Recognition Is Not The Same As Access: South Africa’s SASL Test
When South African Sign Language became the country's 12th official language in July 2023, the constitutional change was intended to do more than recognise a language symbolically. Government said it should advance dignity, equality and access for people who are Deaf or hard of hearing. SASL was also formally recognised as a language with its own grammatical structures and lexicon, independent of South Africa's spoken languages.
That was an important milestone. But official status and usable access are not the same thing.
The more difficult test begins when a Deaf South African walks into a hospital, police station, bank, workplace or any other institution where information has consequences. A language can be protected in law while the person using it still encounters a system that was designed around somebody else.
SASL interpreter Andiswa Gebashe illustrates the problem with an everyday banking experience involving her deaf father. She arranged to interpret remotely by video call while he dealt with his account. According to Gebashe, the proposed solution was rejected on policy grounds and her father was then asked to sign documents without their content being interpreted for him.
The issue is bigger than customer service. If a person cannot fully understand a document, medical explanation or legal process, communication becomes tied to autonomy.
Healthcare reveals an even harder version of the same problem. Gebashe points to the shortage of therapists who are fluent in SASL and the additional cost of requiring an interpreter. But access creates another dilemma: confidentiality. Therapy depends on being able to speak freely. A Deaf client who requires an interpreter may have to introduce a third person into a conversation that a hearing patient could have privately with a therapist.
This is why accessibility cannot be measured simply by asking whether some accommodation exists.
Television provides perhaps the clearest example. An interpreter may technically be visible on screen, but if that interpreter is squeezed into a small window with poor contrast, the service can become harder to use. Gebashe argues that facial expression is not decorative performance in SASL. It carries grammatical information. If a viewer cannot properly see whether an interpreter is asking a question or making a statement, part of the meaning can disappear.
Her criticism is simple: accessibility can become “a ticking box exercise” when organisations focus on being able to say that something was provided rather than asking whether the person it was designed for can actually use it.
There are signs of progress. Gebashe points to education, including examinations being made available through SASL, while Umalusi has previously highlighted the need for equitable resources for SASL teaching and assessment.
The next phase of South Africa's SASL story therefore cannot be measured only by whether the language appears in the Constitution.
The practical question is harder: can a person use that language when it matters?
At a bank counter. During an emergency. In therapy. In a classroom. While watching the news.
Official recognition establishes the principle. Access determines whether that principle reaches everyday life.
Catch up on all Making Sense episodes here: https://www.enca.com/making-sense-podcast
Chapter List
(00:00) Why South Africans Are Losing Faith In Democracy
(01:16) The Numbers Behind South Africa’s Democracy Decline
(02:41) How Democratic Backsliding Fuels Populism And Scapegoating
(05:22) What Happens When Trust In Institutions Collapses?
(07:05) Social Media, Conspiracy And The Loss Of Shared Reality
(09:32) The Warning For South Africa’s Local Elections