Publication: Comparative analysis of regulation of ethnic relations in Moldova and Latvia

Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:53:19 +0200 (EET)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: Publication: Comparative analysis of regulation of ethnic relations in Moldova and Latvia

From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>

Original sender: Vladimir Solonari <[email protected]>

Publication: Comparative analysis of regulation of ethnic
relations in Moldova and Latvia


New publication:
Vladimir Solonari. Regulation of Ethnic Relations in post-Soviet
countries: the cases of Latvia and Moldova compared.
 
For the first time legislation in minority-related spheres of two
post-Soviet countries, Republic of Moldova and Latvia, are compared.
Moldova and Latvia have several similarities in terms of historical
experience, comparable territory and population, as well as important
cultural and other differences which make comparative analysis of
their records in the fields of minorities-related legislation
potentially fruitful.
 
Vladimir Solonari�s paper starts with the enumeration of those
similarities and differences which are relevant to the problem at hand
and then goes on to analyse in comparative perspective Moldovan and
Latvian legislation relating to minorities, and namely in the fields
of constitutional fundamentals, citizenship, use of minority languages
in public sphere, education in minority languages, names of persons
belonging to minorities in official documents, use of minority
languages in electronic mass media. In all those domains it ascertains
pronounced differences both in letter and spirit of the legislation
and interprets them as evidence of promotion of "civic programme" in
Moldova and of "culturalist programme" in Latvia by the respective
ruling elites (those terms were initially suggested by David D. Laitin
in his seminal book on Russian-speaking nationality in post-Soviet
world).
 
The author then ponders about how those differences could be
explained. He discards what he calls "essentialist" approach which is
based on the invocation of the notion of "national character" or
supposedly "inherited cultural traits" as tautological and he remains
skeptical in respect of "demographic explanations" which stress
demographic trends and immigration as a rationale for more vigorous
promotion and support for "autochthonous nation". Instead, he proposes
his own explanation based on rational choice theory.
 
This hypothesis stresses the importance of the decision taken by
Moldovan political elite in June 1991 to grant citizenship of the
Republic to all its residents (pure "territoriality principle"), which
was in its own turn due to the sheer impossibility to devise any other
criteria in case of a new state which never existed previously.
Because, further on, the majority of Moldovan political elite which
opted for independence, had to constantly fight to isolate and
marginalise pro-unificationist (with Romania) minority, it had to
somewhat grudgingly accept minorities (feverishly anti-unificationist)
as smaller partners in pro-independence coalition. This made a move to
"civic programme" inevitable.
 
Full text available upon request:  [email protected]

-- 
==============================================================
MINELRES - a forum for discussion on minorities in Central&Eastern
Europe

Submissions: [email protected]  
Subscription/inquiries: [email protected] 
List archive: http://www.riga.lv/minelres/archive.htm
==============================================================