Portuguese, Creole or Both: The Problematic of Language Choice in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau. The Social, Political and Economic Implications of Language Choice

Democracy seems to be under attack. Recent world events show that democracy is under attack. People all over the world seem to be fighting to maintain basic rights that for many have not yet become a reality. Movements such as Occupy movements, Arab Springs, and others are becoming common on our television sets. Democracy is being put to the test, and many even argue over its feasibility. This reality is especially true in underdeveloped or developing nations where democracy has yet to take hold, and a form of oligarchy inherited from colonialism continues to prevail. Whether democracy is the best form of governance or not could be argued. However, that is not our goal here. Until recently, democracy was more universally accepted as the best form of political governance that allowed for the free and full participation of the masses. Free political participation and the ability to contribute and shape one's future are regarded as key benefits of democracy. This freedom could be exercised through people's popular vote or by getting involved directly or indirectly in the process of decision-making (e.g., community organization, lobbying, etc.). Alas, lately, this right is being attacked by powerful elites, in the form of corporations, that encourage governments to ignore the interests and needs of the majority, while obtaining the rights of citizenship for themselves. This is true even in nations where this right was already taken for granted (e.g., United States of America). Popular political participation, or the lack thereof, is the exact focus of this study, through an examination of the choice of language as a tool for either encouraging or suppressing full political participation. Language, as regarded by sociologist, is a system of political, economic and social control that affects culture, identity, class and political issues. Language is also a strong indicator of inequality and conflict in any society. Language, though often ignored as one of the least important factors in the development of a nation, is, in fact, one of the pillars that hold societies together. From ethnic relations, education, political participation, social development and so on, language provides people with the ability to communicate and share their needs and aspirations. Without a common shared language, the isolation of groups that do not speak the official language, or the national language, becomes a problem that reflects itself in society. Additionally, language choice affects political participation, school enrollment, access to resources, and/or ethnic conflict. In sum, language can facilitate or prevent people, too often, from being active participants in the greater society they represent. These issues will be examined in this study through an examination of language in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau (RGB).;The discourse of language and political participation in RGB is now more than ever relevant due to the threat it poses to democratic stability and rule. This is especially true if one considers the events of April 2012 in which a small minority of the political and military elite of the nation overthrew a democratically elected government, elected by the people. This event is the ultimate expression of how powerless and voiceless the people of Guinea-Bissau are when it comes to having any say in the political future of their nation. Unfortunately, the introduction of democratic rule in 1994 has not changed the nature of governance in the nation, nor has it increase the political participation of Guineans. Besides gaining the right to vote, popular masses remained hostage to policies initiated prior to colonialism, refined during colonialism and that continue up to this day to block access to the vast majority, while profiting a minority. Today, it is evident that in RGB the right to vote did not equate to greater popular participation. This is reminiscent of how, in the past, the granting of a Portuguese citizenship did not guarantee full civil rights or political participation. After 40 plus years of independence, unequal relations (especially of the socio-political kind) remain a reality in RGB. The choice of RGB's official language (Portuguese) creates a dichotomy between the haves and the have-nots, and poses serious problems regarding access and political participation in the nation. The expression of inequality of power in RGB can be seen as a consequence of past colonial policies that psychologically and philosophically affected the manner in which Africans perceive themselves in the world. In the case of RGB, this can be easily perceived through policy choices implemented after independence. The choices made after independence, especially those concerning government structures and language, may lead one to conclude that the independence movement was no more than a strategy to either pacify or acquire other means of political control over the masses. Only this time the masses were controlled by fellow Africans. This was a development presaged by the independence leader, Amilcar Cabral.;Many of the promoters of Portuguese as the official language in RGB try to make a distinction between the reasons coined during colonialism for its use and those used today. They cite, for example, their relations with the outside world and the fact that the Portuguese language is no longer equated with the de-Africanization of the African people. However, could the insistence on maintaining a foreign language spoken by a very small minority of the population as the official language of the nation be in itself de-Africanization? After all, if one takes into account the fact that language holds a system of codes particular to a culture and people, the use of a foreign language should mean a distancing from one's culture and values. The Portuguese language, as should be expected, promotes the Portuguese culture and not the African culture. African elites are especially to blame for the kind of thinking, which promotes continued use of colonizer's languages. African elites consciously, or unconsciously, continue to promote ideas implemented in the past which through years of imposed policies, reduced them to outsiders within their own cultural environments. They (African elites) deny everything that is African and view it as inferior and backward, including their own African languages.;The choice of language in RGB cannot be understood outside the domains of capitalism and class interests. That includes the creation of the main lingual competitor to Portuguese, Guinean Creole. Ironically, it was capitalism or economic interests that led to the development of the Creole language, and with it a new social group that used it to their advantage. The increased need to conduct trade on the west coast of Africa led to the development of a new language beneficial to both sides of the trade. Were there not an incentive to do so, the Creole language might have never existed, or it is possible that it would have disappeared a long time ago. Later on the same capitalist interests decided to belittle the Guinean language in favor of a foreign one. This decision created dichotomy in society, causing those who spoke the Portuguese language to enjoy higher benefits and privileges, and those who did not became relegated to a lower status, without civil rights (see section on statement of problem). In sum, language became valuable capital that provided limited access to a very small group of people. In the end this is the formula of capitalism, especially when under regulated. The capitalist's mandate is always to maximize profits. That means finding and exploiting opportunities to "corner" markets and exclude, or minimize competitors. Capitalist interests inherently come into conflict with the interest of the masses of people, and this is explicit within language policy in Africa.