Ethnic Conflicts in the Baltic States in Post-soviet Period. Сборник статей
Читать онлайн книгу.
Vladimirovich Solopenko, M.Soc.Sc., SKDS, Latvia
Introduction
Historical memory is one of the important factors forming ethnic identity of a group. Different interpretations of certain historic events allow dividing any society into different groups and play them against each other.
In electoral behaviour of people in Latvia, there is an apparent ethnolinguistic segregation, where ethnic Latvians mainly vote for certain parties while non-Latvians, who are mostly Russian-speaking, tend to vote for other parties.
One of the reasons of such segregation may lie in different historical memory of particular historic events in the two aforementioned groups. Identification of this problem has determined the choice of the topic for this article.
The article provides overall and territorial characteristic of two communities in Latvia, their interpretation of particular historic events and their support of particular political parties in parliamentary elections of 2011.
Overall and territorial characteristic of Latvian population
According to the population census, as of 1 March 2011 the population of Latvia was 2,070,371 people, of those 1,285,136 (62.1 %) Latvians; 557,119 (26.9 %) Russians; 68,202 (3.3 %) Byelorussians; 45,798 (2.2 %) Ukrainians; 44,772 (2.2 %) Poles; 24,479 (1.2 %) Lithuanians.[17] However, according to the results of the population census, mainly people in Latvia speak either Latvian or Russian at home. Among all people who have answered about their language, 62.1 % mainly use Latvian at home, 37.2 % use Russian and only 0.7 % use other languages.[18] Based on that, we can state that all population of Latvia can be provisionally divided into two large groups: Latvian-speaking and Russian-speaking.
This conclusion was confirmed by the monthly population survey Omnibus conducted by SKDS Centre, which included the questions regarding both respondent’s ethnic background and the language of communication used in his/her family. The respondents were asked: “What language do you mainly speak at home?” and only one of three options (Latvian, Russian, other) could be selected. The respondents were also asked: “What is your ethnic background?” and also only one of three options (Latvian, Russian, other) could be selected. Comparing the responses to the above two questions, we can see that the amount of ethnic Latvians and those who speak Latvian at home is almost the same. However, those who use Russian, include not only ethnic Russians, but also people of other ethnic backgrounds. The respondents using other language of communication at home account for about 1 %; therefore, in the author’s opinion, they can be excluded from the consideration, as their share is negligible and will not affect the outcome. The author also believes that it is possible to conclude that Latvians mainly use Latvian for communication and Russians mainly use Russian language.
At the same time, the distribution of these groups across Latvia is not uniform. A large share of Latvian-speaking population mainly lives in rural areas and small towns. At the same time, most Russians live in Riga, several areas around it and in the east of the country, in Latagle (see Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Share of people with dominant language used in the family.
Looking at the above map, we can see that most of the Latvian-speaking people mainly live in rural areas of Kurzeme, in the western part of the country, except coastal Liepaja and Ventspils, where their share is smaller. There is also a relatively large share of Latvian-speaking people in rural areas of Vidzeme, in northern part of the country. In many cities of Latvia (Ventspils, Jekabpils, Jelgava, Liepaja, Jurmala), the share of Latvian-speaking people is about 50–60 %, which indicates that a large number of Russian-speaking people live there. In Latvian capital Riga and to main cities of Latgale, Daugavpils and Rezekne, Russian-speaking population constitute a majority. In addition, it is a majority in five southeastern regions of Latgale.
Territorial distribution of the two main communities of the country also clearly shows the territorial division between them. In Latvia, its capital Riga and Latgale, the eastern part of the country, stand out. A substantial share of Russian-speaking population is typical for those areas. 69.5 % of all Russian-speaking public live in the areas where they constitute a majority. Al the same time, over half of all Latvian-speaking population also live in the areas where they are a majority. This factor indicates the formation of two social spaces, Latvian and Russian, which hardly overlap at all. Subsequently, different historical memories are formed in the two communities, which, when formed in the families, can be transferred to further generations. That is why in the next chapter the author looks at how Latvian – and Russian-speaking people in Latvia interpret various historical events.
Historical memory of people of Latvia
Many events in the history of Latvia have controversial interpretations in two main communities. The main events causing heated discussions are mainly related to 1940: voluntary or forced integration of Latvia into the USSR, deportations of people to Siberia, role of SS legionnaires and national guerrillas after the end of the World War II and the effect of the entire 50-year period of Latvia being a part of the USSR on the country and the lives of its people in general. The perception of Russia and its influence on the interpretation of the Latvian history is also equivocal.
Historical memory is a very important force uniting any society. It creates belonging to a certain group, for which that historical memory is common. At the same time, different interpretation of historic events helps distinguish one group form others. Therefore, the parties willing to win support of a particular group of voters are interested in emphasising those issues to get necessary votes in the elections. Unlike the parties looking at the entire spectrum of voters, for which such emphasis, on the contrary, would not be beneficial. That is why different interpretation of the history and brining historical matters to attention can be an important factor for the formation of a certain voting behaviour.
The analysis of the results of the survey conducted by the SKDS Market and Public Opinion Research Centre allows noticing that the opinions of the Latvian-speaking and the Russian-speaking people in Latvia are rather different in those matters. For example, there are substantial differences in the evaluation of the statement that “Majority of people in Latvia supported the integration of Latvia into the USSR in 1940” between the said population groups. The respondents with predominantly Latvian language of communication in their families mainly disagree with that statement with the “completely disagree” and “partially disagree” responses adding up to 51 %, while the respondents communication in Russian in their families have the opposite opinion. Most of the latter either fully agree or partially agree with that statement with the sum of two responses of 41 % (see Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Attitude to the integration of Latvia into the USSR.[19]
The data show that in Latvia there are significant differences in their attitude to the integration of Latvia into the USSR between the Latvian-speaking and the Russian-speaking communities. Majority of the people who speak Latvian in their families believe that most of the population of Latvia in 1940 did not support the integration of Latvia into the USSR, while the people who speak Russian at home have the opposite view. However, it should be noted that quite a lot of respondents in both groups were unable to answer the question, which indicated lack of any clear interpretation of the event in both studied groups.
At the same time, looking at the attitude to the repressions during the years of the Soviet power, another opinion becomes apparent. Evaluating the statement “Part of those who were repressed during the Soviet years, in fact deserved it”, all people, both Latvian – and Russian-speaking, had almost unanimous opinion and did not agree with the statement: 78 % of those speaking Latvian in their families completely or partially disagree; the number was slightly less among the Russian-speakers at 63 %, but still a majority (see Fig. 3).
Fig. 3. Attitude to the repressions in the USSR.
The
M. Cepurītis, R. Gulbis. Ārpolitikas mīti Latvijā: Eiropas Savienība un Krievija (Foreign policy myths in Latvia: European Union and Russia), Riga, 2012, page 95. All subsequent survey date in this chapter are taken from the above source.