MINELRES: Minority issues in Latvia, No. 68

[MINELRES moderator]

Original sender: Alexei Dimitrov <minissues@delfi.lv>
         

Minority issues in Latvia, No. 68
Prepared by the Latvian Human Rights Committee (F.I.D.H.)
May 16, 2003 


Minority education reform: pros and cons
----------------------------------------

The debates about the envisaged reform of the state-supported secondary
education in minority languages seem to be in the high (see also
Minority issues in Latvia, No. 67,
http://lists.delfi.lv/pipermail/minelres/2003-May/002705.html). The
confrontation line between the government and minority community on the
issue is becoming more and more sharp. Arguments of the both sides
engaged in the conflict are outspoken and comprehensive. Yet, it seems
that in the view of anticipated mass rallies, the authorities seem to
start changing their positions.

The Cabinet of Ministers has adopted amendments to its regulations on
the standards of the state general secondary education. The amendments
provide that after the end of the transition period (2004-2006), not
less than 5 subjects in minority secondary schools (besides the Latvian
language and literature) are to be taught in Latvian. Another provision
stipulates that up to 40% of the curricula could be taught in minority
languages, therefore, not less than 60% is to be taught in Latvian. The
school can determine the subjects to be taught in Latvian itself.
However, it is essential that since the year 2007 all the state
examinations and tests are to be passed in Latvian. The Cabinet has
entrusted the Ministry of Education and Science to elaborate amendments
to the Education Law to eliminate collision between its provisions and
the General Education Law (see Minority issues in Latvia, No. 67,
http://lists.delfi.lv/pipermail/minelres/2003-May/002705.html). 

Although high-ranking officials, including the President of State,
acknowledge that the amendments are necessary (the President's interview
for the Latvian Radio, May 6, quoted in "Telegraf" ("The Telegraph"),
May 7, http://rus.delfi.lv/temp/telegraf/T375-02.pdf), the amednments
have not yet been elaborated. Therefore, the pro-minority parliamentary
faction "For Human Rights in United Latvia" has submitted the amendment
envisaging to eliminate the word "only" in the Transitional provisions
of the Edication law (currently, the clause stioulates that the
secondary education after the year 2004 is "only in the state
language").

We would try to demonstrate arguments, giving at first the official
position of the Latvian government and then arguments of opponents of
the reform.

1. First of all, the official explanations of the aim of the reform up
till now seem to be very controversial. The formally declared goal of
the reform is "to foster competitiveness of non-Latvian speakers in the
labour market" by ensuring good knowledge of the Latvian language.
However, in the course of implementation of the reform, emphasis is
made, instead of improvement of teaching Latvian as a second language,
on teaching the Latvian language at the expense of knowledge of other
subjects. This can hardly be considered as improving the competitiveness
of the minority youngsters. 

Also, in a number of well-managed minority schools, absolute majority of
the graduates already now has a perfect command in the Latvian language.
Therefore, these schools claim switching to the Latvian language of
instruction to be unnecessary, because the stated goal of the reform has
been achieved by other means. Yet, exactly these schools are declared by
the authorities to be "ready for the reform" and pressurised to switch
to the Latvian language immediately ("Telegraf"  ("The Telegraph"), May
5,
http://rus.delfi.lv/archive/article.php?id=5330412&ndate=1052082000&categoryID=2078302).  


2. Another point of disagreement regard the mass rally scheduled on May
23, a day before the Eurovision Song Contest (see Minority issues in
Latvia. No. 67,
http://lists.delfi.lv/pipermail/minelres/2003-May/002705.html). Minister
for Special Task in the Field of Integration Affairs Nils Muiznieks
believes that the rally could harm the image of Latvia, because a lot of
journalists will visit Riga during the Eurovision Contest and they could
get the impression that there is a permanent ethnic conflict in the
country ("Chas" ("The Hour"), May 7). 

Minority activists are sure that the authorities are concerned by what
will be written by foreign journalists much more than by the opinion of
their own citizens belonging to minorities. The government has adopted
new framework of the reform only recently and in a hurry, which is more
likely to be the reaction to the planned manifestation and not the
concerns consistently expressed by the minorities since the Education
Law was adopted in 1998. The decision is perceived as an attempt to
prevent the manifestation ("Chas" ("The Hour"), May 12).

On May 16, the executive director of the Riga city council Maris
Tralmaks refused to endorse the application for mass rally on 23 May.
The refusal was based on the conclusion of the Constitution Defense
Bureau and the Security Police who stated that it might be difficult to
ensure security and public order during the manifestation, given the
ongoing Eurovision contest (news agency LETA,
http://rus.delfi.lv/news/daily/latvia/article.php?id=5415202). In the
meantime, the Minister of Interior Maris Gulbis and the State Police
chief Janis Zashirinskis declared that they are "ready to guarantee
public order if the manifestation will still be held without
authorisation of the city council" (LETA,
http://rus.delfi.lv/news/daily/latvia/article.php?id=5421859). 

In the statement released the same day, chairman of LASHOR (Latvian
Association for Support of Schools with Russian Language of Instruction,
the organiser of the rally) Igor Pimenov expressed his bewilderment of
the state security agencies' position: in his view, it would be much
easier task to ensure public order at the well-organised event where the
organisers undertake full responsibility for its conduct and have
already signed a contract with the private security company to prevent
any provocations. However, with respect to declared concerns of the city
authorities, the LASHOR the same day submitted another application,
asking the city endorsement for only meeting (initial application
planned that the participants will walk to the parliament building and
submit petitions to MPs). Mr Pimenov stressed that this "static" meeting
cannot anyhow interfere with the Eurovision events, as it will finish
earlier than the evening concert starts, and "many of the meeting
participants will attend the Eurovision concert" (LETA,
http://rus.delfi.lv/news/daily/latvia/article.php?id=5421853).


3. Another point of concern is the inclination of the officials to
explain the mass protests against the reform as merely the result of
"manipulation by pro-minority politicians". 

It is stated, that the planned demonstration against the reform "shows,
how isolated, dependent and careless a Latvian inhabitant is thinking
about his place and his role as the state policy and society actor...
Apathy, indifference towards themselves and the future of their children
will bring about response to the appeal [of the politicians] and
participation of many people in the protests. Such delegation of one's
power of reasoning to an abstract political guard, who knows better the
needs of his children and minorities and Latvia, demonstrates
undeveloped ability to perceive himself as an independently thinking
person� ("Diena" ("The Day"), May 5).

Answering to this, it is pointed out, that "none of politicians can make
people go out to the streets if these people do not really care about a
problem" ("Telegraf" ("The Telegraph"), May 5,
http://rus.delfi.lv/archive/article.php?id=5330412&ndate=1052082000&categoryID=2078302).
"Absolutely normal, loyal towards the Latvian state, people are just fed
up. "Anti-state agitation" has nothing to do with that" ("Chas" ("The
Hour"), May 12).


Our commentary

We would like also to point out that the rhetoric of the officials as
well as the press is obviously breaking the very principles of political
correctness. The Prime Minister Einars Repse points out that the reform
is needed, inter alia, "to ensure that the youngsters understand orders
in the army". Protection of education in the native language, in his
view, is a "cheap trick of hostile opposition", "desperation gesture of
the outgoing communists", etc. (the news agency LETA, May 8,
http://www.delfi.lv/archive/article.php?id=5355939&ndate=1052341200&categoryID=193).

Another example is the answer of Minister for Education and Science
Karlis Sadurskis to the question whether teachers will be punished for
not teaching in Latvian: "Of course. If the language inspector finds
something suspicious, he will visit the school every day. And if the
teacher simulates every day, he will either confess or go out of his
mind" ("Telegraf" ("The Telegraph", May 12, 
http://rus.delfi.lv/archive/article.php?id=5379981&ndate=1052686800&categoryID=2078302).

The media also contributes to the conflict cultivation and to the
society division along the ethnic lines. For example, the biggest
Latvian-language newspaper "Lauku Avize" ("The Rural Newspaper")
published an article commenting on the sceptical attitude towards the
reform expressed by sociolinguist Gatis Dilans (see Minority issues in
Latvia, No. 67,
http://lists.delfi.lv/pipermail/minelres/2003-May/002705.html). "He is
ethnic Latvian, but he turns not only against teaching overwhelmingly in
the Latvian language at schools for children of other ethnic origin, but
also against the idea of the nation-state as such", the newspaper
stresses. As chairperson of the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights
and Public Affairs Ina Druviete claims that Mr Dilans has some
professional problems, that is why "he took up the cudgels of the
opposite camp" (see "Lauku Avize", May 8).

It is also more than apparent that the authorities do their best to
prevent clear manifestation of minorities' dissatisfaction in front of
foreign journalists arrived to the Eurovision contest, rather then look
for reasonable solution of the problem. The spirit and style of the
statements made by the police authorities mentioned above, clearly
reveal that their goal is to intimidate possible participants of the 23
May rally, and to discourage them to come. However, this is obviously
counterproductive - instead of open dialogue on extremely sensitive
issue, the government tries to sweep the problem under the carpet. 
  
As regards the future prospects of the reform, we already mentioned the
main features of possible solution (see Minority issues in Latvia, No.
67, http://lists.delfi.lv/pipermail/minelres/2003-May/002705.html). In
our view, voting on amendments to the Education Law submitted by the
faction "For Human Rights in United Latvia" will demonstrate clearly,
whether the government is ready to start a dialogue about the reform, or
opponents of the reform will be forced to hold actions of non-violent
civil disobedience in order to be heard. It is senseless to speak about
solutions until the real dialogue is started. Unfortunately, similar
offer to start dialogue proposed by another pro-minority parliamentary
faction of the People's Harmony Party has not been heard by the ruling
coalition � its amendments to the Education Law were rejected on April
16. Just three weeks later, the President of Latvia stated that the
problem persists and the law should be amended. 

Indeed, it will be very difficult for the government to re-gain trust of
minority citizens if the amendments are again rejected. If, after the
approval of the new education standards mentioned above, the wording of
the law ("only in the state language") is still retained, it will be
considered as a strong proof of the government's hipocritical position:
obviously, the law prevails over ministerial regulations, and even
formally allowed language proportion 60%:40% cannot be implemented, as
it has no legal force.

We believe that adoption of the new standards of minority education
explicitly allowing up to 40% of curricula to be taught in minority
language is a valuable first step, which may open the door to
constructive dialogue. However, this decision is obviously insufficient.
The law must be necessarily amended to make it comply with the new
approach enshrined in newly adopted sub-legal acts. The content of the
new concept should be further clarified, including the language
proportions - practically all minority education experts, while
appreciating the government's decision, stress that allocated 40% is not
enough for sustainable minority education. Most importantly, the
government should engage in a dialogue with minority community - better
late  than never. If the government instead concentrates on trying to
prevent mass manifestations, the more so using force, this might lead to
quick escalation of the conflict and even result in resorting to
violence.     


---------------
Compiled by:

Alexei Dimitrov
Tatyana Bogushevitch
Yuri Dubrovsky

===========================================================
Minority issues in Latvia
Newsletter published by the Latvian Human Rights Committee (F.I.D.H.)
Subscription/inquiries: minissues@delfi.lv
Back issues:
http://www.minelres.lv/count/latvia.htm#MinIssuesLatvia
===========================================================