Language policy, linguistic hegemony and exclusion in the Zimbabwean print and broadcasting media
This article examines linguistic hegemony and linguistic exclusion in the Zimbabwean print and broadcasting media. The discussion is based on the fact that the media carry language, operate through language and contribute to language promotion and development. Therefore, this article argues that there is need for a sound and working language policy for the print and broadcasting media in Zimbabwe. The language used in information dissemination, public debates and communication can include or exclude some speech communities in the country. However, the language choices in the media in Zimbabwe demonstrate multilayered linguistic hegemonies where English is generally the dominant language, while Shona and Ndebele are hegemonic to the other languages in Zimbabwe. This situation is attributed to the fact that the broadcasting media in Zimbabwe are part of the colonial heritage; that there is a lack of a clear and consistent language policy of the media in Zimbabwe, which is reflective of the absence of a comprehensible national language policy; that the domination of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation leaves no room for meaningful and authentic competing community radio and television stations; that the media in Zimbabwe are business and political organisations; and that the media in Zimbabwe are appendages of the global media system which favour the use of English.
Minority Language Media and the Public Sphere
For the last ten years, the development of audio-visual and multimedia technologies has been providing a vast variety of worldwide channels, opening up outlets and prospects for alternative or community media. In the meantime, as a reaction against state centralized policies as well as against the deterritorialization of traditional cultural and social spaces caused by the internationalization of communication systems, a new consciousness for cultural diversity gradually grew up (Mattelart, 1994). This new situation holds for the entire planet, thus not just in Europe where, until recently, the variety of languages spoken in the different countries was considered as a serious drawback to create unity, according to Julien Benda (1933; 1947). In many regions throughout the world, linguistic minorities strongly claim the right to be officially present in the audiovisual media. For many endangered languages, expression used in a Unesco report by Wurm (2001), this expresses the concern to legitimize their cause and to reach a wider audience thanks to digital networks. Often considered as a cultural phenomenon, linguistic issues are a very political matter. Indeed, they convert into demands for official recognition to the States as well as supranational authorities (for example the European Union). Above all, they question the public sphere and imply redefining the social contract that links citizens. They also suppose special attention from political authorities as well as specific policies. The recent unrests in Bolivia and Peru opposing Aymara communities to their local corrupt politicians show how the lack of interest from their respective States can drive the Indians - long considered as second-class citizens - to violent actions (El Pais, 2004). The article tackles two complementary sides of the question: on the one hand, the legal framework set by political institutions in order to organize or restrict the expression of minority languages in the media; on the other hand, a critical survey of the different theories which discuss the stakes of multiculturalism and citizenship in relation to media public sphere. As a matter of fact, the two sides are closely related : political and academic debates are deeply marked by national historical traditions, thus affecting the legal or institutional solutions set up by the different countries.
Do Arab public opinion support policies of regional powers in MENA? View from Tunisia
ABSTRACT The Arab Uprisings and subsequent events continue to transform policies of regional and major powers toward the Middle East and North Africa. These powers have shown different approaches toward the Uprisings, ranging from support for the status quo to endorsing regime changes. Their policies have also exerted a significant impact on the course of events. Despite this growing importance and implications of policies of regional powers on the Uprisings and the Syrian conflict, we still do not know much about how the public assesses these policies and to what extent domestic cleavages shape these assessments. Using a nationally representative original survey conducted in 2014 in Tunisia, this study examines the perceptions of the policies of France, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia towards the Uprisings and the Syrian conflict. It finds that French and Turkish policies about the Uprisings have garnered substantial support among citizens, whereas most citizens negatively assess the Saudi policies. On the other hand, the majority of Tunisians negatively assess all these countries’ policies toward the Syrian conflict. Another major finding suggests that political identity reflecting secular/religious cleavages shapes how citizens view the policies of these three countries toward both issues, but its effect is higher in assessing the Uprisings.