Language policy success under judicial pressure: lessons from the Basque language normalisation process

These dynamics are closely linked to the consolidation of modern nation states, which have historically promoted linguistic homogeneity through the legitimisation of a single ‘common’ language and the gradual marginalisation of others. For this reason, linguistic minoritisation should not be understood as a natural, inevitable or irreversible process, but rather as the outcome of specific historical and political dynamics shaped by power relations that place certain languages and their speaking communities in subordinate positions within social and institutional spaces.

What is relatively distinct, both qualitatively and quantitatively, is the contemporary context. In present-day liberal democracies, the management of linguistic diversity takes place within a political and ideological framework that prioritises individual rights over collective ones. In addition, broader political and economic systems increasingly promote uniformity as a guiding principle of governance and social organisation. The centrality of individual citizenship – a defining feature of political liberalism – profoundly conditions processes of revitalisation and normalisation of minoritised languages. Yet these processes depend fundamentally on collective and community-based frameworks, precisely the kind of arrangements that this dominant approach tends to hinder or delegitimise.

Both frameworks – the historical legacy of nation-state formation and contemporary liberal governance – play a decisive role in processes of linguistic minoritisation, the hegemonisation of dominant languages and the governance of linguistic diversity. Far from operating independently, they mutually reinforce one another, generating recurring tensions between public policies, social practices and linguistic rights. This perspective is particularly useful for examining recent developments in the Basque Country, where these dynamics become concrete and especially visible.

Since their adoption, however, these measures have been subject to intense judicial challenge:

• The Spanish Constitutional Court annulled article 6.2 of the Basque Local Institutions Act (2016), which allowed internal administrative documents to be drafted solely in Basque while respecting individual linguistic rights.

• Subsequently, the High Court of Justice of the Basque Country annulled several provisions of Decree 179/2019 that enabled municipalities to prioritise Basque in ordinary administrative functioning, from planning municipal activity in Basque (even where it is socially predominant) to recognising local authorities’ competence to adapt language criteria to their sociolinguistic realities. The rulings also invalidated provisions on the preferential use of Basque in initial oral interactions, automated messages and public procurement. In practice, these decisions resulted in the removal of Basque language requirements for a significant number of public posts and stabilisation processes.

Beyond their immediate effects, these decisions reveal the interpretative framework through which courts approach linguistic diversity. Judicial reasoning has revolved around a restrictive interpretation of co-officiality, understood as the prohibition of any form of functional priority between official languages. The central argument holds that granting preferential status to one language would disrupt the supposed balance between them. Yet this reasoning rests on an abstract and fictional conception of linguistic equality, ignoring the profound asymmetries of sociolinguistic reality. Spanish occupies a dominant position in terms of speakers, institutional presence and use in formal domains, a position Basque does not share across its territory. It is therefore difficult to argue that the annulled measures disrupted a balance that did not exist, given that their explicit aim was to correct structural inequality.

In the same vein, these rulings contribute to the reproduction of a deeply misleading narrative that is reiterated until it acquires the appearance of common sense: the idea that Basque speakers constitute a privileged group, or even that Basque operates as an imposed or oppressive language. This framing is analytically untenable. Basque does not exercise structural power, nor does it occupy a hegemonic position in everyday life, in the labour market or across institutional domains. The introduction of language requirements for certain public positions cannot be equated with linguistic domination; rather, it represents a limited corrective measure within a profoundly unequal sociolinguistic field. To present such measures as ‘imposition’ obscures the actual dynamics of power at play and reverses the asymmetry between dominant and minoritised languages. In practice, it is Spanish that functions as the hegemonic language, enjoying automatic legitimacy, while Basque remains structurally subordinated.

This tension is further illustrated by judicial criticism of the requirement to declare lack of knowledge of Basque in order to use Spanish in administrative contexts. While such a requirement is deemed problematic, the reverse scenario is virtually unthinkable. Legal neutrality thus reproduces an asymmetry in favour of the dominant language.

These rulings have also had a direct impact on public employment, annulling language requirements linked to specific posts and stabilisation processes. Judicial reasoning prioritises the individual right of access to public office over a collective conception of citizenship and language planning, reflecting a liberal understanding of citizenship based almost exclusively on individual rights. This approach treats individuals as interchangeable and shows clear resistance to recognising collective linguistic rights, overlooking the fact that the transmission, use and institutional presence of minoritised languages depend on collective frameworks and proactive public policies.

This reluctance is inseparable from the historical legacy of nation-state formation, long grounded in ideals of monolingualism and cultural homogeneity. That legacy continues to shape contemporary limits on the recognition of ethnolinguistic groups and constrains the development of genuinely collective language policies.