 |
|
|
Text preluat de pe saitul: www.unesco.org |
|
MOST Journal on Multicultural
Societies, Vol. 3, No. 2
ISSN 1564-4901 ©
UNESCO, 2001
| Abstract
The paper examines development of the language legislation in three Baltic states - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - after the restoration of their independence. The author describes the regulations determining the status of the state language and the languages of national minorities, as well as governing the use of languages in elected bodies, before public authorities, in media, in education, and in employment. Possible inconsistencies with the provisions of the international instruments on minority rights are identified. The author analyses the main features of the language policies in the Baltic states, and proposes his own theory concerning the main factors affecting the formation of these policies.
0. Introduction: Linguistic situation in the Baltic states 0.1. All three Baltic states regained their independence after the collapse of the USSR in 1991 what put an end to a half-century long Soviet annexation. For Estonia and Latvia, the period of pre-war independence was rather short, and the processes of state- and nation-building had been far from completed. After the Second World War, Estonia and Latvia experienced large-scale immigration of a predominantly Slavic population: in the late 1980s, the proportion of ethnic Estonians in the total population of Estonia dropped to 62 per cent, and of ethnic Latvians in Latvia to 52 per cent. In Lithuania, the proportion of ethnic Lithuanians remained at approximately 80 per cent. 0.2. These demographic changes brought about a substantial alteration of the linguistic situation. Although the use of the Baltic languages was formally permitted in different areas, as is evident in the parallel system of public education in Russian and in the Baltic languages from kindergarten to university level, and the relatively generous financing for the publication of Baltic literature and the development of arts, the overall sphere in which they functioned was severely curtailed. In the areas of state government, transport, industry, military, public safety and security only the "imperial" language, Russian, was allowed for official use. This situation could be described as "diglossia", or asymmetrical bilingualism with clear domination of one language, and gradual suppression of another. 0.3. This asymmetry was also manifested in the language proficiency of the Baltic residents in the Soviet period. In 1989, only 22.3 per cent of ethnic Russians in Latvia had proficiency in the Latvian language (Kamenska 1995). In Estonia and Lithuania, the corresponding figures were 13.7 per cent and 33.5 per cent (1). By the 1990s, this situation had changed considerably: in 1995, already 55.8 per cent of ethnic Russians claimed fluency in the Latvian language (Druviete. 1998). However, as the years passed, the progress in this field slowed substantially: for the population census conducted in Latvia in 2000, 58.5 per cent of ethnic Russians said they were proficient in Latvian (2). Overall, the proportion of people in Latvia able to speak Latvian (81.7 per cent) was less than those able to speak Russian (84.4 per cent) (3). 0.4. After the restoration of independence, development of the new linguistic legislation became one of the major challenges for the restored states. It is important to note that the states themselves were not acting alone in this field. Although Russian-speaking minorities, poorly mobilised and largely disenfranchised due to restrictive citizenship legislation (the so-called "legal continuity" concept) (4) could hardly have a serious impact on shaping of the new language legislation, external actors were much more actively involved. International organisations, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, and later the European Union played an important role in the shaping of the new language legislation. Russia also played a role in the development of such legislation. 0.5. This paper will briefly describe the main features of the linguistic legislation developed in the Baltic states since late 1980s, and will analyse the main factors, trends and controversies in this field. 1. Development of linguistic legislation after the restoration of independence 1.1. The language issue was a central factor behind the mass mobilisation for the drive for independence of the Baltic states in late 1980s. Domination by the Russian language gave rise to widespread concerns about the "imminent extinction" of Latvian, and slogans aimed at the protection of language were actively supported by a great majority of ethnic Latvians. 1.2. Even before the very idea of independence appeared explicitly on the public agenda, the Supreme Soviets (Soviet-time parliaments) of three Baltic states had adopted special declarations assigning Estonian, Lithuanian and Latvian languages the status of "state language" for the corresponding republics. Furthermore, special language laws were adopted in all three Baltic countries in 1989: the Language Law of the Estonian SSR adopted 18 January 1989, the Decree on the Lithuania SSR Official Language Usage adopted 25 January 1989 and the Republic of Latvia Language Law adopted 5 May 1989. These laws essentially had a dual nature: while the aim of asserting the position of the newly re-established state languages was more than apparent, the role of Russian, the official language of the then superior state structure, had to be secured in order to avoid an overly hostile reaction from the Moscow authorities, who still maintained at that moment control over the situation in the Baltics. 1.3. However, soon after the restoration of independence, the language legislation in all three Baltic states underwent substantial changes resulting in the adoption of completely new language laws: the Estonian Language Act of 21 February 1995, the Lithuanian Law on the State Language of 31 January 1995, and the Latvian State Language Law of 21 December 1999. 1.4. In the case of Latvia, substantial amendments to the 1989 Language law which tightened its regulations considerably had already been adopted by 1992, two months before its scheduled entry into force. Many provisions of the law were made more restrictive than its former incantation and increasingly excluded the use of other languages in public administration and, in many cases, even in the private domains as was the case for public information of a private nature. 1.5. In Latvia, the new State Language draft law also appeared in 1995, but its adoption had to be delayed considerably because of harsh criticism directed at it by the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities and other international organisations. As a result of protracted debate, conducted both in public and behind-the-scenes, some provisions of the new State Language Law appeared to be even more liberal than those in force before its adoption. In particular, the new law allowed, under certain conditions, the use of other languages in public information of a private nature and at public gatherings. Simultaneously, however, the possibility to submit individual applications or complaints to state or municipal institutions in English, German and Russian envisaged by the Law of 1992, had been eliminated. 1.6. Meanwhile, numerous other acts adopted since 1990 incorporated several essential provisions relevant to language use. In the next chapters, the principal rules for the use of languages in different areas in the Baltic countries will be outlined. 2. Status of languages and recognition of minority languages 2.1. The status of the state languages has been enshrined in the Constitutions (5) of all three Baltic states: in Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Article 6 of the Constitution of Estonia and Article 4 of the Satversme - Constitution of Latvia. 2.2. The Constitutions of all three Baltic states refer to the minority language in the following, very general way:
(Article 114 of the Latvian Constitution) "Citizens who belong to ethnic communities shall have the right to foster their language, culture, and customs". (Article 37 of the Lithuanian Constitution). 2.4. The Language Act of Estonia explicitly mentions the notion of minority language in the following terms: "§ 2. Foreign language.
2.7. Some clauses relevant to the use of minority languages have been incorporated into special laws regarding national minorities. For example, Article 1 of the Law on Ethnic Minorities of Lithuania adopted 23 November 1989, stipulates:
3. Use of languages in legislatures and elected municipal bodies 3.1. Legislatures in all three Baltic states must perform their functions using only the state language. As for municipal bodies, Article 52(2) of the Estonian Constitution permits the use of the language of the majority of the permanent residents:
3.3. The Lithuanian Law on Ethnic Minorities of 1989 stipulates in Article 4:
3.4. Although no language requirements exist in Lithuania for candidates running in parliamentary and municipal elections, in Estonia and Latvia these requirements are established by law. In Estonia, the regulations determine language requirements for all candidates elected to the national or local legislature. However, the regulations are silent with regard to procedures designed to ensure such requirements. 3.5. In contrast, corresponding laws in Latvia stipulate exigent requirements which candidates must meet: persons who cannot demonstrate the highest level of proficiency in the state language cannot stand for elections. 3.6. Of more substance, the amendments to the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) Election Act adopted in December 1998 explicitly required that all elected members of Parliament are proficient in the Estonian language (7). 3.7. Identical amendments were simultaneously made to the Local Government Council Election Act. As mentioned above, the legislation does not include a framework of formal procedures by which the language requirements can be implemented. Nevertheless, in at least two cases, governmental bodies responsible for the implementation of the language legislation have initiated court proceedings aimed at preventing the individuals elected at the municipal level from sitting due to an alleged failure to comply with the language requirements. The court proceedings, however, were not completed before the following elections or, consequently, the expiration of the mandates of the individuals involved. 3.8. In Latvia, the language requirements for the candidates running for office in both Parliament and municipal councils are more detailed. Persons are not eligible to run in elections and should not be included in the list of candidates if they "have not mastered the national language to the highest (third) level of competence" (Article 5 paragraph 7 of the Saeima (Latvian Parliament) Election Law of 25 May 1995; Article 9 paragraph 7 of the Election Law on City and Town Councils, District Councils and Pagasts Councils of 13 January 1994). 3.9. When registering as candidates, persons who have graduated from a school that provides instruction in a language other than Latvian must attach to the list of candidates a copy of the certificate of the highest (third) knowledge level of the State language (Article 11 paragraph 5 and Article 17 paragraph 4, respectively). Moreover, even where a person possesses the required certificate, the State Language Inspectorate can assess the person, and if the language inspector concludes that the candidate’s language proficiency does not correspond to the highest knowledge level, the candidate will be removed from the list of candidates. 3.10. This occurred during the municipal elections held in 1997 and 2001, and during the parliamentary elections held in 1998. In some cases, the removal of the candidate from the list resulted in the lodgement of individual complaints to the UN Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights. The plaintiffs claimed that the universal right to be elected, which cannot be restricted on the basis of language, had been violated. For one of the complaints lodged, the UN Human Rights Committee found that Articles 2 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (8) had been contravened. Another case based on similar facts has been declared admissible by the European Court of Human Rights in late 2000 but has not yet been considered on its merits. 4. The right to use minority language(s) before public authorities 4.1. The Language Act of Estonia stipulates:
4.3. According to Article 9 of the Lithuanian Law on the State Language:
4.5. In Latvia, in addition to Latvian, the Language Law of 1989/1992 allowed applications to public officials to be made in English, German, and Russian. Civil servants were given the choice of answering in either Latvian or the language used in the application. However, the 1999 State Language Law abandoned such a liberal approach. According to Article 10 of this law:
4.7. Thus, the right to use minority language when dealing with public authorities is severely restricted, particularly in Latvia. After the new State Language Law took effect on 1 September 2000, several cases were reported where individuals had made complaints regarding the effective denial of the basic rights guaranteed by Latvian law as a result of the provisions of Article 10 (9). The individuals involved were not sufficiently fluent in Latvian to prepare a complaint concerning abuse by the police or local authorities, to complete applications to social security office, or to make submissions of similar importance. Nor did they have adequate funds to pay for the required translation and/or certification which meant that their applications were not accepted by public institutions. It should be mentioned that the Latvian Constitution stipulates that:
5. Professional and occupational language requirements 5.1. The language laws of all three Baltic states prescribe obligatory proficiency in the state language for employees in certain fields. Provisions enshrined in the earlier versions of Latvian and Estonian language laws caused protracted controversy in that the new laws extended the application of the language requirements to include employees working in the private sector. Only after the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities and the European Commission became actively involved, was a compromise achieved. 5.2. Thus, Latvian State Language law requires that all employees of state and municipal institutions, courts and judicial agencies, state and municipal enterprises and companies in which the state or a municipality holds the largest share of the capital have knowledge of the state language. Employees of private institutions, organisations and enterprises, as well as people who are self-employed, must use the state language if their activities relate to legitimate public interests such as public safety, health, morals, health care, protection of consumer rights and labour rights, workplace safety and public administrative supervision or if they "perform certain public functions" envisaged by law or other normative acts (Article 6). 5.3. The Estonian Language Act contains very similar provisions (Article 5). However, the Lithuanian Law on the State Language mentions private institutions only implicitly in the following terms:
5.6. Initially, three levels of language proficiency were introduced in Latvia – basic, intermediate and advanced. However, regulations adopted in August 2000 by the government of Latvia replaced this system with 6 levels. 5.7. The complex and voluminous content of these regulations and the adoption of numerous amendments and interpretative documents make a more comprehensive analysis of the regulations in this paper impossible. However, a brief analysis reveals that almost all medium-ranking and high-ranking officials and state servants are required to have the highest level of language proficiency. That is, a successful career in any area of public service or state sector or in the legal professions presupposes perfect knowledge of the state language. It should be noted that, in addition to these regulations, other pieces of legislation also include language requirements for particular professions. For example, the Latvian Law on Education stipulates that all teachers employed in state or municipal educational institutions must have the highest level of command of the Latvian language (Article 50 of the Education Law of 1998). 5.8. As a consequence of the introduction of these language requirements many hundreds of thousands of people have had to take exams to prove their command of the state languages. Moreover, these requirements have impacted heavily on re-shaping the representation of native speakers of titular languages and Russian-speakers in the state and municipal sector: today Russian-speakers are vastly under-represented in the state sector and are employed mostly in the private sphere. 6. Languages in media 6.1. No language restrictions exist in any of the Baltic states in the field of printed media. However, the situation regarding the electronic media in Estonia and Latvia is markedly different. 6.2. Article 25 of the Estonian Language Act requires that, during broadcasts, "foreign language text shall be accompanied by an adequate translation into Estonian". However, radio broadcasts "which are aimed at a foreign language audience" are explicitly exempted from this requirement (paragraph 3). Moreover, paragraph 2 of Article 35 of the 1994 Broadcasting Act requires that at least one of the two Eesti Raadio (public radio) channels air "in a foreign language". This clause used to be interpreted as implying broadcasts in the language of the largest Russian minority. However, paragraph 4 Article 25 of the Estonian Language Act, introduced as an amendment in 1997, limits the volume of foreign language news programmes and live foreign language programmes on both public and private television which can be broadcast without translation into Estonian under paragraph 2, to no more than 10 per cent "of the volume of weekly original production". 6.3. In Latvia, the share of broadcasts on private radio and television channels in languages other than Latvian must not exceed 25 per cent of the total amount of daily broadcasting (Article 19 of the Radio and Television Law of 1995). As for public television and radio, the first channel must broadcast exclusively in the state language, whereas the same law allows for up to 20 per cent of broadcasting in minority languages on the second channel (Article 62 of the same law). However, these language limitations are not extended to cable and satellite TV. 6.4. In practice, these legal constraints, which are dubious to say the least in the limits that they place on freedom of expression, effectively prevent minorities from establishing their own electronic media. The restrictions placed on radio broadcasting are particularly detrimental as, in contrast to television broadcasting where a compromised solution can be achieved through dubbing or subtitling (although this obviously places broadcasters under additional financial burden), no technical means of translation are available for radio broadcasts. 6.5. Although there were no administrative proceedings reported in Estonia in respect to the above-outlined limitations, in Latvia several cases are known where private broadcasters were punished through fines or temporary suspension of their broadcasting licences for violation of the language quotas. Moreover, in at least one case where a violation was established, the corresponding supervisory body, National Radio and TV Council, demanded the outright cancellation of the broadcasting licence. A final decision in this case is still pending as at May 2001. In August 2001, the president of the media holding "Bizness & Baltija" brought a case before the Latvian Constitutional Court which questioned the language restrictions placed on private audiovisual media (10). The Constitutional Court’s judgement in this case is certain to create an important precedent and will, to a considerable extent, shape the future of minority media in Latvia and Estonia. 7. Use of languages in education 7.1. Access to education in minority languages remains the most controversial language issue in the Baltic states. The Lithuanian legislation is the most liberal in this regard. Article10 of the Law on Education of 1991 declares that:
7.3. In vocational schools in Estonia, the language of instruction is Estonian. However, the Minister of Education can decide on the use of other languages as languages of instruction under Article 18 of the Vocational Educational Institutions Act of 1998. 7.4. In Latvia, the provisions for acquiring education in minority languages are the most stringent. Article 9 of the Law on Education of 1998 permits education in languages other than Latvian only in the following cases:
7.6. Transitional provisions of this law stipulate that, beginning in the year 2004, secondary schools as well as all vocational schools must change to teaching exclusively in Latvian. In other words, the complete elimination of state and municipally financed minority language secondary education is scheduled for 2004. This provision has attracted considerable protest from a number of minority NGO and minority-based political parties, and can be expected to create significant tensions in the future if the authorities refuse to re-consider this provision before the proposed deadline. 7.7. Paragraph 2 of Article 59 of the Latvian Law on Education has also been controversial. This provision envisages possible subsidies from the state budget for private schools, however only those private educational institutions which "implement state accredited education programs in the state language" are eligible for these subsidies. Thus, minority private schools cannot claim subsidies unless they change to providing instruction in the Latvian language. 7.8. According to Article 56, a child-orphan and a child left without parental care shall receive education in the state language, regardless of whether they had already begun their education in a minority language, or the level of schooling that they had achieved when they lost their parents. 7.9. Finally, mention should be made of a number of specific aspects concerning the viability of minority schools. First, the training of teachers requires comment. All state-funded university education, according to the law, must be conducted in the state language. In addition, the law requires that all teachers in the state and municipal educational institutions have perfect proficiency in the state language. These regulations effectively prevent many potential teachers from being employed in municipal schools, and create an artificial shortage of the staff. Second, regarding the availability of training materials, the Ministry of Education does not allow use of many textbooks published outside of Latvia, while the scope of textbooks and manuals published within Latvia in minority language is limited, and they are not always of comparable quality. 8. Conclusions: main features of the language policies in the Baltic states 8.1. The historical and political upheavals of the last century – the loss and restoration of independence, considerable changes to the demographic situation, the emergence of widespread asymmetrical bilingualism as mentioned above – predetermined stringent language policies in the Baltic states. Even a brief and incomplete overview of the language legislation clearly reveals that the higher the proportion of speakers of Russian in a given population, the more rigorous the linguistic containment policy: the language legislation is visibly more liberal in Lithuania, a country with a strong ethnic Lithuanian majority of more than 80%, more severe in Estonia, and the most restrictive in Latvia, the most ethnically diverse Baltic state. 8.2. The citizenship policies in Estonia and Latvia have contributed a great deal to the development of the language legislation. Both states adopted the so called "legal continuity" approach, where only those residents who had possessed Estonian/Latvian citizenship before the annexation of 1940 and their direct descendants were "automatically" recognised as citizens after the restoration of independence. Thus, a considerable majority of the Russian-speakers – all those who arrived in Estonia or Latvia after the Second World War - did not receive citizenship and were supposed to acquire it through a process of naturalisation with rather demanding conditions, a process which has so far brought modest results. Therefore, without voting rights, the majority of the Russian-speakers in both Latvia and Estonia had little opportunity to have any input into the formulation of the linguistic legislation drafted in the 1990s. 8.3. In summary, several major trends in the language politics in the Baltic states can be identified:
2. Strengthening statehood. In the Baltic states, languages also perform very important symbolic functions. The undisputed domination by the titular languages is perceived as one of the main attributes of sovereignty, and, conversely, statehood is seen largely as a tool to protect the language. Under these circumstances, promotion of minority languages may be seen as a manifestation of disloyalty. Hence, legislators are usually reluctant to resort to this kind of action. 3. Emphasising new geo-political orientation. Promotion of the titular languages is linked with an ulterior purpose: the eradication of Russian as a symbol of the eradication of Russia’s domination. Efforts to join the European Union and NATO might seem to be undermined symbolically if Russian – "the language of oppressors" – is practised too widely. While some language purists are now hostile towards the more dangerous "invader", American English, most Balts are inclined to tolerate the vast presence of Western languages (although knowledge of them is not yet common), and are much less tolerant towards Russian. 4. Ensuring political domination. During the dismantling of the Soviet government system and the formation of new state bureaucracies, severe and allegedly excessive language requirements ensured pivotal advantages for native-speakers of the titular languages (largely ethnic Balts), and excluded the absolute majority of Slavs (11). Nationalistically-minded political groups did not conceal their more ambitious goal: that of promoting the emigration of Slavs, termed "voluntary repatriation". Liberalisation of the linguistic legislation might increase competitiveness of minorities. In the eyes of many of those who belong to the Baltic political élites, this might jeopardise the role of their states as the guarantors of the survival and domination of the titular nations within their "historical territories". 8.5. All of these often competing factors determined the main trends of the linguistic policies and the development of the language legislation which can be briefly and somewhat superficially summarised as follows:
- while minority languages are explicitly or implicitly recognised, their practice tends to be legislatively limited to certain "designated areas": activities of special "ethnic cultural societies", religious practices, and inter-personal or family relations; - there have been extremely emotional and politicised, even irrational, reactions to the language issues which is due to their perception as issues of crucial importance for the development of the re-established statehood. 8.7. Other provisions appear to be incompatible with the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and may give rise to serious allegations of discriminatory treatment of persons belonging to linguistic minorities. Prohibition of the use of minority languages before public authorities, which may, in some cases, lead to effective denial of constitutionally guaranteed rights, is perhaps the most obvious example; take for example prison inmates who do not have sufficient command in the state language and who, for obvious reasons, have no access to professional translation and notaries’ services (13). Another example is the curtailment of state funding for minority language schools, which is potentially the most explosive issue in the field of the language politics. 8.8. Strategies aimed at the integration of the societies (14) have been recently declared to be official state policies in Estonia and Latvia. This declaration clearly marks a substantial shift in the attitude of these states concerning their minorities to more liberal and balanced approach. Meanwhile, it remains to be seen how these declarations will be implemented in reality, for example, how the idea of the "integration on the basis of the state language" will be interpreted. So far several minority organisations have criticised the preliminary documents on integration for not taking into consideration important proposals put forward by minorities, for insufficiently accounting for minority rights standards, (15) and have concluded that the integration concept is actually aimed at the forced assimilation of minorities. 8.9. Despite growing bilingualism and efforts aimed at the integration of their respective societies, Estonia, Latvia, and, to a much lesser extent, Lithuania, remain deeply divided along linguistic lines. To cope effectively with this problem and to ensure the peaceful and democratic development of the Baltic states, the efforts aimed at protection and promotion of the state languages must be reconciled with the legitimate concerns and interests of their sizeable Russian-speaking minorities – a task that Estonia and Latvia have so far failed to fully resolve. 8.10. Constructive dialogue within the states is a necessary prerequisite for this kind of compromise. Thus far, internal dialogue has often been replaced with dialogue with, on the one hand, the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the European Union, and with the Russian Federation on the other. Significant cooperative efforts are required from both the titular political élites and the minority leaders. In addition, a consistent approach and permanent involvement is required from international organisations if this goal is to be achieved. Finally, further development of a free market economy, and restraint of unnecessary intervention on behalf of the state, in particular, into the use of languages in the private sphere, will undoubtedly facilitate the achievement of reasonable and compromised solutions.
Notes
Bibliography DRUVIETE, I. 1998. Latvian language policy in the context of European Union. Brief summary. Riga: Academy of Science Institute of the Latvian Language. JARVE, P. "Language Legislation in the Baltic States: Changes of Rationale?". 2000. Paper presented on the Panel "Language Laws: Nation-Building, Ethnic Containment, or Diversity Management?" at the ASN 2000 Convention. New York, 13-16 April 2000. KAMENSKA, A. 1995. The state language in Latvia: Achievements, problems and prospects. Riga: Latvian Center for Human Rights and Ethnic Studies. STEEN, A. Recruitment and Expulsion: The New Elites in the Baltic States. 1994. Oslo: University of Oslo. Department of Political Science. Working paper 09/94.
Boris Tsilevich is a member of the Latvian Parliament elected on the platform of the defense of minority rights, and is a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (e-mail: eawarn@mailbox.riga.lv). A journalist, scholar, and political commentator, he has written extensively on minority rights, nation-building in multiethnic states, and conflict prevention in post-Communist Europe. He is also the founder and moderator of MINELRES, a web site providing information on minorities and ethnopolitics in Eastern Europe (http://www.riga.lv/minelres), and co-founder of the Consortium on Minority Resources (COMIR - http://lgi.osi.hu/comir).
Tsilevich, Boris (2001) Development of the Language Legislation in the Baltic States, MOST Journal on Multicultural Societies, Vol. 3, No. 2, <http://www.unesco.org/most/vl3n2tsilevich.htm> ISSN 1564-4901
The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UNESCO. |
To MOST Clearing House Homepage
