Statistics in Table 4.1 indicate that all principals (100%, < 0.0001) and most teachers
(92%, < 0.0001) perceive English as the language for economic development, societal
success, and prosperity. This perception was mostly expressed in the respondents’ strong agreements with statements such as English is necessary to obtain good jobs in Rwanda and Children should be taught in English in order to be able to compete at the World job market when they grow up. The results of the analysis of the questionnaire are a clear indication of the educators’ overwhelming positive appraisal of English as the language of economic prosperity. A comparison of the rural and urban settings in the same table shows no difference in responses (p = 1). The discussion of the previous factor also showed that both rural and urban settings have the same attitudes towards English as the language of global communication. Among the reasons for communicating in English, economic targets are desired by educators from both rural and urban schools. Following this logic, the results are likely to be the same.
From the interview data, principals believe that Rwanda will benefit from using English as official language and the MoI. They all feel that English is the language that can boost Rwanda’s economic situation. For instance, they contend that the integration of Rwanda into the EAC and the Commonwealth has contributed to the development of Rwanda in different areas of life, such as education, politics, trade, and communication, and they acknowledge the use of English for prestige since they state that English has helped Rwandans join international organisations, which is seen as contributing to the Rwandan dignity.
(i) ...our country has joined EAC and now Rwandans are able to do business with EAC countries without any problem: no visas, travelling has become easier...English has become a part of Rwandan dignity; we are now represented in many international organisations (PRS1).
(ii) In the English world, there are many schooling benefits that Rwanda cannot miss (PRS2).
In addition to prestige, teachers believe that English is the language that provides many opportunities for employment, and which will lead the country to better education and leadership as two participants claim in the following extracts:
(i) English has become the language of wider employment in the world. People who can speak fluent English get jobs in NGOs and UN13 organisations and earn much money (TUS1).
(ii) Anglophone countries offer scholarships, and eh, do not segregate, say, who goes to schools, who doesn’t as French school leaders used to do! ...to have access to the knowledge that the world has produced in English, we need education in English (TRS1).
According to Samuelson and Freedman (2010, p. 203), English has been taken as ‘a valuable commodity in the regional East African market and also in the global market.’ In addition to the regional and international integration that teachers believe can boost the economy of the country through business and employment because of the use of English, interviews reveal the additional benefits of education and leadership. In education, English is a desired tool that enhances educational development. Teachers find lots of benefits emanating from the use of English, because Anglophone countries offer scholarships and allow everyone to go to school, while the French system is perceived as ‘segregationist’, i.e. a system that, on the ethnic and regional basis, has prevented a section of Rwanda’s population from pursuing secondary or tertiary education since Rwanda’s independence until 1994 (Obura, 2003), when English started overtaking French, creating a new Rwandan image (Steflja, 2012). According to sources such as Obura (2003) and Niyomugabo (2008), there was a policy called ‘Iringaniza in education’ (education equilibrium), which was an educational system whose objective was to provide education on the basis of the ethnic quotas in which admissions to secondary and tertiary education were done in direct link with the ethnic group’s quota of the whole population. This resulted in a distribution of admissions in a way that Hutu (90% of the population) were getting 90% admissions, while of the Tutsi’s (9%), only 9% or less were admitted to school, and Twa (1%), were allowed 1% or less admissions to school. This education policy affected many Rwandans and led them to experience negative attitudes towards French. From the data it is evident that respondents perceive
13
English as a more trustworthy language than French because Rwandans were disappointed by the French leadership that led the country to genocide. This observation leads to an examination of the relationship between English and French in order to understand the positive level of attitudes towards English.
Interview data reveals that the current power of English over French is the result of public perceptions associating French with the genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 and regarding English as the language of national reconciliation (Steflaja, 2012). In the following extracts, principals and teachers express similar attitudes, contrasting French and English in political terms:
(i) ...in the Rwandan society, politically and socially, French language has lost already because of what is in the minds of Rwandans!! The role of French in genocide of Tutsi in Rwanda has already discredited French (TUS1).
(ii) We have learnt much from English-speaking countries’ leadership, which I believe is different from French who led us to genocide because of bad leadership! (PUS1)
(iii) In leadership, English model is better than the French one which led us to genocide! (TUS2).
The data shows that respondents associate the language (French) and the political regime that led Rwanda to genocide with the political ties that the French government had with the Rwandan leadership that followed independence up to the 1994 Genocide of Tutsis. With regard to political leadership, it is believed that English has enhanced national reconciliation since the 1994 Genocide of Tutsis, while French has been discredited because of the role the French government actively played in supporting the regime that perpetrated the killings. After the wars and killings, it was clearly noted that the ‘widespread bitterness over these wrongs has resulted in French being regarded as the language of the 1994 killers’ (Samuelson & Freedman, 2010, p. 194), while most Rwandans, especially the survivors and repatriated citizens, regarded ‘Anglophone countries as more reliable sources of development aid and knowledge transfer than France, Belgium or their African allies’ (Samuelson & Freedman, 2010, p. 194). Similar findings can be found in the context of post-apartheid South Africa where people’s choice of English was mostly motivated by their negative attitudes towards Afrikaans as the language of Apartheid (Moodley, 2003). In the context of Rwanda, even if
participants had to abide by the government order to change the language of instruction from French to English, the interview data reveals that, in the hearts of some Rwandans, especially victims of the genocide, it would be better to suffer with English than to allow French to re- enter their lives. As one teacher stated:
It was good to get rid of French to show its masters that what they did to us was inhuman!!...their support to ‘genociders’ was very unfair to us! (TRS1).
One principal also declared that he observed the traumatic experience of a victim who heard a testimony in French during the 16th commemoration of genocide in 2010 as follows:
...it was time for French to go...a young lady was traumatised during a testimony about the French ‘operation turquoise14’ when she heard a victim imitating the French militaries’ words in French during Murambi Killings… (PUS2).
The statements indicate the break away from French because of the role France played in the genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda. This means that the participants’ positive attitude towards English occurs as a consequence of their negative perception towards French.
As interviews indicate, educators have strong feelings that teaching in English is a way to enable Rwanda progress economically, politically, and socially. It is clear that educators emphasise that English has played a great role to rouse Rwandans and make them participate actively to improve their economy, education, and leadership. These examples contribute to their perceptions of English as the promoter language for the people’s economic, social, and political development.
This perception has some roots in the Rwanda’s Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy named EDPRS 1 by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MINECOFIN, 2007) and in the Education Sector Strategic Plan 2010-2015 named ESSP (MINEDUC, 2010), which aims to establish Rwanda as a strong economy by improving its
14
This was the French military operation meant to protect civilians and stop the mass killings of Tutsis, but it failed in its mission because the killings continued to occur under their control in the western part of the country that was called Zone Turquoise.
education sector via teaching English as the MoI. From this logic, it is likely that most educators were influenced by both strategic plans to adopt new perceptions and attitudes towards English as the language that they can use to raise their economic status through national or international jobs. This observation is also evident from the fact that most educators feel that English will contribute to the fast and sustainable development of Rwanda. As research shows, many countries of the world, including Rwanda, took English as an official language because they saw it as an important tool of education for their social, economic, and political advancement (Spolsky, 2004; Pennycook, 2008; Tollefson, 2009).