching-learning institutions and should not be abused for any other, including religious, purposes. At the same time, schools operate in a world characterised by religious diversity. The accommodation of religious and other forms of diversity should be ethically inspired; in other words, each person should be treated in ways that one would prefer oneself to be treated by others. It follows that interreligious tolerance and coexistence should be the norm in a community where the ethical principle encapsulated in the social space and ethical function or action theory is applied. Education and education systems, as the theory furthermore suggests, are the outcomes of contextual social forces in the world, among others, the geography, demography, economy, socio-cultural composition, political and religious-life conceptual tendencies. Education systems form the social spaces in which all these forces are joined together in a "system-atic" unit. This unit, the social system, can be examined from various angles: a system perspective, a contextual perspective and a comparative perspective. Analyses based on these perspectives reveal that education and education systems are constantly changing as a result of the various social forces impacting on them. A substantial part of the article is devoted to a discussion of such forces, as will now be briefl y summarised. • The world has since the 1950s undergone substantial population growth, from more than two billion to the present more than seven billion. Around 90 million people are added to the population annually, by far the most in the developing countries. • People have become more mobile in recent years as a result of the communication and transport revolution. The number of immigrants has also increased, to the extent that one in every 31.6 people in the world can nowadays be regarded as an international migrant. The migrations reveal two major patterns: from the south to the north, and from the east to the west. This is a result of forces pushing people away from (weak economic conditions) and forces pulling people towards other parts of the world (better living conditions and job opportunities). • Because of migrations, communities have become more heterogeneous and religiously diverse. Communities have as a result become more complex in that shifts in value patterns have occurred. A new religious continuum with infi nite shades has replaced the previously limited number of clear-cut categories. The previously rigid geographical patterns of religions have dissipated and an individualisation of religious beliefs has been occurring. Religion has nevertheless retained a persistently strong presence in societies worldwide and remains a signifi cant factor in social dynamics. • Another development is the general acceptance and internationalisation of the doctrine of human rights. Most of the documents that embody this doctrine contain provisions regarding the right to education, the right to freedom of choice, including of religion. Increased migration has brought renewed attention to all the different rights contained in the doctrine of human rights, particularly the demand that newcomers should be afforded the same religious rights as the current citizens of a state. • The rise of communication and information technology and of globalisation has contributed to the decline of the power of nation states. People have gained so much power at grassroots level that they have in the recent past contributed to the collapse of governments (e.g. the recent Egyptian revolution inspired by Facebook inscriptions). Theocratic governments / rulers have traditionally used (and abused) religion by imposing a particular religion on upcoming generations, on schools and even communities and states, thereby maintaining a powerful grip on society. This approach has been relinquished since the middle of the twentieth century. The growing respect for human rights and religious diversity has brought an end to the hegemony of a ruling class. This has had several repercussions in the religious domain. Some countries opted for a secularist approach that entailed the total banning of religion from the public domain and hence from all public schools. Other countries opted for widening the range of religions about which learners could learn in school. Other approaches gradually also took shape, for instance integrative religion education for the purpose of acquainting the learners with as many religions as possible to help them function in a multi-cultural and multi-religious social environment and to learn to be tolerant towards those with a different religious background and commitment. This embodied a shift away from a confessional approach, i.e. the teaching of youngsters to make them adherents of a single religion. In addition to these approaches, researchers have identifi ed four other basic approaches to religion: exlusivism and inclusivism, with pluralism and life conceptual coexistence on the continuum between these two extremes. Exclusivism is rejected by experts in the fi eld since it does not reckon with religious diversity. Inclusivism is in turn regarded as over-optimistic; interreligious differences, confl ict and the rise of individualism are so rife in the world that inclusivism can hardly be contemplated. They are also sceptical about pluralism because it fails to establish fi rm religious roots in children. Secularism, as the banning of all religion from the public domain, is also met with scepticism because children need religious commitment in their lives to become fully-fl edged mature individuals. The banning of religion from schools and the public domain is also not consonant with the tenets of the doctrine of human rights. To allow learners a choice among only a few (top-down prescribed) religions in schools also seems questionable in that it appears too narrow and too static; it does not take into account the huge diversity and dynamic nature of religions in the world, and of the growing multireligious nature of modern populations. Integrative religion education, in turn, could receive favourable consideration if offered in conjunction with confessional religion education. Integrative religion education is unacceptable, however, if offered instead of confessional religion education. Rejection of this option is based on the fact that integrative religion education can only deal with the superfi cial features of religions and cannot help learners decide on a religion that they could truly commit to. Of all the available approaches to religion in education available in the contexts of the different education systems worldwide, and of the dynamics of the modern world (notably its demographics as a result of mass migrations and increased mixes of religions), it seems best to allow parents and school communities to exercise a choice regarding the religion or the mix of religions to which they wish to expose the learners in their school. The ethos and confessional orientation of the school should refl ect the religious preferences of the parents. This approach seems to be the most democratic and feasible in current conditions. This conclusion chimes with the perspectives fl owing from the social space and ethical action or function theory. A school is a local entity or societal relationship that occupies a specifi c space in our life-world. It is employed by a particular community (parents, the wider community, learners and so on) and performs a unique function in society. While the central government and other higher authorities may promulgate broad policy guidelines, also regarding religion in / and education, it should be left to the school community to decide for itself about the religious character of the school. In view of the discussion above, it would bemost prudent for governments to prescribe an approach of life-conceptual coexistence as general guideline for school communities and to expect each school community to express its own unique interpretation of the guideline. This would be the most appropriate approach in countries characterised by multi-culturalism and multi-religionism and would also be an apt expression of the ethical demands expounded by the theory in that it expresses care for the interests of the "other" (i.e. adherents of all religions that differ from one's own). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, some key aspects of the public discussion regarding the notion of possessing a language, in casu Afrikaans, are highlighted from a sociolinguistic perspective. The multifarious nature of this language community, consisting of speakers of diverse regional varieties, is related to the notion of a central standard language, and the representation of lexis (and grammatical forms) from these varieties in the standard serves as a challenge to be investigated. If the language as a whole is to be regarded as the property of the entire language community, this is a valid moot point. The article culminates in a comparison of various strategies of increasingly incorporating the varieties of Afrikaans both lexically and grammatically into a generally accessible common standard (which would have to be subject to the requirements of usage in various domains). The point of departure which is addressed, is the perception that (a) the standard form of Afrikaans is a user-based variety, and (b) by implication that it will only be deemed to be communal property if it has been linguistically restandardised by prescriptive means in order to expand ownership to all speakers. At the basis of this perception there are, however, certain fallacies regarding the nature of language, the process of standardisation and the ways in which variant forms obtain recognition over a wide(r) spectrum in the community. The article is firstly aimed at investigating the concept of possessing language (or a language), individually or collectively, from various perspectives, and secondly, at describing the position, function and materialisation of the standard form as a variety used for particular functions by speakers of different varieties, and thus representing communal property. The central question for which an answer is sought, is how possessing the language (collectively or individually, in all its varieties) can be linked to, and is compatible with, the concept of "standard language". An aspect of the nature of language which is important for this discussion is the distinction between instrumental (or functional) and symbolic (identificatory) values. These values often operate in a supplementary fashion, for example when the use of one language for purposes of wider communication reinforces the status of the language. On the other hand, the insistence by speakers on maintaining the symbolic value of a particular language could impede its usefulness as a lingua franca. These values may also operate separately, for instance, the development of a standard register (such as terminologies for scientific purposes) would enhance the instrumentality of a language, while creative contributions, distinguished by the form in which they are presented, such as in the field of literature, play an important role in strengthening its symbolic basis. While the link between language and culture overlaps with its value to the speakers, a further dimension is to be found in the consideration of language and culture as intellectual property. Examples of individual manifestations of language, ranging from individual words as trademarks to integrated units such as literary creations or scientific articles could be cited in this regard, but for languages as a whole there is no judicial tradition of reification. The link between a language and its speakers in terms of possession could be viewed from either a liberal or a mother-tongue based perspective (Hutton 2010), where a distinction is made between a right to possess and the relation with the object being possessed. While the liberal view does not distinguish between language and a (specific) language, and hence a particular speech community is not defined, the mother-tongue based tradition regards language as the collective property of a group of speakers who are defined in terms of history, culture and linguistic features. As alternative approaches, each of these views represents an ideal type on a complex continuum in which the abovementioned factors all contribute to how possession of a particular language could be interpreted. In terms of (especially) the symbolic value of a language, the mother-tongue based approach is followed when a language community has reason to suspect being threatened. To its speakers, the idea of language rights represents one form of recognition of language as property, and this model makes it possible for the speakers, in a multilingual country such as South Africa, to form agencies who act on behalf of the users of a particular language. The recognition of official languages in the South African Constitution, although an ostensible safeguard against discrimination, is stymied by the evident inability of the State and the judiciary to concretise (or reify) language, and hence deal with it as in the case of other items of value. Hence the reaction as referred to above. The community of mother-tongue speakers, are, in this view, defined, not only by using a common language, but also by the intricate set of norms which determines the choices to be made in each context of use, in order to communicate according to the demands of comprehensibility and appropriateness. In this sense, one could state that speakers of Afrikaans find themselves under the "jurisdiction" of the language, and that they receive, not ownership, but a measure of stewardship, to enhance the value of the language by increasing its instrumental value for the benefit of its users. In the light of the geolectal diversity of Afrikaans, which is often exacerbated by racially based differences, the existence of the standard form could be linked historically to the inequalities of the past. Hence the question: Whose property is Standard Afrikaans? From a sociolinguistic viewpoint (and also within the liberal tradition of ownership of language), the standard represents a domain-specific register of use, and is the "property" of whosoever has occasion to utilise this register (especially) in formal contexts. In practice, standardisation occurs from day to day at the level of language use, and in particular as the outcome of the work of language practitioners, who apply the norms of usage as determined by the particular domain. Although it is often assumed that the Language Commission of the South African Academy serves as a standardising body, it is largely restricted to the formulation of rules of orthography, and its published word list (Afrikaanse Woordelys en Spelreëls) contains a small percentage, seen against the total available lexis, of lexical items for purposes of exemplification, acceptance of neologisms and guidance. The possibility of the restandardisation of Afrikaans has been suggested as a way to address differences in accessibility to the standard register, in the sense that vernacular speakers of various geolects should be enabled to recognise much more of their own lexis (and possibly grammar) in what is regarded as Standard Afrikaans. In this way, the symbolic value (and status) of the vernaculars would be enhanced. As in the case of standardisation, which is an ongoing process and at the same time the cumulative effect of norm application in formal contexts, a bottom-up approach (instead of a top-down) approach, by means of exposure, cultural promotion and publication, which is already noticeable, is the most effective process to expand the lexicon in the relevant domains. Restandardisation based on the selection of a new matrix dialect would lead (according to Hendricks 2014) to an implosion of the language as a whole and accelerate destandardisation. On the grammatical level, reference could be made to a forthcoming project in which a standard grammar of Afrikaans (which could include variation on various levels of description) will be compiled for internet access. While the symbolic value of users' varieties (especially regional) plays a key role in the acceptance of the standard variety as collective property, an important aspect of standardisation is the enrichment of the standard variety, also by way of lexical expansion from the regional varieties, in consonance with international models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Given the international tendency towards democracy, the relevance of standard languages, which are undeniably ideological and discriminatory in nature, is increasingly being questioned. In the Afrikaans speech community the legitimacy of Standard Afrikaans has been questioned since the 1980s due to its association with apartheid. In recent times this awareness of the politicisation of Standard Afrikaans has led some Afrikaans linguists to ask the question whether or not Afrikaans should be restandardised. In an attempt to provide an answer to this question, this paper investigates whether or not restandardisation is desirable from a sociolinguistic viewpoint. This is done by giving an overview of why Standard Afrikaans is not seen as being representative of the entire Afrikaans speech community since the 1980s, why it is necessary that the standard be redefined, and lastly, what the restandardisation of Afrikaans would entail in outline. There are various reasons why Afrikaans is not representative of the entire Afrikaans speech community, the first being that standardisers relied heavily on Dutch during the standardisation process. By introducing many Dutch loan words into Afrikaans and relying heavily on the Dutch morphosyntactic pattern, the natural development of Afrikaans was disturbed. This Dutchification of Standard Afrikaans gave the standard an artificial nature which made it difficult for speakers of Afrikaans to learn. As a result of anti-British sentiments after the South African War, the standardisation of Afrikaans was also characterised by opposition against Anglicisms in Afrikaans. An attempt was made to remove as many traces of English influence on Afrikaans as possible, thereby denying the real language contact situation. This anti-English attitude further alienated speakers from the standard and led to diglossia in the Afrikaans speech community. Lastly, the vernacular varieties of Afrikaans, especially those spoken by coloured speakers of Afrikaans, were disregarded during standardisation. Not only was Standard Afrikaans appropriated as a "white man's" language, but it was also based on Eastern Cape Afrikaans, which was mainly spoken by white speakers of Afrikaans. The stigmatisation of the vernacular varieties of Afrikaans led to discrimination against the speakers of these varieties on a social, educational and economic level. Vernacular speakers were marginalised as they were often excluded from all language domains for higher functions and have difficulty acquiring the standard language. Seeing as standardisation inhibits variation and strives towards uniformity of linguistic form, one could argue that the standard language cannot be representative of the entire speech community. This view on the standard language as a seemingly innocent variety ignores the fact that standardisation is ideologically motivated, as it favours the elite in a given speech community. This elitist situation is, however, no longer tenable in a democratic society. At the same time, one cannot deny that standard languages play an important role in the political, economic and educational life of a speech community. As democratising language planning, restandardisation can play an important role in resolving this tension in the standard language. As deliberate language planning from above and from below, aimed at revising the form and function of a standard language and influencing the linguistic behaviour of a speech community in order to create a democratic standard, restandardisation is aimed at correcting some social injustice or another in the speech community by standardising the language from a broader varietal base, thereby making the standard language more inclusive and empowering all speakers. This implies that Standard Afrikaans should be redefined in order to include all varieties of Afrikaans, as well as lessening the influence of Dutch on Afrikaans and giving recognition to the influence of English on Afrikaans. Although the Dutch burden on Standard Afrikaans has been lifted to a certain extent over the past years, there are Dutchisms in Afrikaans which make the language unnecessarily formal and alienate speakers. The restandardisation of Afrikaans thus entails that Dutch should no longer be used as norm for Afrikaans. Over the years there has also been greater realism with regard to the influence of English on Afrikaans, but there are still many English loans missing in Standard Afrikaans which have been prevalent in the vernacular for many years. The restandardisation of Afrikaans should lead to a greater acceptance of English influence on Afrikaans, as English often has an enriching effect on Afrikaans. Disregard of this influence may alienate speakers to such an extent that they decide to use English because they have difficulty acquiring Standard Afrikaans. Lastly, there has also been an increased acceptance of other varieties of Afrikaans into the standard. However, much still needs to be done, since especially coloured speakers of Afrikaans feel like strangers in their own language. Standard Afrikaans should be broadened to include not only lexical items from the vernacular varieties of Afrikaans, but also give recognition to grammatical differences. Restandardisation would further require that norms be determined in a democratic manner, so that all speakers may have a say in the structure of the standard. In this way, restandardisation can be utilised to reform Standard Afrikaans in order to serve the entire speech community, thereby reflecting the democratic ideals of society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]