Minority issues in Latvia, No. 68

May 16, 2003

         
Content

- Minority education reform: pros and cons



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). 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). 

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), 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 
stipulates 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).  


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). 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, 16 May). 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, 17 May). 

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, 17 May).


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). "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).

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).

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). "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). 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: [email protected] 
Back issues:
http://www.minelres.lv/count/latvia.htm#MinIssuesLatvia 
===========================================================