Cécile Moulin
Within Swiss Federal offices, the national languages struggle to find a way to be used equally. Discriminations in the professional field result in non-existent job opportunities for their employees, regardless of their native language. Due to a major inclination for German, the neglect of the rest of the national languages is the main issue to resolve in order to bring back linguistic balance in the Federal Administration.
Keywords: Switzerland – Federal Offices – Multilingualism – Injustice – Equality – Discrimination
THE BITTER TRUTH ABOUT SWITZERLAND
In a utopic world, Switzerland’s multilingualism is thriving within every citizen. What we call “the Swiss model”, or more specifically “receptive multilingualism” may almost be considered as flawless. Receptive multilingualism consists in “a mutual understanding” (Stotz 2006: 247), an intelligible comprehension of a language which one is not fluent in, thus allowing the four national languages, which include German, French, Italian and Romansh, to coexist altogether while allowing every citizen to communicate with each other. Amongst the four national languages, German is the most spoken, followed by French, Italian and then Romansh. This linguistic peace has been symbolically helping the country stay united. It has been coveted by other nations and regarded as an emblematic Swiss feature. Nonetheless, while this linguistic model officially appears to be strong and sufficient when it comes to its requested linguistic quota in federal offices, the reality is slightly different and far from its expected perfection. While Switzerland has four national languages, federal offices acknowledge only three official languages, namely German, French and Italian and are legally deemed them as equal. Minority national languages of Switzerland seems to be insufficiently represented and suffer from discrimination. To counter this inequality, several measures have already been implemented but there is still work to be done to fix the current unfairness that minor languages are experimenting. An analysis of the Swiss linguistic situation within the federal offices will be presented along with the introduction of the numerous professional issues of unfairness that such circumstances led to. To complete this research, it is important to focus on future key solutions in order to improve the current representation of minor national languages within the federal.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
In every federal office (for example, the Federal Chancellery, the Federal Department of Justice and Police, or the Federal Department of Home Affairs), it is required by the Federal Council that the percentage of employed native speakers of one national language matches with its specific linguistic regional population (Weil 1995: 35). Although this example proves that Swiss-Germans are well-represented, this is not the case for the remaining languages. It is also necessary to keep in mind that, legally, each person has “the right to be able to practice their own language” (Kübler et al. 2009: 4) but this concept is far from being respected since a general habit to favour German, regardless of one’s native language, is quite widespread. This issue causes minority languages to become slightly forgotten and judged unequal compared to the prevailing use of German among federal office employees (Kübler et al. 2009: 9-11). Furthermore, it seems that offices fail to deliver precise quantitative data regarding the linguistic representation within their workplace (Friedrich 2008: 6), as if this information remained to stay hidden from the public eyes. Having a minor language as one’s mother tongue does not inherently mean that one will automatically be using it to communicate in their professional field and this can be easily proven by observing the puzzling linguistic situation in Swiss federal offices. To better the speakers of minority Romance languages’ situation and especially the Italian one, the Federal Council was asked in 2008 for “a better Latin representation in every level of the federal administration” (Friedrich 2008, 6) by the Advisory Committee of the Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Unfortunately, as Friedrich notices, “the least that can be said is that the Federal Council itself does not lead by example, since it is not allowed to write a report in Italian, of which the importance is not sufficient enough to be translated into each of the three official languages. Therefore, there is doubt regarding its willingness when it promises the Ticino state [Italian-speaking] to take measures in favour of the Italian language” (Friedrich, 2008: 6). Thus, it can be assumed that the Federal Council does not see the promotion of multilingualism as an emergency matter and does not consider it problematic yet.
RESPECT MY RIGHT!
Several issues have been pointed out in previous research. The reoccurring ones were the prejudice against Italians, the domination of German along with the behaviour of employees speaking minority national languages regarding the language they choose to use its professional consequences. Kübler et al. (2009) conceived of an experiment by sending interns in two federal offices (of the same size, same importance and both in regular contact with cantonal authorities) to demonstrate that “there is a link between the representation of linguistic communities within a federal office and the practice of languages within the same office” (Kübler et al. 2009: 12). Main findings will be presented in the following paragraphs. Papadopoulos, who participated in this research, also wrote his own commentary (2011) of the study, including specific details related to their results which were omitted in the original report. Weil (1995) also wrote about the different languages used by Swiss federal office employees.
Linguistic rationalisation
Kübler et al. (2009) assert that while anyone has the right to communicate by only using their native language (as long as it is a Swiss national language), in reality, this right is barely exercised. Indeed, it seems that a new concept, named “linguistic rationalisation” (Kübler et al 2009, 4) has unofficially replaced this right. It consists of narrowing down the available languages to only one which is used by the employers and employees as the sole means of communication. This concept heavily damages linguistic identities and also impacts the Swiss administration image, as it cannot respect the right it has given to its employees. It seems that while this right is quite well-known, its practical application depends entirely on each office rules (Friedrich2008, 1). In Kübler et al.’s (2009) research, differences could be noticed between the two examined federal offices. The example offered is that office A translates its internal communications so that every employee is able to equally access and understand them while office B tends to only translates its external communications.
Behold the almighty German
In terms of linguistic representation, the domination of German is quite present. It seems that most employees working in the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport primarily include (Swiss-)German speakers (Kübler et al. 2009: 6-7). Nonetheless, it has been observed that minorities were more than accurately represented in the Federal Department of Justice and Police and the Federal Department of Home Affairs ((Kübler et al. 2009: 7). the Federal Chancellery displays a greater representation of Latin languages (French and Italian) within its employees. This is due to the fact that it is responsible for translations, which explains why minority languages are so much needed (Kübler et al. 2009: 7). Another explanation lies in the fact that minority representation in the workplace influences the language used by employees: “according to statistics, the linguistic composition of the employees of a federal office has an influence on the use of French: researchers observed that the more linguistic minorities [French, Italian and Romansh] are represented in an office, the more French is used. However, this correlation does not apply to Italian, which is used very rarely, regardless of the linguistic profile of the employees” (Kobelt 2015: 37). Needing so many French and Italian translators is explained by another inequality. Friedrich, (2008), working in the Swiss association “Helvetia Latina” whose main goal is to promote multilingualism within the federal administration, states that German is often the initial language in which the most important declarations and decisions are issued since most of executives are German speakers. Indeed, it has been observed that “nine of the most important legislative acts out of ten were originally written in German and that Italian was missing as an original language of writing” (Papadopoulos 2011: 118). Consequently, the only time where French or Italian are used as the primary language is for less important decisions regarding Switzerland. French is widely used for international matters. Unfortunately, the use of Italian cannot be considered as wide: it occurs solely during communication with Italy or official decisions revolving around Ticino. German is therefore deemed as “overused” regarding the writing of Swiss legislative acts, where the Federal Council intervenes (Kübler et al. 2009: 17).
The audacity of applying as a non-native German speaker
It has been observed that some minorities were less likely to get hired or climb up the hierarchical ladder. A repeated phenomenon has been noticed when executives were looking to hire. Indeed, they tend to hire citizens speaking the same language as they do. Since most of the executives are Swiss-German natives, this leads to them mostly hiring German-speaking employees, as few of them are “made aware of the need of cultural diversity within their service” (Papadopoulos 2011: 119). Of course, this act is not premeditated. Italian being the less common language, it is clearly disadvantaged. Thus, Italian-speaking people are less likely to be hired or become executives themselves (Kübler et al. 2009: 14). This leads to a vicious circle since, even if an Italian person is hired, they will not be able to become executive and thus will not hire more Italian employees, impacting their ratio. As a consequence, it has been observed that “the proportion of Italian-speaking applicants is significantly lower than the expected values: by an effect of self-censorship, Italian speakers are reluctant to run for federal jobs” and that “there is a pressure regarding linguistic rationalisation, so much that minorities do not claim their rights but adapt themselves by using the major language” (Papadopoulos 2011: 119). As Kübler et al. notice, “paradoxically, the rule stating that each individual has the right to express themselves in their mother tongue becomes the central core of this recruitment vicious circle, which leads to a Latin discrimination. As a consequence, the more German there are in an office, the more German applicants are to be hired, which reinforces the German representation in this office and so on” (Kübler et al. 2009: 14). Besides, during job interviews, German speakers are less likely to demonstrate their plurilingual skills because they speak the same language as their interlocutor (Kübler et al. 2009: 14). French and Italian speakers do not experiment the same linguistic comfort as they need to switch to a non-native language. Thus, they are already linguistically assessed during their interview since they need to show their German skills while German speakers might need to show their aptitudes later on the job. In some cases, their linguistic skills are not even tested (Papadopoulos 2011: 119). This deepens the gap further between linguistic equality.
BRINGING JUSTICE TO MINORITIES
Suggestions to solve the equality issue
It seems that while the Swiss linguistic quota regarding the employees working in federal offices matches with the regional proportion of each national language, the main issue lies within the actual practice of the less spoken languages, respectively French and especially Italian, since, as said earlier, Romansh was not included. Kübler et al. suggest five means to put an end to or at least decrease this injustice. These recommendations consist in “investing in the linguistic training of federal employees in order to improve their fluency in minor languages”, “increasing awareness in the internal sphere of the administration”, “erasing the linguistic bias regarding recruitment”, “promoting plurilingualism in internal administration” and “considering compelling measures regarding the linguistic representation within the employees” (Kübler et al. 2009: 16-17).
Ideas in practice
For a start, it would be a good idea to remind employees their linguistic rights within the federal administration and help them assert it as it seems that the ones speaking a minor language would rather keep a low profile and speak the major language than take a stand. It would also be interesting to select specific criteria regarding job interviews, such as the mandatory ability to speak at least two languages. These skills shall be displayed during the interview and German speakers would also need to pass the test, which they currently do not need to (Kübler et al. 2009: 14). Another possibility would be to require at least two interviewers, both speaking a different official language so that the job candidate has to sell themselves in two languages at the same time. Another solution, which is already quite common in companies, would be the establishment of language courses during working hours or also outside of work, using the company’s patronage. Each employee who does not display sufficient bilingual (or plurilingual) abilities must attend these courses regularly for linguistic improvement. Indeed, these means would lead to an increase of French and Italian comprehension, if not fluency. In this way, employees would be equally treated during job interviews and have better chances to reach higher job functions, regardless of their habitual language Furthermore, federal offices should be held responsible for their linguistic ratio and should face consequences when they do not respect the legally required percentage. Another way to promote multilingualism further would be to emphasise national languages teaching since as of today, “a decision for English as a first foreign language has been made or is imminent” (Stotz 2006: 259). English replacing receptive multilingualism and playing the role of a new lingua franca hugely impacts Swiss identity since people already start switching to English to communicate with each other, when they do not share the same mother tongue. English being introduced as a first foreign language at school, instead of one of the national languages, will likely “attack […] harmony among the linguistic communities” (Stotz 2006: 260). Following the previous statements, Swiss multilingualism is deemed to be still “imperfect” (Papadopoulos 2011: 118). Encouraging people to actually speak two or more national languages would reinforce the societal cohesion and lead us to a more harmonious relationships towards our linguistic representation and allow our “mythical” multilingual peace to finally coincide with reality.
Bibliography
Friedrich, P. 2008. Rapport de l’observatoire des langues. Berne. 9 p. URL: http://www.helvetia-latina.ch/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/rapport_OdL_2007corr.pdf.
Kobelt, E. 2015. Enjeux du plurlinguisme à l’administration fédérale: la représentativité à l’épreuve de l’efficacité. Doctoral thesis, Université de Lausanne.
Kübler, D., Papadoupoulos, I. & Mazzoleni, O. 2009. Le plurilinguisme de la Confédération. Représentations et pratiques linguistiques dans l’administration fédérale. Bern: Fonds national suisse. 1-19.
Papadopoulos, I. 2011. Le plurilinguisme imparfait de l’administration fédérale suisse. Les cahiers de l’Orient. 3.103, 118-120.
Stotz, D. 2006. Breaching the peace: struggles around multilingualism in Switzerland. Language Policy. 5.3, 247-265.
Weil, S. 1995. Présentation de la situation plurilingue dans l’administration fédérale: un exemple de communication en entreprise. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée. 62, 35-55.