|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Uppsala University |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Programme of International
Studies |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Introduction: Focus on
Democracy |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DEMOCRACY IN LATVIA |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
by Irita Kise |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fall 1998 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Uppsala |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Introduction |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Transition
to democracy in Latvia like in other East European states has not been
without problems. It began with liberalization in the Soviet Union when the
Baltic states were still part of it. After regaining the independence there
has never been a question whether Latvia should follow the path of democratic
transformation or not. Everybody was in favor of democracy because this term
was associated with prosperity of the traditional Western democracies. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
real meaning of the word has never been discussed in society or elites. Therefore sometimes even the very
existence of democratic regime has been questioned from different sides. On
the one hand, people in opinion polls say that Latvia is not fully
democratic. On the other hand, Russian officials repeatedly claim Latvia to
be discriminatory regime, which follows ”apartheid” policy. Both have their
own reasons to believe in lack of democracy in this Baltic country. In
Eurobarometer survey only 24% of people in Latvia said that they were
satisfied with democracy which is far less than in Estonia where 40% were
satisfied.[1] The majority of the people who
think that there is no democracy in Latvia are merely uneducated in these
questions. It is understandable regarding the long period of Soviet
ideological dominance. Besides, there exists inaccurate perception of
democracy in Latvian society. For many people democracy means the good and
prosperous life of the Western countries. And if they do not see changes in
their economic situation they either think that democracy does not work or
that democracy is bad. Russia, in contrast, is not so concerned with the real
content of democracy as it is trying to use the deficiency of Latvian
democracy, especially its exclusionary nature, in its interests. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
These
statements are only partly grounded in ignorance and self-interest. There is
something in the regime that gives rise to such assertions. The
task of this essay is to examine Latvian democracy and find the
inconsistencies with the standards of democratic theory and practice. I want
to prove that although there exist some problems Latvia can be regarded as
democracy. In order to accomplish this task some criteria are needed.
Criteria for measuring democracy will be extracted from theories of different
authors and will include common points on which everyone more or less agrees.
This will provide grounds for institutional analysis of Latvian democracy.
Political culture is also an important part of the democratic transformation
but it is much harder to measure. However, I will try to grasp the concept in
the end when portraying scenarios for future of Latvian democracy. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Measuring democracy |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
concept of democracy has always been contested. Its meaning is dynamic and
has changed over times. It is clear that today there are a lot more criteria
to decide weather the state is a democracy or not than it was some decades
ago. Unfortunately, even now only a vague consensus exists over the substance
of the necessary criteria. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In
literature all spectrum of conditions associated with democracy can be found.
It ranges from the most common criteria of free and fair elections to respect
for social and economic rights of the citizens. The development of the
concept until our days can be portrayed like this: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Democracy |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ß |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
exercise of power by people |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ß |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
control of power by people |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ß |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
democratic method = elections |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ß |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
elections + rights and freedoms |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As
we all have read hundreds of times in dictionaries and textbooks the term
“democracy” means “ rule of the people”.
That was the case in Ancient Greece and its city-states. In our days nobody
presumes that he/she should have possibility to participate directly in
decision making. It is not possible for practical reasons - there is no place
one could bring together all citizens of the country. Modern states differ
from ancient city-states both in size and in complexity of social processes.
They need different ways of popular participation. Principle of
representation has been the best solution for this. That allowed different
authors to argue that democratic method or elections was sufficient for the
state to be regarded as democracy (Schumpeter). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some
states have used this assumption (sufficiency of minimal criteria -
elections) to claim themselves as democracies. Why is it profitable to have
an image of democracy in modern world? It seems that democracy as a political
regime has legitimacy in the world. The most powerful states are democracies
and they prefer to deal with states which are also democracies because of
several reasons: they are predictable, they share the same moral values, they
have similar mechanisms for conflict resolving. Democracies in modern world
have formed a kind of common identity. They are more cooperative and friendly
with each other. It is not surprisingly that many states want to join this
community, which even can be called a security community. For small states to
be the part of society of democratic states is equal with getting soft
security guarantees. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Unfortunately
for some pseidodemocracies, the criteria of democratic regime have developed
further and include far more provisions than only fair and free elections.
Even the notion of elections has become more specific and contains many
preconditions that must be fulfilled, before elections can be regarded as
free and fair. All these provisions can be summarized and expressed by Georg
S¸rensen’s definition of political democracy: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ü Meaningful and extensive competition
among individuals and organized groups for all effective positions of
government power, at regular intervals and excluding the use of force. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ü A highly inclusive level of
political participation in the selection of leaders and policies, at least
through regular and fair elections, such that no major (adult) social group
is excluded. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ü A level of civil and political liberties
- freedom of expression, press, to form and join organizations - sufficient
to ensure the integrity of political competition and participation.[2] |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
These criteria provide useful
guide to examining existing democratic institutions in Latvia. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Democracy in Latvia |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Latvia
is one of the few lucky former Soviet republics which have had a democratic
experience and the memories of it are still preserved in the society. Today’s
grandparents can tell their grandchildren about the life in 1920’s and 1930’s
when Latvia was an independent country, which exercised democratic
procedures. Partly these democratic traditions were transferred to next
generations by socializing through family while the soviet educational system
tried to erase these memories. As it became clear at the end of Soviet era,
memories of interwar period were still living in Latvian society and formed
basis for transition to democracy. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seven
years have gone since the renewal of Latvia’s independence. These years were
devoted to creation of democratic institutions and economic transformation. I will now look at the main democratic
institutions and see if they work properly in Latvia. These include elections
and civil and political liberties. Several aspects, such as citizenship, will
require more profound examination. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Civil and
political liberties |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Except
for Russia no other country or international organization has accused Latvia
for massive violations of civil and political rights of its population.
Latvia has signed all major human rights documents within the United Nations
framework and is gradually ratifying also European human rights treaties,
which are far more specific and binding as the universal ones. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It
could be useful to look at EU Commission Opinion on Latvia’s application for
membership of the European Union. European Council in Copenhagen decided on
number of political criteria for accession to be met by the candidate
countries in Central and Eastern Europe. These countries must have achieved
stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human
rights and respect for and protection of minorities. This document assesses
the situation in June 1997 and since then the changes have been only in
positive direction. However, even then the Commission concluded that “Latvia’s political institutions function
properly and in conditions of stability. Elections in 1992 and 1995 were free
and fair. The Opposition plays a normal part in the operation of the
institutions. There are no major problems over respect for fundamental rights.”
The Commission also pointed out some problems which should be solved:
integration of the large group of non-citizens and more equal treatment of
non-citizens and citizens in regard of access to professions and democratic
participation. In December 1996 there were 10 differences in status between
citizens and foreigners contrary to Latvian Constitution and the UN
Convention on Civil and Political Rights. However, the legislation has been
liberalized since then. The most remarkable case - referendum on citizenship
law amendments in October 1998. Latvian voters decided to give citizenship to
all stateless children born in Latvia after 1991. These amendments also meant
that the application window system would be abolished, i.e., people now don’t
have to wait some years (concrete year for each age group) to apply for
citizenship. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In
order to create an institution for people to submit their cases of human
rights violations the National Human Rights Office was established in 1996.
It is working effectively and rather independently providing public and
international institutions with objective analysis of human rights situation
in Latvia. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Commission Opinion provides also examples of how different rights and
freedoms have been implemented. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ü Access to court. It is unrestricted and every
individual is entitled to the services of lawyer free of charge. Arrest
warrants are issued by judge. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ü Freedom of association. Guaranteed by law. In 1996 there
were more than 2400 non-governmental organizations in Latvia. However,
non-citizens cannot form parties but they can join them. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ü Freedom of expression. The censorship is banned. There
exist 2000 newspapers, 25 radio stations and 41 television stations.[3] |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Minority
rights is not a very clear concept in Latvia. The large Russian minority does
not have the identity as minority in Latvia. And Latvians are not ready to
treat Russians as a minority and grant them certain rights. Russians wants
the same status as the titular nation at least in the terms of language. In
effect, the Russian monolinguals are saying that they have a human right to
be monolingual no matter where they live and work.[4] It seems that Latvian government
is afraid to touch this issue. There is still no program for integration of
Russian-speaking group, education reform has been delayed, state reluctantly
engages in language training programs. However, minorities have quite good
possibilities to receive education in their native language in schools
supported by state; they can freely engage in cultural and religious
activities. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Competitiveness |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Elections
have always been the first criteria for democracy. If there is no competition
in elections and the outcome is uniform there is always room for doubts if
the country is really democratic. Elections are a good instrument to
legitimize a regime. Therefore it is especially important, that the procedure
and underlying legislation coincides with democratic principles. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In
Latvia the first really competitive elections took place quite late, in June
1993. The first period of democratic transition was lead by a parliament
elected according to Soviet laws. However, elections of 1990 were competitive
in the sense that more than one candidate could start in one constituency.
And people elected those who favored Latvian independence. Therefore there
was no urgent need to organize new elections in 1991 when Latvian
independence was at least recognized by the international society. Linz and
Stepan would argue that this weakened the legitimacy of the government which
was going to make democratic changes.[5] But it didn’t happen in Latvia.
Although elected according to old Soviet laws and with participation of
military troops stationed in Latvia the parliament still enjoyed people’s
trust and was regarded as legitimate. This parliament restored the interwar
constitution and adopted laws determining Latvian political structure, except
for institution of citizenship. According to the legal continuity principle,
it was decided that only 1940 citizens and their descendants may decide on
the terms of accepting new citizens. Therefore the new citizenship law was
adopted so late, only in 1995. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The first electoral law was
adopted just for the 1993 elections. It was very similar to interwar law. In
1995 the permanent law of parliamentarian elections was adopted. According to
it every citizen over 18 years has a right to vote and citizens over 21 years
also elected to parliament. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Robert
Dahl sets several conditions for democracy, which include electoral rights
and other political rights. His points about elections could be useful to
measure Latvian electoral system and its implementation. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1.
People choose among alternatives. The freedom to choose one party
from many is both in the law and in the practice. In last elections there
were 21 candidate lists. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2.
One person - one vote. This principle works in Latvia. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3.
Winner is the alternative with the greatest number
of votes. The
Saint-Lague method of converting votes into seats allows to preserve the
proportionality. Those party lists that get most votes also get most seats in
the parliament. There has never been an attempt to stay in power by force in
order not to pass power to winner of elections. The only problem is the
comparatively high barrier for getting into the parliament - 5% of the votes.
But this provision has its historical reasons. In interwar Latvia the party
system was extremely fragmented and finally it led to establishment of an
authoritarian regime. The new regime wanted to avoid such situation in future
and to consolidate Latvian party system. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
4.
Everybody can be elected. The only restrictions in Latvia are those of
communist past. Persons who served in KGB or were members of Communist party
after Latvia regained its independence could not became parliamentarians.
However, this fact cannot be stated arbitrary, it should be proved by court
decision. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.
Equal access to information about alternatives. Each party has proportionate time
for advertising on state television and radio which can be viewed in the
whole country. Of course, other means of campaign depend solely on the
financial situation of the party. Also the meetings with voters can be organized
without any restrictions. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.
Winners displace losers. This is true in Latvia but we must keep in
mind that no real transfer of power has occurred since the fall of Soviet
system. Latvia has not experienced a situation when a party of different
ideology wins elections. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.
The orders of elected officials are executed. Yes, the elected parliamentarians
are regarded as legitimate to make laws and rule the country. The bureaucracy
is non-partisan.[6] |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
However,
the real situation around elections is even more important than the actual
laws because the implementation is what counts. All the elections in Republic of Latvia were evaluated as free
and fair. There has never been doubt about it in Latvian society; the results
were rarely questioned. This was also conformed by different international
organizations engaged in election monitoring. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Inclusiveness |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dahl
and several other authors also speak about the inclusiveness of citizenship
in democracies. It means that all adults who are permanent residents of the
society are eligible to vote. As follows from the analysis of Latvian
situation this is the only point where the theory and the practice of
democracy do not match. But is it sufficient to declare that Latvia is not a
democracy? Latvian government would oppose such statement because it thinks
that it has appropriate grounds for the exclusionary policy on citizenship
issue - occupation of Latvia by USSR. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Latvian
position is supported by the fact that the majority of Western countries
didn’t recognize de jure Latvian
incorporation in the Soviet Union and by some international treaties and
practices: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ø the Geneva Convention of 1949 (an
occupying power does not have the right to settle its own people in an
occupied territory); |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ø the precedent of the UN-sponsored
vote in Western Sahara (voting rights were given only to those who had lived
there before occupation and not to Moroccans who had been settled there; |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ø the other precedents by UN: the
rejection of a French referendum in New Caledonia and of the British proposal
to hold a plebiscite in Gibraltar.[7] |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In
order to legitimate its citizenship policy Latvian parliament has tried to
initiate in United Nations an adoption of a document recognizing the fact of
occupation of the country in 1940. A declaration on occupation was adopted by
the parliament in August 1996 but was not fully used because of the harsh
response from the Russian side. Russia regarded it as a threat and feared the
consequences of the recognition. It would mean that Latvia has all the rights
to exclude Soviet time immigrants from its citizenship and Latvia would
perhaps even ask for some kind of compensation for the sufferings caused by
this occupation. Latvian initiative was not supported within the UN. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
issue of Latvian citizenship has received much attention in the literature on
Eastern European democratization and international law. Most of the authors
agree that the question of citizenship cannot be examined only from the legal
aspect. Moreover, there does not exist a clear reflection of it in
international law. The common practice has been that it is for each state to
determine under its law who are its nationals. State’s right to decide who
will be its citizen can be seen as an important part of state’s sovereignty
and contemporary international system is a system of sovereign states.
There is no rule that states are obliged to give citizenship to all children
which are born on their territory but there is a vaguely formulated
obligation in customary law that states should not enlarge number of
stateless people. And international law does not forbid discrimination on
grounds of citizenship.[8] Even more, political rights,
economic and social rights are often related to citizenship. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
view has been supported by OSCE. After the breakup of the Soviet Union many
republics experienced violent ethnic conflicts and the Baltic states were
regarded as possible area of conflict. OSCE decided to act preventively and
established its missions in Tallinn (Dec 1992) and Riga (Sept 1993). These
missions had to answer two important questions: Were there massive,
widespread human rights violations of Russian-speakers by governments? Would
the denial of citizenship to Soviet-era immigrants constitute a human rights
violation in itself? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
majority view of the international community seems to have been no. In part, this answer may have
reflected the general sympathy many felt for Baltic peoples. The observers
were not prepared to say that Latvia and Estonia had to grant automatically
citizenship to all who came there after illegal invasion.[9] |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some
other arguments are added by the nationalists: Latvia is the only territory
where the Latvian people have a historical homeland; zero option would have
perpetuated past injustices against ethnic Latvians. Basically, the
underlying consideration is quite clear - Latvian political elite feared that
giving the immigrants citizenship would endanger their position and also the
future of Latvian independence as these new citizens were regarded as not
loyal to Latvian state and willing to rejoin Russia. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Although
Latvian law of citizenship does not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity,
it results in leaving a large part of population without certain political
rights. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
National composition of
inhabitants (on the 8th of January, 1998) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Source:
Citizenship and immigration department |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percentage of
citizens in each national group |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
national composition of citizens is much the same as it was before 1940. Then
75% of the citizens were Latvians. From the legal point of view this
situation is not violating international law but in practice it means that
not all democratic conditions are working. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ethnic democracy |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Latvian
situation seems to fit into the category of restricted democracy identified
by different authors (S¸rensen; Smootha&Hanf; Linz). Restricted
democracies are political systems with some democratic elements but also with
limits on competition, participation and liberties. Usually some elite groups
reserve the right to interfere in the democratic process in order to protect
their interests.[10] The most famous example of
restricted democracy is Israel, also identified as an ethnic democracy
because a superior status is given to one ethnic group while others have less
claim to the state and are not fully loyal.[11] |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sometimes
even Latvia and Estonia are added to the category of ethnic democracies.
(As’ad Ghanen, 1998) But a more thorough examination reveals inconsistencies
between Latvian situation and this model: the hegemony of Latvians is not so
overwhelming and was not achieved by restrictions based on ethnic principle;
certain civil and political rights are enjoyed by all inhabitants; even
people without Latvian citizenship cannot automatically be regarded as disloyal
to Latvian state. It is more appropriate to call Latvia a restricted
democracy in development because the level of restrictions is decreasing all
the time due to the mechanism of naturalization and liberalization of
legislature. Non-citizens are expected gradually to acquire citizenship, join
the society and become integrated through the language requirements of the
naturalization process. There exists a political will to integrate all people
in Latvian society. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Conclusion: The future of Latvian democracy |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rapid
regime transformations bring with them tremendous uncertainty. At the same
time the situation of transition is replete with opportunities to improve
one’s situation or to take revenge. Actors can see which constitutional
design and which ethnic policy will best serve their interests. East European democratization shows that
combination of transition and ethnic divisions carries potential threat to
integrity and stability of a state. States which have deep ethnic divisions
tend to have more troubled transition to democracy. It adds another possible
conflict dimension which requires a solution sooner or later. Ethnic policy
therefore is crucial to democratization in such multiethnic countries. There
can exist many possible policy options which cover the continuum from the
most exclusionary to inclusionary. A balance between the two must be found in
order to preserve state sovereignty and integrity. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
least favorable scenario would picture a conflict between ethnic groups as
consequence of highly exclusionary policy. Minority groups tend to press for
the recognition of collective rights to preserve their culture and to be
equal members of the society. Dominant group, in contrast, perceive these
minority rights with suspicion, fearing that they will end in secessionism. Democracy itself is heightening ethnic
tension because it arouses expectations. It can happen that these
expectations are not met when the actual institutional framework of democracy
takes shape. If the arrangements regulating democratic procedure do not
satisfy minority groups they can become a source of conflict. Ethnic groups
may seek to attain equality with any possible means outside the democratic
process and the dominant group may feel threatened and protect its privileges
with the same intensity. Especially acute the trauma of cultural domination
and political exclusion is when the minority in question was formerly the
plurality in a larger state entity. In Latvia the conflict most likely would
not be over territory as in most ethnically diverse countries but over
government because of the extraterritorial nature of minorities and their
size. Such conflict is more difficult to settle and it is not enough to
divide country in two parts. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
At
the other end of this continuum of possible policy choices is the policy of
generosity. The dominant ethnic group has to decide how to respond to
minority demands and it chooses a generous, liberal approach. It helps to
ensure a peaceful transition and consent of minorities, which in turn secures
the legitimacy of the state. List of programs that may be considered
generous: removing barriers to integration; social mobility and equality of
opportunity; official recognition of cultural pluralism; the granting of
cultural autonomy; federalization.[12] By acknowledging the legitimacy
of minority concerns elites in the dominant group can earn the respect of
minorities. A lot of personal contacts is needed in order to break down enemy
stereotypes. Minority representatives must be consulted when policy is formed
in issue areas that affect their interests. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In
Latvia not only the development of democracy but also the future of the state
depends largely on the ethnic policy option chosen. The first moment of
decisive action in this area was in the beginning of existence as an
independent state. Then elites chose the first option - exclusion. At that
time it seemed to be the best decision for Latvian state. It reinvented the
continuity of the state. Later it became clear that the large group of
non-citizens can be a threat to state integrity. Elites first tried to ignore
the fact but after several crisis and international pressure they were forced
to find a solution which lied more to the liberal end of the continuum. This
second decisive moment happened in summer 1998 and it required some degree of
generosity from the elites. And, what is more important, this policy change
was supported by majority of citizens. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I
interpret the positive attitude by citizens to integration of non-citizens
into society as a promising sign. It shows that one of the main features of
democratic political culture - tolerance - exists in Latvian society. People
are not obsessed with national emotions which could lead to violent
conflicts. And they want their country to continue the path of
democratization. I evaluate the chances of democracy in Latvia as good
because now there exist both institutional arrangements and cultural grounds
for elimination of the last problem - exclusiveness. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Literature: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1.
Agenda
2000 Commission Opinion on Latvia’s Application for Membership of the EU, Feb
9, 1998 http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg1a/agenda2000/en/opinions/latvia/a.htm |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2.
Arat,
Z.F. ”Democracy and Human Rights in Developing Countries”, Boulder&
London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1991 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3.
Hislope,
R.”The Generosity Moment:Ethnic Politics, Democratic Consolidation and the
State in Yugoslavia (Croatia), South Africa and Czechoslovakia” from Democratization, vol.5, nr.1, Spring
1998, pp.64-89 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
4.
Karklins,
R. ”Ethnopolitics and Transition to Democracy”, Washington, D.C.:Woodrow
Wilson Center Press, 1994 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5.
Linz,
J.J. & Stepan, A.”Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation.
Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe”, Baltimore &
London: The John Hopkins UP, 1996 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6.
Schlager,
E.B.”The Right to Have Rights:Citizenship in Newly Independent OSCE
Countries” from Helsinki monitor,
vol.8, nr.1, 1997 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.
S¸rensen,
G ”Democracy and Democratization”, Westview Press, 1998 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
8.
Öst,
A-C.”Medborgare eller främling?”, Åbo, 1994 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
9.
Smith,
G.”The Ethnic Democracy Thesis and the Citizenship Question in Estonia and
Latvia” from Nationality Papers,
vol.24, nr.2, June 1996, pp.199-216 |