Between Languages and Legacies:

 

In Algeria, the debate over whether French should be replaced by English has become increasingly entangled with broader geopolitical and ideological tensions, often overshadowing the country’s actual linguistic and educational needs. In his discussion of Algeria’s “language question,” Algerian novelist and author Waciny Laredj rejects both the demonization of French and the uncritical glorification of English, arguing instead for a pragmatic, historically informed, and educationally sound approach to multilingualism.* French remains deeply embedded in Algerian society, from everyday communication to education and professional life, making its complete removal an enormous and potentially disruptive undertaking. At the same time, Laredj challenges narratives that portray French solely as a colonial legacy, pointing to moments in which the language played an important role in intellectual, political, and liberation movements. The question facing Algeria is not simply whether French should be replaced by English, but whether such a transition is practical, historically conscious, and genuinely beneficial to the country and future generations.

 

The current language debate that demonizes French while favoring English is far from new; rather, it is a “remake” of linguistic debates that have surfaced in Algeria for over half a century and have never been fully resolved. According to Laredj, “This is acknowledged by virtually every specialist in the field, yet these experts are seldom consulted, as though all the work they have devoted over the decades were of no value. As a result, there is no cumulative progress.”

 

Based on the dominant discourse at present, the push for English over French fails to address the many linguistic concerns that the country has contended with for decades, such as reducing French linguistic dominance, strengthening Arabic as the constitutionally agreed national language, or restoring the status of Amazigh. Rather, the issue has been reduced to political disputes between France and Algeria, resulting in the demonization of the French language. In the words of Laredj, “This diminishes the intellectual and civilizational value of the undertaking and clouds the policy itself. It also means that once political tensions subside, everything will simply revert to its previous state.”

 

Laredj suggests that the more pressing question should be how French can be transformed into a positive instrument that helps Arabic and Amazigh engage more openly with a richer, broader, and more dynamic world. He reiterates, “A nation’s language policy cannot be governed solely by politics or hasty decisions.”

 

The transition from one language to another at the national level is an undertaking that should not be taken lightly, as it concerns not only the path forward but also the legacy left for future generations. Laredj does not object to introducing English as a major language, but emphasizes that it must be done without abruptly breaking away from French, which remains widely used in Algeria to this day. The French language is deeply integrated into Algerian society, to the degree that its sudden removal would disrupt how the country functions. It is used in communication within families, for daily services, banks, professional services, and postal services, as well as throughout public administration and in cultural and intellectual life. In Laredj’s words, “In the Algerian context, it [the French language] occupies a position somewhere between a national language and a foreign one.”

 

Conscious of the prevalent use of French, Laredj questions whether Algeria is prepared, at the institutional level, to carry out the transition from French to English, given that many teachers have not received adequate pedagogical training in English. To fully remove French and adopt English, there must be adequate preparation. This is not an impossible undertaking, as he cites the successful example of Lebanon. Lebanon did not experience an abrupt or disruptive break from the French language; in fact, the language remains substantial to this day. Laredj states that his concern with Algeria’s “language question” has less to do with the decision to move away from French towards English and more with the lack of preparation and clear strategies to carry it out. These strategies should allow for input from specialists in linguistics and pedagogy. With the state of the language discourse left as it is now, the choice is only guided by political discourse centered on the demonization of French.

 

Laredj also explores another dichotomy: the depiction of the French language as a symbol of the colonizer, violence, and oppression juxtaposed against its use in many vital historical events and by writers and organizations in the struggle for Algeria’s freedom. He counters the demonization of French that portrays it solely as the language of colonial violence. He states, “It was also the language of those who sacrificed their lives for this land,” naming examples such as Maurice Audin, Fernand Iveton, who was executed by guillotine like Ahmed Zabana, as well as the members of the “Jeanson Network” (also known as the ‘Suitcase Carriers,’ or les porteurs de valises), a group of French left-wing militants who smuggled money and documents in support of the Algerian National Liberation Front. The French language, adds Laredj, served as the “medium through which a generation of Algerian intellectuals defended both their patriotism and their humanity.” Among these intellectuals are Kateb Yacine, Mohammed Dib, Assia Djebar, Malek Haddad, Tahar Djaout, Rachid Mimouni, and Yasmina Khadra, to name a few. 

 

French, despite its colonial legacy, remains deeply embedded in Algerian society and has also served as the language of anti-colonial intellectuals and independence leaders. It was also the language used by the National Liberation Movement when negotiating for Algeria’s independence during the Évian Accords. Laredj writes, "At that historical moment, French ceased to be merely the language of the colonizer; it became the language the colonizer understood. The issue was not linguistic but pragmatic." Replacing it abruptly would create practical and educational problems unless supported by comprehensive teacher training and long-term planning. 

 

A society may remember a language as part of a painful colonial past while simultaneously recognizing its practical and cultural value. Algeria's debate over replacing French with English has become overly ideological and politically driven. Rather than treating French as an enemy and English as a universal solution, Laredj advocates a strategic multilingual policy grounded in history, educational planning, and national interests.