World
What’s South Africa’s new school language law and why is it controversial?
A new education law in South Africa is dividing lawmakers and sparking angry emotions in a country with a complex racial and linguistic history.
Last Friday, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) bill into law but suspended the implementation of two hotly contested sections for at least three months for further consultations among opposing government factions.
Authorities insist that the law will make education more equitable. Stark economic inequalities in South Africa have contributed to lower literacy and post-school opportunities for the country’s Black majority. By 2022, even though 34.7 percent of Black teenagers had completed secondary school – up from 9.4 percent in 1996 – only 9.3 percent of Black people had a tertiary education. By comparison, 39.8 percent of the white population had a tertiary education.
“The law that we are signing today further opens the doors of learning. It lays a firm foundation for learning from an early age … It will ensure young children are better prepared for formal schooling,” Ramaphosa said during the signing event in Pretoria.
But critics of the law, mainly from the Afrikaans-speaking community, argue that clauses strengthening the government’s oversight over school language and admission policies would threaten mother-tongue education.
Here’s what to know about BELA and why some groups disagree with parts of the law:
What’s BELA and why is it controversial?
The new amendment modifies older school laws in the country: the South African Schools Act of 1996 and the Employment of Educators Act of 1998.
It includes new provisions, such as a ban on corporal punishment for children, jail terms for parents who fail to send their children to school, compulsory grade levels for children starting school, and increased scrutiny for homeschooling.
However, Sections 4 and 5, which regulate languages of instruction in school, and school admission policies, are causing upheaval among Afrikaans-speaking minority groups.
The clauses allow schools to develop and choose their languages of instruction out of South Africa’s 11 official languages, as well as their admissions policy. However, it also gives the National Department of Basic Education the final authority, allowing it to override any decisions. Until now, school boards had the highest authority on languages and admissions.
Authorities in the past have cited how some schools exclude children, especially from Black communities, based on their inability to speak Afrikaans as one reason for the policy update.
Following South Africa’s break from apartheid, Black parents were allowed to send their children to better-funded, previously white-only schools where Afrikaans was often the main instruction language.
Some Black parents, however, claimed their wards were denied placements because they did not speak Afrikaans. Accusations of racism in school placements continue to be an issue: in January 2023, scores of Black parents protested in front of the Laerskool Danie Malan, a school in Pretoria that largely uses Afrikaans and Setswana (another official African language), claiming their children were denied for “racist” reasons. However, the school authorities rejected the claim, and other Black parents confirmed to local media that their children attended the institution.
Why are some Afrikaans speakers upset over BELA?
Some Afrikaans speakers say the new law threatens their language and, by extension, their culture and identity. Afrikaans-speaking schools also accuse the authorities of pressuring them to instruct in English.
Afrikaans is a mixture of Dutch vernacular, German and native Khoisan languages, which developed in the 18th century. It is predominantly spoken in South Africa by about 13 percent of the 100 million population. They include people from the multiracial “coloured” community (50 percent) and white descendants of Dutch settlers (40 percent).
Some Black people (9 percent) and South African Indians (1 percent) also speak Afrikaans, particularly those who lived through apartheid South Africa, when the language was more widely used in business and schools. It is more commonly spoken in the Northern and Western Cape provinces.
Of a total of 23,719 public schools, 2,484 — more than 10 percent — use Afrikaans as their sole or second language of instruction, while the vast majority teach in English. Some Afrikaans speakers argue that giving locally elected officials more power to determine a school’s language will politicise the matter and could lead to fewer schools teaching in Afrikaans. Many also fault the section of the law that allows government officials to override admissions policy.
“There is only a government of national disunity,” one commenter posted on the website of the South African newspaper Daily Maverick on Friday about the divisions within the coalition Government of National Unity (GNU) that have emerged amid the language row.
“By opting to destroy Afrikaans and Afrikaans schools and universities, the ANC and Cyril are making a mockery of unity. This is what happens if the provincial department can unilaterally control the admission of learners and language mediums at schools,” the commenter said, referring to Ramaphosa and his party, the African National Congress (ANC).
Last week, Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen, who is the leader of the Democratic Alliance (DA), the second-largest party in the GNU, condemned the government’s decision to move ahead with the bill despite reservations among the ANC’s coalition partners.
The politician, who is Afrikaner, also threatened a tit-for-tat response if the law is eventually signed as is.
“The DA will have to consider all of our options on the way forward … Any leader who tries to ride roughshod over their partners will pay the price – because a time will come when the shoe is on the other foot, and they will need the understanding of those same partners in turn,” he said.
Education Minister Siviwe Garube, a Black member of the DA, did not attend the signing ceremony in Pretoria in a show of defiance.
What is the history of school language controversies in South Africa?
Afrikaans is historically emotive in South Africa, dating back to British colonial rule.
To some, Afrikaans represents self-determination, but to many more, particularly in the Black community, it evokes memories of the brutal days of segregation and apartheid.
Originally, Afrikaans was regarded as an unsophisticated version of Standard Dutch. It was called “kitchen Dutch”, referencing the enslaved Cape populations who spoke it in the kitchen and to their settler masters. In the late 1800s, after the first and second Boer wars that saw Dutch settlers or “Boers” fight their British colonists and win independence, Afrikaans came to be regarded as a language of freedom for the white population. In 1925, it was adopted as an official language.
During the apartheid years, however, Afrikaans became synonymous with oppression for the majority Black population which faced the worst forms of subjugation under the system. Some scholars note (PDF) that the apartheid government uprooted Black families from urban areas to destitute self-governed “Bantustans” (homelands) partly based on their inability to speak the two official languages at the time, Afrikaans and English.
Most Black schools in South Africa at the time taught in English, as it was regarded as the language for Black emancipation. However, the government attempted to impose both English and Afrikaans as compulsory medium languages in schools starting from 1961.
That move ignited a series of student protests in June 1976 in the majority-Black community of Soweto, where the policy was meant to be implemented first. Between 176 and 700 people were killed when apartheid security forces used deadly force on schoolchildren in what is now known as the Soweto Uprising.
Apartheid authorities rescinded the language policy in July 1976. When Black schools were allowed to choose their medium of education, more than 90 percent opted for English. None chose the other African languages, such as Xhosa or Zulu, which the apartheid government had also pushed: it was seen as a measure to promote tribalism and divide the Black community. In addition to those, the country’s other official languages are Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, Siswati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga and Ndebele.
What’s next?
Authorities say the different arms of government will debate Sections 4 and 5 for the next three months. However, barring a resolution, the law will fully be implemented as is, President Ramaphosa said.
Meanwhile, Afrikaner rights groups such as the AfriForum, have declared they will contest the decision in court. The group has been described as having “racist” leanings, although it denies this.
“Afrikaans has already been eroded in the country’s public universities in a similar way,” Alana Bailey, AfriForum’s cultural affairs head, said in a statement last week.
“The shrinking number of schools that still use Afrikaans as a language of instruction now is the next target. AfriForum is therefore preparing for both national and international legal action to oppose this,” she added.
World
Video: A Small Election Could Change British Politics
new video loaded: A Small Election Could Change British Politics
transcript
transcript
A Small Election Could Change British Politics
Voters in the northern English district of Makerfield cast ballots on Thursday to choose their representative in Parliament, the outcome of which could lead to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s ouster.
-
Well, I don’t think there should be a leadership election. I think that the last government proved that parties that spend their whole time in leadership elections don’t go on to win the next general election.
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 18, 2026
World
From bear hugs to handshakes: How India lost its edge with Trump while Pakistan quietly gained ground
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
This week, President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi came face-to-face at the G7 summit in France, their first such encounter since February 2025. Rather than his trademark bear hug, Modi greeted Trump with a smile and handshake.
Then on Wednesday, the two held a bilateral meeting. It was a friendly chat, but one that came against a backdrop of compounding tensions.
As India works at restoring its relationship with Washington, its arch-foe Pakistan has expanded its own diplomatic profile, complicating India’s campaign against its nuclear-armed rival.
COMMERCE SECRETARY HOWARD LUTNICK MAKES QUIET TRIP TO INDIA DAYS AFTER TARIFF SETBACK
President Donald Trump looks at Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif speaking following the official signing of the first phase of the Gaza ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas. Shariff announced his intention to nominate Trump for the Noble Peace Prize for a second time. (Evelyn Hockstein / Reuters)
For years, India built an international case against Pakistan, projecting it as an isolated or destabilizing state. This hardline stance appeared to be working, with Modi declaring to Pakistan, “India has been successful in isolating you, and we will intensify those efforts.”
But a decade later, Pakistan is rapidly emerging as a key global player in the region and beyond.
While Modi initially tried to engage Pakistan, his government’s approach eventually hardened around the mantra that “terror and talks cannot coexist.”
In Washington, India has typically been favored, with Presidents Trump, Biden, Obama and George W. Bush all making visits during their time in office.
President Donald Trump (R) shakes hands with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a bilateral meeting at the G7 Summit on June 17, 2026 in Evian-les-Bains, France. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Modi built a rapport with Trump during his first term in office and was one of the first world leaders invited to the White House after Trump’s inauguration. But over the past year, that relationship has come under strain as Islamabad quietly clawed its way back to credibility.
“India misjudged Trump in term two, banking on once friendly relations,” Sid Dubey, a visiting professor at Bennett University in India, told Fox News Digital. “They have yet to start recovering from that.”
PRESIDENT TRUMP, INDIA’S MODI TO TACKLE TRADE, TARIFF TENSIONS AT HIGH-STAKES MEETING
U.S. President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi wave to the crowd at Sardar Patel Stadium in Ahmedabad, India, Monday, Feb. 24, 2020. India poured on the pageantry with a joyful, colorful welcome for President Donald Trump on Monday that kicked off a whirlwind 36-hour visit meant to reaffirm U.S.-India ties while providing enviable overseas imagery for a president in a re-election year. (AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)
The shift first became apparent in May 2025, when President Trump announced he had secured a ceasefire between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. The fighting had come over India-administered Kashmir and was the worst in decades.
Islamabad promptly praised Trump for ending the deadly dispute and even nominated him for a Nobel Peace Prize. New Delhi, however, rejected the claim, insisting the ceasefire was the result of direct bilateral talks with Pakistan.
The response reflected India’s long-standing sensitivity to third-party involvement in what it fiercely maintains is a bilateral dispute.
In the months that followed, frictions only deepened.
FILE — In this Jan. 11, 2013 file photo, a Pakistani Ranger in black uniform and his Indian counterpart march during a flag-off ceremony, at the joint Pakistan-India border check post of Wagah near Lahore, Pakistan. (AP Photo/K.M. Chaudary, File)
President Trump hit India with some of the steepest tariffs imposed on any major economy. Meanwhile, U.S. sanctions pressure on Russian oil rattled energy import-dependent India, while disputes over H-1B visas added further strain. Analysts say Trump’s America First agenda increasingly overshadowed the friendship Modi had cultivated during Trump’s first term.
“When Trump unfortunately said the May 2025 clash ended because of him personally, that upset India a lot, and they made that known,” Dubey said. “Then the tariffs were another slap in India’s face. Meanwhile, Pakistan took advantage, leaving India at a bit of a loss. From there, relations fell further with the Iran conflict.”
India is among the countries most indirectly affected by the strategic fallout from the Iran war, facing economic pressure and mounting energy concerns.
IRAN WAR FUELS ASIA ENERGY CRUNCH AS INDIA, JAPAN, OTHERS FEEL STRAIN
Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf meets with chief of Defence Forces of Pakistan, Field Marshal Asim Munir, in Tehran, Iran, May 23, 2026. (Iranian Parliament Speaker Office/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via Reuters)
Last week, a U.S. strike further exacerbated tensions after three Indian seafarers became collateral damage in the conflict. They were the first and only seafarers confirmed killed as part of the U.S. blockade, sparking outrage across India.
New Delhi instantly summoned Washington’s Chargé d’Affaires Jason Meeks, expressing deep concern over the renewed attacks and arguing that its nationals were becoming casualties in a war not their own.
India also warned of the broader humanitarian, economic, and energy consequences of the conflict, which are expected to linger even as an agreement has now been reached.
U.S. Vice President JD Vance, center, walks with Pakistan’s Chief of Defence Forces and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshall Asim Munir, left, and Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar after arriving for talks with Iranian officials in Islamabad, Pakistan, Saturday, April 11, 2026. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool via AP Photo)
All the while, Pakistan was gaining diplomatic visibility, finding itself in the unusual position of currying favor in Washington while maintaining deep ties with China, Iran and the Gulf states.
Pakistan’s prominent role in recent months highlighted how Islamabad has been more nimble in its diplomacy than India,” Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Sadanand Dhume told Fox News Digital. “Additionally, Pakistan decisively outmaneuvered India’s quixotic bid to isolate Pakistan on the world stage.”
Regional dynamics have also been reshaped by the two rivals’ competing strategies. India has deepened its strategic partnership with the U.S. through alliances such as the Quad partnership with the U.S., Australia, and Japan and has expanded cooperation across South Asian states, including a burgeoning relationship with Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s growing regional relevance has been reflected in its strengthened ties with China, improved relations with regional partners like Bangladesh and expanded security cooperation with Gulf states.
RUBIO VISIT TO INDIA PUSHES DEEPER ENERGY TIES AS IRAN CONFLICT RATTLES GLOBAL OIL MARKETS
Additionally, Trump, who accused Pakistan of “deceit and lies” during his first term, has since repeatedly praised its leadership. In June 2025, the president invited Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir to the White House for a high-profile lunch meeting.
Munir was the first Pakistani military chief who was not also president to be hosted by a U.S. president. He also led the war effort against India earlier that year.
In this photo released by the Inter Services Public Relations, Pakistan’s Chief of Defense Forces and Army Chief Gen. Asim Munir, center, Pakistan Naval Chief Admiral Naveed Ashraf, left, and Pakistan Air Force Chief Air Chief Marshal Zaheer Ahmed Babar attend a guard of honor ceremony at the joint military command headquarters in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, Monday, Dec. 8, 2025. (Inter Services Public Relations via AP)
Trump described Munir as his “favorite Field Marshal” and an “exceptional human being.”
Their relationship has been further reflected in trade deals and, most recently, Pakistan’s role as a principal mediator in restoring diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran.
“India tried to make Pakistan an international pariah. Instead, Pakistan has wormed its way into Trump’s good books through a combination of concrete co-operation with the U.S. and outrageous flattery of the president, leading to Trump elevating Field Marshal Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif as heroes,” Dhume said.
India, meanwhile, has maintained close ties with Israel while generally sticking to more measured messaging.
TRUMP’S FAVORITE FIELD MARSHAL: WHO IS PAKISTAN’S POWERFUL ARMY CHIEF ASIM MUNIR WITH DEEP INTEL TIES
On June 15, upon the agreement of a deal with Iran, Modi released a statement, saying, “India hopes that the implementation of this understanding will help restore peace and stability in the region and ensure the freedom of navigation and commerce.”
“Hats off to Pakistan. They worked really hard to bring this awfully disruptive war with Iran to an end,” Dubey told Fox. “India unfortunately lost out by not seeking to be a problem solver like Pakistan. It could have played its cards better as a peacemaker, given its traditionally strong relations with Tehran.”
Still, analysts caution these are rapidly evolving dynamics. There is no guarantee that Pakistan’s current moment will last, and the tide for India could still turn.
“Pakistan’s mediation role has allowed it to substantially reset its international image. It has positioned itself as a responsible international actor rather than a rogue state responsible for both nuclear proliferation and exporting Islamic terrorism. How long this lasts depends in large measure on two things: will Pakistan find a way to remain in Trump’s good books, and will it be able to change its behavior sufficiently to convince the world that it has indeed turned over a new leaf,” Dhume told Fox News Digital.
Meanwhile, India is working to regain its position and show the U.S. it is still a reliable partner.
Marco Rubio visited India last month, his first since becoming Trump’s top diplomat last year, which was widely seen as an attempt to reset ties.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks as President Donald Trump looks on during a cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on April 30, 2025. (JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images)
Trump and Modi’s G7 meeting marked another significant step.
Trump praised Modi as “calm, cool and totally killer” and said he would be traveling to India “sometime in the future.” India has been pressing Trump for a visit, potentially as part of a broader meeting involving Japan and Australia.
Trump also said the United States would defend India.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“If anybody attacks that man, we’re going to be there,” Trump said, referring to Modi. “Now, if there’s a new leader, I’m not sure about it.”
The Pakistani and Indian governments did not respond to Fox News Digital requests for comment.
World
EU of six, not 27, is needed to ‘stay relevant’ – Bruno Le Maire
Working with a coalition of six core European countries instead of 27 is the best way to reinforce Europe, former French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire told Euronews on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Évian, France.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
His comments come as the European Union looks for ways to streamline its decision-making process and become more agile on key issues from defence to foreign policy.
“The single lesson that all the European leaders must draw from the past months, and I would say from the last two years, is that if they want to be relevant and strong, they need to be united. And they don’t need to unite with 27 member states,” he said in a Euronews interview.
“They need to give a new impetus to the European construction by building a European [project] with six core countries,” Le Maire, who was the longest-serving economy and finance minister since World War II and the shortest-serving minister for armed forces, note
Le Maire listed France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, and the Netherlands — the EU’s six largest economies — as the states that should band together to discuss key issues facing the bloc, ranging from the Iran conflict and support for Ukraine to chip manufacturing on European soil and nuclear energy.
“Six countries instead of 27 countries is the best way of reinforcing Europe, of facing the threats posed by many empires around the world, and getting some concrete results,” he said.
Le Maire pointed to the pressure from the US administration against the EU, including tariffs and threats over regulatory standards, in response to Brussels’ antitrust fines and digital regulations targeting American tech giants like Google and Amazon.
“We can no longer accept being blackmailed […]. The way President Trump and the US administration are saying, ‘You should get rid of the taxation of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft, otherwise, I will hit you with new tariffs,’ is 100% unacceptable among allies,” he said.
“If we want to resist that kind of threat, that kind of blackmail […] the six strongest European member states must stand united […]. If we are divided, you cannot resist that pressure,” he said.
“If you stand united, explaining that it will be difficult for the US to gain access to the European market if they do not respect Europe as a partner, that is the best way of getting some concrete results.”
Too much talk, too few decisions
Often held up by a principle of unanimity, Le Maire told Euronews that involving 27 countries to form a consensus on EU decision-making means “long talks and very few decisions”, while what is needed now is “strong decisions and fewer talks.”
He envisioned a structure in which the six core countries move forward on matters, and “then the 21 other member states, if they want to join, they will join,” adding, “first of all, let’s move on.”
The idea of this coalition is not new. In fact, it already exists in some shape or form.
Earlier this year, the finance ministers of Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain launched a new coalition, dubbed the “E6”, to push for “decisive action and swift progress” in four strategic areas: defence, supply chains, the Savings and Investments Union, and strengthening the euro internationally.
“We are providing the impetus, and other countries are welcome to join us,” German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil said at the time. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, endorsed this two-speed Europe concept as a way of bolstering the European economy.
In May, the E6 signed a joint letter calling for an acceleration of the Capital Markets Union (CMU) in an attempt to get a deal through a politically stagnant Brussels.
The CMU aims at creating a single, integrated market for capital across all 27 member states to service companies, investors and consumers.
-
Los Angeles, Ca3 minutes agoArmed, dangerous CHP pursuit suspect tied to double homicide in Pomona
-
Detroit, MI21 minutes agoFirst responders honored after rescuing 12 people from capsized sailboats near Belle Isle
-
San Francisco, CA33 minutes agoOakland man faces hate crime charges for Castro District attack
-
Dallas, TX36 minutes agoAt least 4 injured after vehicle drives into Dallas crowd, driver arrested
-
Miami, FL41 minutes agoMiami Central students prepare for life changing trip to Zimbabwe amid funding challenges
-
Boston, MA48 minutes agoGiannis to Boston is a possibility. Should the Knicks be worried?
-
Denver, CO51 minutes agoDenver Public Schools’ decline in enrollment continues to reshape district
-
Seattle, WA56 minutes agoWoo twirls 7 scoreless innings in bounceback outing vs. Orioles