In what constitutes a small revolution for the Spanish Senate, four regional languages have just been officially allowed within its walls. In addition to Castilian, senators indeed can now debate in Galician, Basque, Catalan and Valencian. This initiative came from thirty MPs, and has been supported by the Socialist government.

As a consequence, 25 interpreters will from now on take turns to translate the debates, for an additional cost of 350,000 euros per year. This information has quickly caused an outcry, as reported by various newspapers and blogs.

Opposition leader Mariano Rajoy (Partido Popular) sees in this decision nothing less than a “ridiculous waste” inappropriate in times of crisis. Particularly virulent, he welcomed the inauguration of the new translation service with this chilling comment: “This would simply not happen in a normal country”, before adding that “languages are made to understand each other, not to create problems”.

As for Socialist Senator Carmela Silva, ardent advocate of this measure, she has replied that the Senate being the territorial chamber it is quite logical for it to “normalize plurality”.

Does this make Spain a special case? Madrid is certainly not the only place where multilingualism is raising questions. In Brussels for example several conservative parties regularly denounce the cost incurred by the European Union for the translation of each document in all 23 official languages.

But does the establishment of a multilingual translation service really constitute an unnecessary expense? Is it a fad for rich countries only caring about trivial matters? The answer is arguably no, as one can conclude by looking towards the largest democracy in the world, India, where 23 languages as well are enshrined in the Constitution, and where the translation of debates in Parliament is certainly not an issue which may cause the ire of politicians.

Besides, the EU and India have signed a joint declaration on multilingualism in 2009. On this occasion, the European Commissioner for Multilingualism, Leonard Orban, praised India’s excellent management of its linguistic diversity, which has existed ever since the beginning of the country’s history and is regarded as perfectly natural.

Spanish Minister of Justice Francisco Caamano, an advocate of multilingualism in Parliament, has rightly observed that “some values are worth more than their mere cost”. To be constantly stressing the financial cost of multilingualism amounts to hiding the perhaps even greater cost of cultural uniformity and the disappearance of “minority” languages. Pluralism does have a price, but it induces  respect for others and allows people to live together. Who will rejoice the day when Members of Parliaments in the whole world will speak in English only ?

Read article published by The Guardian