On February 24, 2012 the forum “Latvia after the referendum: strategies for cross-ethnic cooperation” took place in Riga, Latvia. Forum was sponsored by the Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS) with the support of Freedom and Solidarity Foundation (FSF). Participants from various non-governmental organizations, government institutions and universities participated in the event. Several hundred people followed the discussion on-line on Latvian news portal tvnet.lv and public policy portal politika.lv.

The forum was opened by short introductory speech of Ervins Labanovskis, Deputy Head of FSF. He emphasized that the referendum on Russian as second state language revealed a number of pressing issues and concerns. It has become evident that considerable part of society feels disappointed with the existing status quo. This disappointment cannot be explained merely by actions of some instigators or Russia’s geopolitical strategies. Some Latvian right-wing politicians believe that, in case minority groups don’t feel comfortable, they just have to leave Latvia. But it is clear that the majority of these people will not move to another place to live. Thus, native Latvians and Russian-speaking community need to find solutions to ensure proper coexistence of the people of different cultures and ethnic origins in the country. It is crucial that for Russian-speakers Latvia should transform from a formal birthplace into their state in terms of civic engagement and responsibility. In the end of his speech, E. Labanovskis asked the participants of the forum to be tolerant and not to offend each other. The purpose of the discussion was not to find guilty parties but to recommend solutions and measures to overcome the conflict and promote inter-ethnic cooperation.

The expert session began with presentation of the paper “Building platforms for cross-ethnic cooperation in Latvia: obstacles and challenges” by Andrejs Berdņikovs, a research fellow at the Advanced Social and Political Research Institute of the University of Latvia. He started his speech with criticism of Latvian government officials who expressed euphoria over the results of the referendum. In A. Berdņikovs’ view, these results are actually dangerous for Latvia in terms of security because they reflected a deep discontent among Russian-speakers with current Latvian ethnic policies. Referendum showed that there were two powerful competing camps in the country, namely, native Latvians and Russian-speakers. Referendum contributed to the split of the Latvian society into two parts operating according to the principle “you’re either with us or against us”. In order to overcome this problem, the genuine inter-ethnic dialogue is needed as soon as possible. Unfortunately, there are serious psychological obstacles to developing such a dialogue. The lack of trust is evident not only between the Latvian authorities and the Russian-speaking community, but also among civil society activists of different ethnic backgrounds.

The A. Berdņikovs’ speech was followed by presentation of the paper “Political and cultural demands of the Russian-speaking community in Latvia: looking for the ways of making them heard” by Illarions Girss, a supporter of the organization Mother Tongue. This organization was the one that initiated the referendum for making Russian as the second state language. According to I. Girss, reconciliation between communities is possible only if there are concessions from both sides. There is a need to focus on the future instead of hurts and resentments of the past. Both native Latvians and Russian-speakers may retain their different opinions regarding the historical processes, but they should come to agreement on how to live together in the contemporary democratic Latvia where concerns and demands of each community are to be respected. I. Girss highlighted once again the present demands of the Russian-speaking community, among them are the following: the demand for equal participation in political and public life, and official language status for Russian in Latvia, including the rights to use it in communication with public bodies and officials. In the end of his speech, I. Girss emphasized that the Latvian state has to become a great value for both native Latvians and Russian-speakers, but it is possible only if genuine equality and mutual respect between the both communities is established.

The next speaker was Jörgen Siil, a representative from the Estonian Social Democratic Party, who presented a paper “Ethnicity-driven protest movements abroad: how contemporary societies deal with the issue?” His speech was focused on comparing and contrasting the situations in Estonia and Latvia. In J. Siil’s view, although the both countries were in similar circumstances in the beginning of the 1990s, they had undergone different developments. After the collapse of the Soviet Union there were considerable Russian-speaking minority populations in both countries, consisting largely of Soviet era’s incomers. Another similarity was a weak position of social democracy and other left-wing ideologies that were discredited due to the Soviet heritage. Estonia, however, has been able to manage these problems more successfully as time passed. In contrast to Latvia, there are no Russian-speaking and Estonian-speaking parties in Estonia. Instead, there is the Estonian Centre Party that has been able to get the support of both ethnic and linguistic communities. Moreover, the non-citizens in Estonia are entitled to vote in local government elections and, contrary to initial concerns, this has not helped the Russian-speaking parties to gain representation at the local level. Estonia has also dealt successfully with left-wing ideology issue. Currently there are four parties in the Estonian Parliament: two right-wing and two left-wing parties, all of them are almost of the same size. Unlike in Latvia, the left-wing ideology in Estonia is not associated with representing or speaking on behalf of the Russian-speaking population.

The J. Siil’s insight into Estonian realities was followed by the presentation of Ivars Ījabs, a lecturer at the University of Latvia. His paper “Practice of referendums and ethnic relationships” dealt not only with the last referendum-related matters, but also with general questions of the contemporary democracy. I. Ījabs started his speech by discussing the concerns that the recent referendum had highlighted. In speaker’s view, one of such concerns is a huge number of Latvian citizens who voted against the principal element of Latvian national identity, namely, against Latvian as the only state language. Another concern is the Latvian political elite, the large part of which still is building its legitimacy around ethnic and linguistic divisions in the society. The geopolitics of Russia has to be taken into consideration too, even if this factor often is overestimated in Latvia. In the second part of his speech I. Ījabs focused on the future developments. He believes that there are no reasons for expecting either protests of Russian-speaking community or spreading of inter-ethnic grassroots initiatives. The role of intelligentsia in the conflict is rather controversial. So there should not be illusions about any fast solutions. Moreover, the status quo ante (the way things were before the referendum), perhaps, would be the best solution. But how this status quo ante can be provided for? In I. Ījabs’ opinion, restrictions on referendums and plebiscites may be helpful. Plebiscitary democracy has worked rather destructive in Latvia so far, so there should be a way for the Latvian democracy to be able to defend itself against non-democratic initiatives.

As the last speaker in the expert session, Iveta Kažoka, a researcher at the Centre for Public Policy PROVIDUS, took the floor, presenting the paper “Looking ahead: coexistence scenarios for the future”. She began her speech with the statement that, unlike A. Berdņikovs, she feels rather optimistic about the future of the Latvian society and, in contrast to I. Ījabs, doesn’t think that the best way out of the current ethnic tensions is through coming back to the pre-referendum situation. I. Kažoka also stated her belief that the referendum would increase self-confidence and cohesion of Latvian society. She stressed that the image of two competing and conflicting ethnic camps doesn’t really reflect the way things actually are. This image is produced by the media that are more radicalized, aggressive and provocative than the society itself. I. Kažoka emphasized that there were no open ethnically-driven conflicts in everyday life during the referendum. Thus, there are reasons to believe in a positive outcome regardless of the dividing strategies employed by both politicians and the media. I. Kažoka sees the opportunity for social cohesion via alternative communication channels that have become increasingly relevant due to the development of social media and social networking practices in cyberspace.

In the second part of the forum, representatives of various political parties and organizations discussed the consequences of the referendum and possible social integration strategies. The representative of the political party Unity Andrejs Judins believes in the necessity of educating the society by explaining to its members the basic coexistence principles. Native Latvians have to realize that Russians are not their enemies, but Russian-speakers have to grasp the peculiarities of the country they are living in. The major problem in the area of social integration in Latvia is a weak ability of different ethnic groups to hear and understand each other’s arguments. We have to communicate with each other on a regular basis and avoid such terms as “occupants” and “fascists”. Viktors Makarovs, who represented in the discussion the Zatlers’ Reform Party, began his speech by asking both politicians and the media to stop the escalation of the current conflict and “patriots versus traitors” rhetoric. It is important to start speaking about united society instead of two-community society. V. Makarovs argued that significant symbolic steps to overcome the alienation of the Russian-speaking minority would be to give citizenship to the children born to Latvian residents after the restoration of independence in August 21, 1991, as well as to make Orthodox Christmas an official public holiday in Latvia. The representative of the Union of Greens and Farmers Iveta Grigule claimed that the situation in Latvia is not as unique as one might think, because all the multicultural societies in the contemporary Europe face similar problems. At the same time, in contrast to many European countries, the Latvian society is not divided by cultural, race and religious factors. I. Grigule believes that the solution to the current problems in the area of social integration lies in strengthening the Christian values in the Latvian society. Igors Pimenovs, a member of the Harmony Centre, who, however, claimed that he represented his own opinion and not the one of the party, emphasized that referendum had no winners. The feeling of insecurity still is dominating among native Latvians, whereas a large part of the Russian-speaking community feels alienated from the state and is not satisfied with the status of their mother tongue in Latvia. Another pressing problem is the underrepresentation of the Russian-speaking minority in the state administration and power structures. Ilmārs Latkovskis, a representative of the political association All for Latvia – For Fatherland and Freedom/LNNK and Chairman of the Citizenship Law Implementation Committee of the Saeima (Latvian Parliament), began his speech by underlining the necessity of calming down the present situation and avoiding conflicts in Latvia. I. Latkovskis expressed the concerns that not only the media in Latvia is divided according to ethnic and linguistic lines, but also schools and other social institutions and structures. In order to break down barriers to social cohesion, there is a need to define more clearly the founding principles of the Latvian state and shared vision of Latvia’s future. Illarions Girss, a supporter of the association Mother Tongue and the only representative of the non-governmental sector in the discussion, stressed the urgent necessity of taking real large-scale steps in the area of social cohesion and inter-ethnic dialogue. They have to be taken by the Latvian authorities. Debater emphasized that such half a step as making Orthodox Christmas an official public holiday is not a solution to the current crisis in ethnic relationships. According to I. Girss, the good solution would be recalling the excuses that the Latvian government made to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

The principal conclusions of the forum are as follows:

The referendum on Russian as second state language has radicalized and divided the Latvian society in terms of nationalist aspirations and sentiments. On the other hand, despite the obvious controversy surrounding this event, it has had an awakening effect on the somnolent Latvian society. What is even more important, it has brought to the forefront a number of the crucial issues regarding the coexistence of native Latvians and Russian-speakers in Latvia.
The forum showed that the crucial problem in Latvia is a mutual distrust among different ethnic and linguistic groups and the lack of cross-ethnic contacts in almost all segments of the Latvian society. The predominant form of social mobilization in Latvia is based on ethnic factors and not on socioeconomic ones. All principal organizational structures within Latvian civil society are mono-ethnic and there is almost no interaction and cooperation between native Latvian activists and Russian-speaking activists.
The current situation in Latvia’s intercultural and interethnic relationship should more appropriately be labelled “biculturalism” rather than “multiculturalism”. While multiculturalism means heterogeneity, Latvia has two dominant, well-founded and powerful cultures competing for power and resources.
The best what the Latvian authorities can do at the moment is to provide real support for multi-ethnic structures, especially in the non-governmental sector, and civic initiatives which united representatives of various ethnic groups. They should avoid intruding unnecessarily upon the society with the bureaucratic concepts of national identity and social integration. Cross-ethnic cooperation can hardly be promoted by means of government policies and programs. Only civil society itself can remove obstacles for inter-ethnic dialogue since the current Latvian authorities are neither ready nor interested in doing so.
The only hope is that new multiethnic political forces will appear in Latvia and will be founded on strong ideological principles and genuine willingness to overcome distrust and nationalist feelings in the society. Instead of being oriented to only one ethnic and linguistic group, these new forces should be able to unite different social groups regardless of ethnic background.

The forum was organized by FEPS, with the support of FSF. All available visual and written electronic records of the forum are available on-line on the Internet website of FSF at www.bsf-latvija.lv (Latvian version).