What Esperanto Costs Us, and Why We Keep Paying

When the Meridian Convention adopted Esperanto as the federal language in 1994, the delegates chose something that no region had spoken natively, that no region could claim as its own inheritance. That choice was deliberate. It was also costly, and it remains costly every day. A Spanish speaker from Tierra Verde must learn Esperanto to vote in federal elections. A Scandinavian speaker from Nord Europa must do the same. The cost is real. We should acknowledge it plainly rather than pretend that Esperanto is a neutral choice that costs nothing.

But the alternative cost would have been higher. Had the Convention chosen Spanish, the Scandinavian and Scandinavian-derived speakers of Nord Europa would have borne the burden of learning a language they did not speak at home. Had it chosen English, Tierra Verde's cooperative communities and Nord Europa's plateau towns would have felt the weight of a language associated with global capital and Atlantic power. Had it chosen one of the languages of Oriente Moderno, the other three regions would have faced the same alienation. Every choice would have imposed a price. Esperanto's price is paid equally by all four regions, which is precisely why it was chosen.

The Federal Translation Centre now operates in all four regional capitals and twelve overseas annexes. Every federal document is translated into the four regional working languages. The Assembly's Wednesday Question Time is interpreted live. The cost of this machinery is substantial. Yet we pay it because we learned long ago that a federal language which citizens cannot speak in their homes is a language that will breed resentment. Esperanto is the federal tongue, but it is not the only tongue. The Republic's stability rests on that distinction.

As the suffrage question moves toward resolution, some have suggested that virtual citizens should be allowed to vote in federal elections only after demonstrating fluency in Esperanto. We understand the logic. But we would caution the Assembly against it. The price of Esperanto is already steep. To make it steeper—to make it a gate through which some citizens must pass and others need not—would be to transform a language of unity into a language of division. That would unmake what the Convention built.