RETURN TO MAIN PAGE

The National Question, the Language and Broadcasting in Wales

[1981; IMG internal discussion document]

'A "solution" to the national question can be secured only by ensuring to every nation completely unconstrained access to world culture in the language the given nation considers to be its mother tongue.' (Trotsky, 'Thoughts on the Party: The National Question and the Education of the Party Youth')

The recent political crisis of the Tory Government on the issue of the Fourth Channel has brought out that the question of Welsh nationality is a live factor in the class struggle in Wales. This document is an initial contribution based on discussions in the language commission. The content of the discussion is both educational and political. Given the small amount of time spent on this document it needs stressing that this is an opening of the discussion.

The National Question and the Language Question

The national programme of Marxism was summed up by Lenin as 'complete equality of rights for all nations: the right of nations to self-determination: the unity of the workers of all nations.' ('The Bight of Nations to Self-Determination'). How does the IMG apply this to the British state?

Firstly, we support independence for Ireland. It is insufficient to simply support the right of the Irish people to self-determination. Although we support that slogan we insist that the history of Imperialist domination has left the Irish people with no option but to separate in order to rebuild their society unencumbered by Imperialism. This is by far the most important national question in British society. We must continue to build opposition to the occupation of Ireland.

Secondly, we support self-determination for Scotland and Wales. The incorporation of Wales and Scotland in the formation of a single nation state has not resolved the national question. Despite 300 years of political incorporation in the case of Scotland, and 400 years in the case of Wales, the widespread conviction of national inequalities remain. In 1979 the majority of Scottish people voted for an Assembly with law making powers. In 1980 despite less than a year since defeat in the referendum in Wales the central political leadership of the Welsh working class, in the Welsh Labour Party and Welsh TUC, relaunched a campaign for a Welsh Assembly with legislative powers. 

The IMG supports Assemblies for Scotland and Wales. Only the people of Scotland and Wales can democratically decide what their relationship to the British state should be. We are not campaigning for independence for Scotland or Wales. A united response by the workers in Scotland, England and Wales is a most threatening alliance against British capital. We reject the notion that to achieve this unity separation is a necessary first stage. Should a disjunction in the struggle arise to the extent that a majority in Wales or Scotland favoured independence then we would support their right to form a separate state. At the moment no such disjunction or conviction exists. Nor does the history of Scotland and Wales since the union lead us to believe that it is likely to arise.

Thirdly, and flowing from the above, we support the building of a single revolutionary party in the British state. This party we believe should be composed of members of all the nationalities in the British state. Trotsky posed the matter in the following manner. 'The policy of Bolshevism in the national sphere had also another side, apparently contradictory to the first but in reality supplementing it. Within the framework of the party, and of the workers' organisations in general, Bolshevism insisted upon a rigid centralism, implacably warring against every taint of nationalism which might set the workers one against the other or disunite them. While flatly refusing to the bourgeois state the right to impose compulsory citizenship, or even a state language, upon a national minority, Bolshevism at the same time made it a verily sacred task to unite as closely as possible, by means of voluntary class discipline, the workers of different nationalities. Thus it flatly rejected the national-federation principle in building the party. A revolutionary organisation is not the prototype of the future state, but merely the instrument for its creation. An instrument ought to be adapted to fashioning the product; it ought not to include the product. Thus a centralised organisation can guarantee the success of revolutionary struggle even where the task is to destroy the centralised oppression of nationalities.' (History of the Russian Revolution, from the chapter 'The Problem of Nationalities)

The above deals with our interpretation of the policy of self-determination, and the unity of the workers of all nations. What then of the question of complete equality of rights for all nations? It is here that we come to the question of the language.

Language lies within the realm of nationa1 rights. To be able to express its aspirations the proletariat must defend the plurality of languages.

The proletariat is an international class. Its exploitation crosses the frontiers of the nation state; the fate of the migrant workers is a poignant example. Its interests are for unity across the limits of national frontiers. Yet its actual constitution is defined at present and, until the international defeat of the bourgeoisie, by these national frontiers. Frontiers that demarcate oppressor and oppressed nations. The ending of such distinctions is a task of the socialist revolution.

The forms of national oppression are varied. Generally they aim towards the assimilation of the oppressed nation into the oppressor nation. This assimilation is contradictory. The oppressed nationalities can still be regarded as pariah nationalities even when their actual assimilation is quite advanced - witness the fate of black people in the USA and Britain. Involved in this assimilation are as many aspects of the national identity as can be won by the oppressor bourgeoisie. Most important is the right to a nation state. After this in importance is the assimilation of the language.

'Language is the most important instrument of human communication, and consequently of industry. It becomes national together with the triumph of commodity exchange which integrates nations. Upon this foundation the nation state is erected as the most convenient, profitable, and normal arena for the play of capitalist relations.' (Trotsky, History of the.Russian Revolution)

'For the complete victory of commodity production, the bourgeoisie must capture the home market and there must be politically united territories whose population speak a single language, with all obstacles to the development of that language and to its consolidation in literature eliminated.' (Lenin, 'The Right of Nations to Self-Determination')

The process that Lenin and Trotsky refer to occurred in Britain with the establishment of the British bourgeois state. Local customs and tariffs in agriculture and transport yielded to the needs of the capitalist market. The propertied classes formed and reformed alliances capable of developing the economy and ensuring the subjugation of the labouring classes. The language of commerce became uniformly the language of the dominant classes, while Scottish Gaelic, Manx, Irish Gaelic, Cornish and Welsh were suppressed, neglected and pushed to the margins of the national market.

The stubbornness of these languages reveals that they answer a social need, in a manner that English does not. Their existence and further growth is hindered and threatened at every turn by the dynamic of the capitalist market and its language, English. An examination of the history of these languages shows that the process of capitalist development in Britain included a profoundly undemocratic imposition upon speakers of these languages. Their full defence and free development is not possible under capitalism. The equalisation of.thelanguags is then a task that falls upon the revolutionary proletariat.

This equalisation is not a numerical term, it is a political term. It means state support, both. legislative. and executive, for these languages at the expense of English.

The terms of this support vary from nationality to nationality. In Quebec, where over 80% of the population have French as their first language, a policy of 'French first' and the banning of English. from certain areas of administration and civil life is the democratic policy, as French is a language under siege in the Pan-Canadian federation as a whole. In Wales the situation is different: not only is the language a minority in the British state, it is also a minority within Wales, spoken by approximately one in five people in Wales. Our policy then is aimed towards a recognition of Welsh as a national language of Wales, along with English. This leads the IMG to support a policy of bilingualism for Wales.

Bilingualism itself is a difficult term to define. In a general sense it means that the state recognises in all spheres of its functioning the equal legitimacy of the languages, and undertakes measures to ensure this in the practice of society. A specific analysis is necessary for the interpretation of the policy. At present the IMG is unable to fully elaborate what a bilingual policy means for Wales. The rest of the document concentrates upon what this means in one sphere - that of broadcasting, and especially in the area of TV broadcasting.

The Importance of the Struggle for the Channel 

The recent victory of securing the Fourth channel for the Welsh language is a real breach in Tory policy. Their whole policy was based on considering commercial interests above those of the Welsh language. By spreading the Welsh language broadcasts over BBC2 and the new ITV2 channel the loss of audience, and thus advertising revenue, faced by HTV would be minimised. Why was such defeat for the Tories, and the substantial capitalist interests of the IBA, possible?

Despite being a minority language in Wales the existence of Welsh is recognised by growing numbers of Welsh workers as part of their culture. Non-Welsh speaker and Welsh speaker alike have indicated that state support for Welsh is desired. In the last 10 years surveys of parents in Cardiff and Newport, both heavily anglicised areas, have recorded large majorities in favour of their children being taught Welsh. The Labour Party continually makes a point in election manifestos and policy statements of its record as 'having done more for the language than the Tories'. The Welsh TUC has a policy bf supporting the language. In the Welsh-speaking areas the campaigns of Cymdaithas yr laith Gymraeg have had a mass impact, winning substantial support amongst intellectuals, students and the petty bourgeoisie. The continued decline of Welsh has given an urgency to this formidable, if unconstituted, alliance of social forces backing the language.

Over the past 20 years a string of concessions have been won on the language. These include the 1967 Welsh Language Act, which almost put Welsh formally on a legal par with English; the production by state departments of bilingual forms and services; grants to Welsh education supporting nurseries and schools; some Welsh on road signs; grants for Welsh publishing and Welsh arts; a limited number of grants for voluntary ecoomio co-operatives; and the growth of broadcasting in Welsh on radio and TV. Despite these concessions the language has declined from being spoken by 26% of the Welsh population in 1961, to 21% in 1971, and the 1981 census is liable to show a further erosion.

The apparent paradox of a growing social awareness of the importance of Welsh coupled with a decreasing social use of Welsh can only be explained by the workings of the capitalist market. The concessions have been won through mass actions and serious campaigning. Yet the working of the system undermines, and limits the effects, of these concessions.

The main body of concessions can be defined in two spheres. Firstly those concerning the state, which can be further defined into different sectors: the administration of the state proper (local government, Welsh Office) where Welsh remains at the level of a special case, or as the 'second' language; the economic branches of the state (nationalised industries, various ministries) where Welsh is purely a public decoration rather than a language of administration; the educational and cultural functions of the state (schools, colleges, Welsh Arts Council, broadcasting) where Welsh has a greater priority but is definitely sectoralised and inferior to English; the welfare functions of the state (Health, Social Security, Social Services, etc.) where outside of Welsh-speaking areas it has a purely token position.

Secondly, in relation to civil society. In daily life Welsh is visually and audibly drowned by English in most of Wales. In the relations of production it has no role whatsoever. In cultural life it is ghettoised In the trade unions it has a token presence, except for the Welsh-speaking areas. In the parties, apart from Plaid, it has the position of honoured guest and unwelcome visitor. In the church, it is stronger, but generally confined to certain bastions of non-conformism, or Welsh-speaking areas.

Looking at this too brief précis of Welsh in Wales we can begin to understand why despite concessions given on the language to win social peace it continues to decline. Not all these spheres of activity have an equally determinate effect upon society. For Marxists it is the mode of production, composed of the relations of production and the productive forces, that determine finally the other relations of society. In the capitalist mode of production in Wales the dominant language is English. Its dominance is absolute, apart from secondary enterprises and farming communities in Welsh-speaking areas. Welsh is in practice banned from the language of industry. This explains the failure of the strategy of those reformists and nationalists who seek the guarantee of the language in 'education' or 'the next generation'.

At some future date we will need further discussion and documentation on this. For the moment let us add that, after the language of the dominant mode of production the most determinate sphere of linguistic activity arises from the state. From the review above it is clear that Welsh in the state is in a most precarious position.

Now at last we can return to the question of the Tories' defeat and broadcasting. The clash of social forces on the channel threatened the whole equilibrium of social peace won through certain concessions given to the language. Consent for Goverent policy was very narrow, and largely seen as external to Wales. Opposition was very broad, and based in Wales. The opposition though was disunited due to Plaid's sectarianism, and the Labour leadership's concern to avoid reopening the split patched up after the referendum. Gwynfor's death would have resulted in one of the following processes. The whole opposition would have united, on an anti-Tory ticket, and with sufficient weight to still win the Fourth channel, resulting in a complete discrediting of the Welsh component of the Tory cabinet. Or, more likely, the opposition would have further fragmented resulting in a wave of illegal activities, furious and demagogic lobbying by Plaid and Labour separately, still resulting in a discrediting of Edwards and company. The Tory Government in backing down registered a significant political defeat. 

Broadcasting - Our Policies

The achievement of the fourth channel marks a turning point in the fate of the language. It is the biggest victory the language has won, certainly in the past 20 years. It has posed a new range of issues to be fought for. Before looking at these, let us look at our policies for broadcasting.

A channel with a preponderance of Welsh is essential for the development of the language. A genuine programming of Welsh broadcasting is now possible, as opposed to the token Welsh slots. It will stand in contrast to the swamp of Anglo-American pap being served up, raising the question of a general rise in programming quality, Welsh and English. It breaks with the idea of 'discovered' needs of the audience allegedly found through retrospective audience ratings. Instead it starts out from their actual needs and places programming at the service of those needs. The questions of content and production have come to the fore, as the areas where the audience have the initial need, and the possibility is being formed of them exercising some control. The IBA's needs have been seconded. The BBC's passivity, a function of Government policy, on the change of government policy has been illustrated for many who have followed the twists and turns of the struggle for the fourth channel. A more critical approach to broadcasting has been prompted throughout Wales.

While supporting a channel. with Welsh preponderance we must take a position on the question of other Welsh broadcasting. Should Welsh be broadcast on other channels? As things stand, Welsh will appear on other channels only in the form of cross-trailing (Welsh trailers on BBC and ITV1 of pgrammes on ITV2), plus the 'exceptional' Welsh programme aimed at learners. The danger here is one of cultural ghettoisation. If Welsh disappears from the other channels then it will be seen by fewer people, and this represents a retreat in the language. We must support Welsh broadcasting on other channels. The argument of limiting English choice assumes Welsh speakers should have no choice but one Welsh programme at any time. The argument that this represents an encroachment upon the rights of English speakers also affirms that English speakers. have more rights than Welsh speakers.

Cost and subsidy for Welsh programmes is bound to be a big issue now. Our position is straightforward: we are against limitations of cost impeding the development of Welsh broadcasting. To receive 'world culture' in Welsh requires a massive subsidy in transmission and production, and maybe more channels. We are for this subsidy and for productive forces being allocated. It will have to be a subsidy from Government sources: a workers' government would not dream of jeopardising the Welsh language for the sake of money. We oppose all attempts by the Tories ( or anyone else ) to limit the development of Welsh broadcasting by using the question of costs as cover. We say the funds can be made available through punitive taxing of the rich; appropriating transmitting and production facilities from the IBA; and through a prioritised allocation in the resources of the BBC towards Welsh broadcasting

Let return to the issues raised outside of broadcasting proper. Above all is the question of cohtrol of broadcasting

Whose interests does broadcasting serve at present and who controls it? The IBA is a capitalist cartel of companies, serving both banking and industrial capital. Through advertising it plays a central role in promoting commodity consumption. The implications of it being a commercial institution has been popularised in the struggle for the fourth channel. The BBC is not a capitalist company, but it is a branch of the capitalist state. Both successive governments and the BBC hierarchy have been at pains to stress its independence from government. Its independence however is the same sort of autonomy from government that the police have, being finally responsible to Parliament, and thus the government of the day. Parliaments come and go, but the BBC ( and the police) remain. It is a thoroughly undemocratic institution whose major function is to represent, the international class struggle through the eyes of the British bourgeoisie. In the struggle for the fourth channel this has hardly emerged. What has emerged though is a growing distrust of this very British institution.

A certain crisis of credibility is emerging which revolutionaries must be alive to. The attempt by the Annan report on broadcasting to remould the institutions of broadcasting through adoption the idea of an 'Open Broadcasting Association', the adoption of this idea by the Labour Party as policy, the growing calls for the election of directors of the broadcasting institutions and these calls being tied to the idea of theOBA, plus the promotion by Cymdaithas (and lately Plaid ) of an independent Welsh broadcasting company are all attributes of this crisis of credibility.

Our policy should be the following. We are for the election of all state officials, and certainly we would favour a reform of the BBC. However we are not prepared to wait or to base the defence of the Welsh language solely on the chances of reforming the BBC. We therefore raise the demand for a broadcasting organisation independent of the capitalist state, but subsidised through government grants. This organisation should be based on elected and recallable representatives of the Welsh people, particularly the Welsh workers' organisations. We are not opposed, far from it, to this, organisation being part of a British broadcasting organisation. But we insist that for the moment it must be independent of the BBC, and for ever from the IBA. Further we propose that such an organisation would ultimately be responsible for all broadcasting in Wales.

Having this policy does not preclude us from supporting all the democratic or immediate demands that will be raised about the implementation of the fourth channel. We will support. any of these that take the struggle an inch forward. Having this policy allows us to raise, in a transitional manner, the relationship of broadcasting to the socialist reorganisation of the economy, the only final guarantee of the defence of the Welsh language. 

Return to main page