February 5, 2006

Latvia: A Democracy Lost in Translation

By Sherry Harbert

There are few countries in the world where a visit from U.S. President George W. Bush can evoke an overwhelming positive response. He has his supporters in the U.S., but most of the world views him quite differently. So when a May 2005 visit by Bush to Latvia ranked as the number one event for its citizens last year, it placed the Baltic nation in a unique position.

Latvia, in turn, has received a positive response from the Bush Administration. When looking for democratic success stories, the U.S. points to Latvia. Since its independence from the former Soviet Union in 1991, Latvia has transitioned into a parliamentary democracy. It is a remarkable feat to accomplish the infrastructure necessary to sustain democracy in such a short time. By 2004, it achieved levels that qualified Latvia for full membership into the European Union.

But as it moves to strengthen its political freedoms, there are a growing number of cultural fractures in the system that at best will stagnate Latvia’s gains. And at its worst, it could lead to a weakening of the very political system Latvia has worked so hard to gain.

The internal fracture is the relationship between the ethnic Latvians and Russians, the two largest populations in the country of 2.3 million. Latvians make up 58 percent of the population, with the Russians counting for almost 30 percent. The large number of Russians are the result of decades of Soviet “Russification” of the Baltic region. The Soviets first entered the Baltics to drive out Hitler’s army during WWII. The problem for the Baltics began when the Soviets didn’t leave. Under Soviet rule, Latvians were denied their heritage and freedom.. Now, the Latvians are quick to reclaim it all back, including re-designating November 18 as their official independence day. The date points to Latvia’s first independence in 1918, not 1991.

It is that mindset that is at the heart of the internal crisis in Latvia. As Latvia greets 2006 with new elections in June, a new embassy in Washington, D.C., and new language laws, it also faces a cultural dilemma that could irrevocably divide the country. It is far different from the late 1980s where both Latvians and Russians protested in the streets of Riga to gain their independence from the Soviet Union. Now, those unified voices are growing faint.

What is heard more and more are calls for nationalism that is pulling the population apart in almost every facet. In a 2005 survey of Latvia, the Baltic Institute of Social Sciences found the government and media splitting the country on ethnic issues. The study, funded by the U.S. Embassy in Latvia, conducted a comprehensive survey of Latvians and found the population still believes that unification is the only way to succeed, but is increasingly polarized by government policies and media bias. Although Latvia is enjoying the benefits of an increasingly free press, the population is divided into two media languages, Latvian and Russian. Each holds a negative view of the other.

In Latvia, it all comes down to language. Citizenship, education and any government job or political aspiration is hinged on speaking Latvian. It isn’t that Latvia is wrong to want and restructure its identity around its heritage. But the drastic transformation is leaving behind a large part of its population.

Latvia is not overtly discriminating against its large Russian population, but is using back door methods for screening out minorities who don’t adhere to the Latvian standards. The main way the government and education are doing this is through language. Without certification in the Latvian language and confirmation of their commitment to Latvia, Russians are denied higher education, jobs and citizenship. That means that those without citizenship cannot participate in elections, further eroding the democratic process.

What worries many Russians is that the policies are systematically closing the door to alternate Russian-language opportunities earlier in an individual’s life. Last September, the Latvian government mandated the last three years of high school be conducted solely in Latvian. For Russian students, it means trying to learn their subjects from Russian teachers who find it difficult to convey their lessons in a second language.

The language polices have contributed to the increasing emigration to other countries. And, its economic consequences are beginning to worry the Latvian government.

It isn’t easy to spot Latvia’s problems from outside the country. Latvia, along with the other Baltic states, Estonia and Lithuania, appears to have a growing economy, but compared to the dismal economy in the past, anything would look positive. And, there are signs of improvement since the Baltics joined the European Union. Estonia and Lithuania are set to convert their currencies to the Euro next January, while Latvia is waiting until 2008.

The Wall Street Journal, in its 2006 Index of Economic Freedom, listed Estonia as 7th, Lithuania as 23rd and Latvia as 39th in its economic freedom index. The U.S. was ranked 9th with New Zealand and Australia. The headline, “Wish They All Could Be Like Estonia” paints a rosy future, but fails to show the hemorrhaging of workers to other European countries for a better life. Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga told the Russian-language daily, Vesti, in January, that her country is losing a lot of young workers to Ireland (estimates place 25,000 or more in Ireland alone), and other rich EU countries for better paying jobs. On the top levels, it is experiencing a brain-drain to countries like the U.S. where Latvians, especially ethnic Russians, can find opportunities not afforded them back home.

The BISS survey found ethnic Russians hold a majority of the transport, industry and construction jobs, while ethnic Latvians dominate in the areas of agriculture, government, health and education. While the study did not find income disparity between the two groups, as more jobs shift to the Latvian sector due to the language and citizenship requirements, the employment levels are bound to shift accordingly.

The New Baltic Barometer has been watching those shifts in Latvian culture since 1993 to spot trends in each of the Baltic countries. Based with the Center of the Study of Public Policy at the University of Strathclyde, Scotland, the annual surveys follow each of the large ethnic populations. What the survey continues to find is that Russians in each of the Baltic countries feel the economic conditions in their country are still better than in Russia. The percentages have even been increasing with each survey. It is a positive sign and shows that Russians living in the Baltics are far more integrated into their new country than their former. The numbers are even greater for second and third generations.

But what is also evident in the surveys is the vast differences of identity between the two groups. When comparing Latvian identity with country, region or city, sixty percent of Latvians feel primary identity with their country, with a mere 5 percent of Russians. Russians were more inclined to identify with their city than Latvians (42 percent to 29 percent).

The results show the disparity between Russians with Latvian citizenship and those without. Ninety-seven percent of Latvians hold citizenship, while only 42 percent of Russians have qualified for official citizenship. That leaves a majority of Russians without voting rights and a say in their government.

Unlike the U.S., Latvia lists at least 29 viable political parties for candidacy in the Latvian legislative body, the Saeima. During the last general elections in 2002, the most influential pro-Latvian parties, New Era and the People’s Party garnered a combined total of 40.7 percent of the vote. The major pro-Russian party, Human Rights in United Latvia, took 19 percent in the 2002 election. By the time the 2004 European Parliament Election took place, another pro-Latvian party, the National Conservative Party, emerged with 30 percent of the vote. Followed by New Era with just under 20 percent and the People’s Party with six percent, the pro-Latvian delegation was gaining larger numbers and representation in the government.

The EU’s concern over the growing ethnic problems in Latvia is a low priority, partly because there are democratic systems in place and any minority issues are considered an internal problem.. The PACE commission, a committee of the Council of Europe, voted to end its monitoring of Latvian democracy and the treatment of minorities on Dec. 31, 2005. Its chairman, Gyorgy Frunda, stated his reservations, but left Latvia on its own to push ahead with its electoral policies.

As the June 2006 elections approach, the lack of oversight only furthers the trend of Latvian politicians to manipulate the electorate. The BISS study repeated its concern that Latvian politicians continue too exploit the ethnic tensions in the country. The BISS concluded the problem is so widespread that the government and media were creating a growing ethnic tension between the two populations instead of integrating them. Unfortunately, Europe and the U.S. are largely ignoring the problem.

Language has become the gateway for implementing nationalistic rule over minorities—and Latvia isn’t the only country to use such methods. Belgium just passed legislation in early December requiring the ability to speak Dutch as a pre-requisite for getting social housing. It was aimed directly at its 40-percent French-speaking population and new immigrants.

Such tactics are not new for the U.S. Legislation is introduced each year to mandate English as the official language in various state houses. In the latest sweep, Representative Thomas Tancredo (R.Colo.) has introduced bills to amend the constitution to establish English as the official language of the U.S., along with other bills proposing major cuts in immigration and citizenship. One of Tancredo’s bills would forfeit U.S. citizenship of anyone participating in another country’s elections. After seeing the jubilation of American Iraqis voting in absentee stations in this country, that right would be torn away if Tancredo got his way. Yet, it was the same year the Senate also designated the “Year of Foreign Language Study.”

There are agencies and organizations watching Latvia’s transition into democracy. When Latvia joined the EU in 2004, it agreed to adhere to EU standards in human rights, as well as economic stability.

Freedom House, a U.S. non-governmental organization promoting democracy, lists Latvia as showing improvements in constitutional, legislative and judicial framework. To be sure, the framework for a solid democracy is being laid, but for who remains in question. Even though Freedom House listed Latvia as greatly improving in the independent media category, it is not the free flow of information that sustains democracy. As the BISS study shows, Latvia’s media is a major factor in the ongoing and growing split between ethnic groups.

The most daunting finding from the New Baltic Barometer and the BISS studies is that both ethnic Latvians and Russians are growing less satisfied with the democratic process. The NBB found distrust in the Latvian parliament fares only slightly better than political parties with 59 and 69 percent distrust, respectively. Tracking those numbers over the last several elections shows the percentages of distrust growing in each group. The studies are significant because they show the shift in the population towards stronger leadership. Coupled with the nationalistic rhetoric of some political parties, Latvia’s democracy could revolve into a state more similar to their past. If the trend continues, Latvian politics will be more about a nationalistic future than one inclusive of its multiple ethnic populations.

Adding to the troubled mix is Russia. Still flinching from its loss of the Baltics, Russia has done its best to stifle the country’s gains. Latvia holds tacit relations with Russia at best. Even a border agreement seems out of reach after years of negotiations, much to the disdain of the Latvian government. What makes it difficult for Russians in Latvia is that Russia still sees them as Russian citizens, even offering them Russian citizenship. But most of Latvia’s Russians feel more alliegance toward their new country, especially the second and third generations.

The political interference goes both ways, which brings back President Bush’s visit to Latvia last May. It was more of a political maneuver than a friendly visit to the region. Not only did it give the U.S. a democratic success story to point out to the world, it gave the U.S. a chance to tweak Russia for its systematic demolition of democratic reforms. Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberger lauded the U.S. visit as an affirmation for its democracy. She also used it to spike comments back to Russia for its meddling within her country.

Russia’s response could have been a precursor to this winter’s political and environment climates. It rebuffed the U.S. visit as an afront of its own democratic policies. If Latvia wants the U.S. to do more than simply hold it up as the 2005 poster child for democracy, it is learning another lesson in international relations. The U.S. needs Russia on many other international fronts, so has done little to raise questions about Russian’s internal democratic demise. That leaves Russia to further threaten the Baltics over its energy supplies, of which the Baltics heavily rely. It is not a good winter for that fight.

Latvia has recently announced a commission to oversee the financial burdens of the Soviet occupation. The gesture was met by the Russians setting up their own commission to oversee the cost of maintaining Latvia during the years of their occupation. State Duma Deputy Victor Alksnis stated in Pravda that the amount of debt for the Baltics could reach $220 billion. So much for a warming of relations.

All this gives Latvia’s politicians fuel to continue their nationalistic bids during the upcoming elections. June will be an indication as to which direction Latvia is pointed. Although Latvia is striving for toward democracy, there are enough undercurrents that point to a political situation more close to Russia’s democratic downturn.

It is critical for the EU and especially the U.S. to push Latvia’s government toward true reforms. If there is one voice still heard loudly in Latvia, it is that of the U.S. It is voice that is surely needed for all of Latvia’s population as it struggles to remake the country.

© 2006 Foreign Interest. All rights reserved.

Suggestions for further investigation:

Latvian surveys: www.balticvoices.org

Latvian study: www.biss.soc.lv

Latvian news: www.baltictimes.com

Contact the author: sharbert@foreigninterest.com