Planned Linguistic Policies and Human Rights Violations in Moldova
Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 17:45:40 +0200 (EET)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: Planned Linguistic Policies and Human Rights Violations in Moldova
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Original sender: Ionas Aurelian Rus <[email protected]>
Planned Linguistic Policies and Human Rights Violations in
Moldova
The Honorable Ambassador David H. Swartz,
Sfatul Tarii str. 16
2012, Chisinau
Moldova
Dear Sir,
My name is Ionas Aurelian Rus. I am a graduate student (ABD) in the
Department of Political Science at Rutgers, New Brunswick (see
http://polisci.rutgers.edu/info/gradprog/gradstus.html ). I am also
the President of the European Studies Graduate Student Association
(ESGSA) (see http://crcees.rutgers.edu/conf2001/ and
http://GSA/groups.html ). This is apparently the only organization of
its kind in the country whose citizens both of us are, the United
States.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my concern and
disapproval concerning the recent attempts by the Communist-controlled
government and the Communist-dominated legislature to change the
policy on the public use of languages in the Republic of Moldova.
Moreover, there is a need to intervene in order to minimize the danger
of gross violations of the freedom of assembly and association in
Moldova. I shall elaborate on all of these issues below.
According to the mission statement of the OSCE mission in Moldova (
http://www.osce.org/moldova/mandate/ ), it is the responsibility of
your mission to "investigate specific incidents and assess their
political implications ... provide advice and expertise on human and
minority rights, democratic transformation", etc. I believe that the
OSCE Mission in Moldova has the right, and indeed the duty, to express
its concerns to the Moldovan government and to recommend a return to
status quo ante.
I am sure that you are aware that a recent decision of the Minister of
Education of the Republic of Moldova, Mr. Ilie Vancea, has been hotly
contested. The minister had decided to make the study of the Russian
language mandatory (between the second and the tenth grade) in schools
where the main language of instruction is not Russian. This provision
applies overwhelmingly to Romanian language schools. This decision is
unconstitutional, and it violates the Law of Education of 1995.
Another hotly contested measure is the submission to the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova by the Communist
members of the legislature, under the leadership of Victor Stepaniuc
(Stepaniuk) of the text of a proposed amendment to the constitution of
the Republic of Moldova. According to this proposed amendment, Russian
would become the second official language of the Republic of Moldova.
Both of these positions are unpopular in the country as a whole.
According to an opinion poll conducted in November 2001, both of these
measures are disapproved by 58% of the population. The former is
supported by only 35%, and the latter by 33% (see
http://www.ipp.md/publications/prezentare/en.html in English, and, for
more details, the link "Barometer of Public Opinion 2001 - Final
report.ppt (1543 Kb)" at the same website, p. 68-71, in Romanian).
According to another opinion poll conducted earlier in the year, the
percentage of individuals who were in favor of an official status for
the Russian language was 38%. This number includes 26.3% among ethnic
Moldovans/Romanians ( see
http://www.ist.md/index.asp?doc=1_3&doctree=1_3_7_2_4 ), as opposed to
19% in November.
This apparent decrease in Moldovan/Romanian support for the policy
might be a sign of increasing ethnic polarization on this issue and in
general. An even better example is the increase in the proportion of
the members of the ethnic minorities, and particularly of the
Russian-speaking inhabitants, whose views are moving in the other
direction. The proportion of inhabitants who believe that Russian
should become a second official language has increased from 52.7% to
71% among ethnic Russians.
The increasing polarization on the linguistic issue over time (which
is further documented below) has been caused by the propaganda of
left-wing political forces. In 1994, this was done primarily by the
Socialist Party and "Unitate-Edinstvo" Movement Bloc, which obtained
22% of the votes in the national elections. Between 1995 and 2002, the
group that has been mainly responsible for this has been the Party of
Communists in the Republic of Moldova. The electoral performance of
this political group has improved from 15.74% of the vote in the local
elections of 1995 to 50.07% of the vote in the national elections in
2001, that is, 33.40% of the individuals with the right to vote (see
http://www.ifes.md/elections/electionresults). These groups, as well
as a few parties that obtained very few votes, have promised to give
Russian the status of an official language. Yet this topic has moved
increasingly toward the back of the Communist programmes, and has been
de-emphasized, as the Communists have increasingly obtained support
from individuals who do not favor this position.
Moreover, the support for the new proposed Communist linguistic
policies has been in some ways "soft". The proportion of the Romanian
population that has been against mandatory education in Russian for
Moldovans has not changed substantially (74% in 1992 and 69% in
November 2001). By contrast, the proportion of the members of the
Ukrainian minority that favor this has increased dramatically. Whereas
only 19.5% of the ethnic Ukrainians believed that everyone should be
taught Russian in 1992, the proportion in 2001 was 53% (the questions
were not fully identical). Among ethnic Russians, the percentage has
increased from 20.1% to 65%.
Of course, when different, but related, questions were asked in 1992,
the proportions were different, which indicates the existence of
certain complexities and ambiguities. The affirmative response to the
question "Romanian Language should be required for minorities" was 80%
among Moldovans, 43.2% among Ukrainians and 50.3% among Russians. In
the case of the question, "Each group should be required to learn only
its own language", the proportions were 13.1% among Moldovans, 37.4%
among Ukrainians and 27.2% among Russians. It would be false to claim
that a majority of the members of the national minorities disapproved
of the linguistic policies of the Moldovan government in 1992.
The bottom line is that the uncompromising attitude of the
non-Romanian population has not been a constant since 1989-1991.
Instead, it has increased because it has been fostered by the various
political forces that have been mentioned above for both ideological
and electoral reasons. I do not believe that this kind of politics
should be rewarded through by overruling a clear majority that
approves the status quo rather than the plans of the Communists.
For the results of the very informative and methodologically sound
1992 survey conducted by Professor William Crowther of the University
of North Carolina at Greensboro, whose data I have used above, one
should consult his various published scholarly articles and
manuscripts. The data presented above is from William Crowther,
"Nationalism and Political Transformation in Moldova", in Donald L.
Dyer (ed.), STUDIES IN MOLDOVAN: THE HISTORY, CULTURE, LANGUAGE AND
CONTEMPORARY POLITICS OF THE PEOPLE OF MOLDOVA, (East European
Monographs, Boulder, 1996).
What explains the relative softness and lack of consistency of the
opinions of the members of the national minorities. First of all,
Russian is a quasi-official language according to the constitution and
various statutes, a language of interethnic communication, a kind of
associate official language. Moreover, until now, Russian has been
mandatory in the predominantly non-Russian language schools between
the grades five and nine, for five years. This is the same number of
years in which the English-speaking inhabitants of Anglophone Ontario,
a province of officially bilingual Canada, study French.
Among ethnic Moldovans/Romanians, who represent more than 70% of the
population in the areas controlled by the Chisinau government, the
support for the status quo has been constant in surveys (see above),
and has manifested itself through massive protests. At any rate, the
supporters of the efforts to make and keep Romanian as the sole
official language have included a large number of committed
individuals. An estimated one million individuals assembled in
Chisinau participated in a rally in late August 1989 in favor of
making Romanian the official language in the republic. Thousands of
individuals have participated in street demonstrations and rallies
since January 9, 2002 against the changes pushed by the Communists.
By Thursday, January 17, 1:47 AM EST, over 26,000 plus 5,517
individuals have signed the text of two petitions, a regular and an
inline one, against these policies. The former has been sponsored
primarily by the Christian Democratic People's Party. The latter has
been organized by the Civic Attitude Group ( see
http://www.yam.ro/protest/ ). The author of these lines has signed the
latter.
The complete lack of street demonstrations in favor of making Russian
a second official language since 1990 is interesting. It is another
indication of the fact that the supporters of this position are less
likely to be committed to it than the supporters of the Romanian
language. Of course, this is not to minimize the fact that an
overwhelming majority of these individuals have voted for the
Communists since 1998. They have done so due to their nostalgia for
Soviet times, including, but not primarily focusing on, an affinity
for the status of Russian as the dominant official language during the
period before the emergence of Moldovan/Romanian as the official
language in 1989.
Of course, this has been the pattern outside of the secessionist areas
of the country. I am referring to Transnistria, the self-styled
Dniester Moldovan Republic, the secessionist area in the eastern part
of the country, and, during the early 1990's, to Gagauz-Yeri. One of
the factors that has led to the secessionist movements was the change
in the primary/dominant official language from Russian to Romanian,
but this was not the main factor.
In both 1989 and 2002, the opponents of the Romanophone demonstrators
have not been counter-demonstrators but rather the state apparatus.
During the past few days, two of those who were spreading leaflets for
the rally in Chisinau were arrested. Another one of them, a
parliamentary deputy from the opposition Christian Democratic People's
Party was threatened with a gun by a policeman. The demonstrators have
been threatened with punishment for violations on technicalities such
as demonstrating outside the area for which they had obtained the
permit to rally. Even more ominously, Justice Minister Ion Morei has
threatened on January 15 to outlaw (suspend) the Christian Democratic
People's Party because its deputies have engaged in these kinds of
violations.
The use of these techniques in favor of these goals do not augur well
for democracy in Moldova, or for interethnic relations in the country.
It needs to be pointed out that whereas 35-38% of the population
favors the use of Russian as a second language, and 24.3% of the
population supports the status quo. There are also the others, a group
equal in number to those holding the first position. They who do not
believe in any kind of a special status for the Russian language. A
swing in one direction right now may very well be followed by a swing,
past the mid-point, in the opposite direction.
It should be noted that the leadership of the Party of Communists of
the Republic of Moldova, including the current president of the
country, Vladimir Voronin, had promised earlier in the year that the
issue would be determined through a referendum. It has subsequently
gone back on its promise.
Ideally, the OSCE Mission, the Council of Europe, and various foreign
governments and organizations should intercede with the Moldovan
government to change its plans on the linguistic issue. The
above-mentioned order of the Minister of Education should be
cancelled. These third parties should also demand or request that the
issue of whether Russian should become a second official language
should be decided through a referendum. Moreover, the maintenance of
Moldovan democracy, including the freedom of assembly and the freedom
of association, including the right of the Christian Democratic
People's Party to function, should be upheld. All of us have the right
and the duty to push for all of these.
Sincerely,
Ionas Aurelian Rus
Political Science Department
Rutgers University
89 George Street, Hickman Hall
New Brunswick, New Jersey, 08901
[email protected]
---------------------
>From the moderator: In my view, some points made by Ionas Aurelian Rus
give rise to serious questions. Indeed, can mandatory study of a
minority (or "quasi-official", as Mr Rus writes) language be
considered a violation of the rights of a majority (or other
minorities)? Does this mandatory study automatically entails
infringement of the status of the official language? How provisions of
the basic minority rights documents (eg the Framework Convention)
should be interpreted in this respect? Is legislative establishment of
one or more official languages a subject to restrictions stemming from
human rights/ minority rights instruments (of course, provided that
the corresponding decision is taken by the democratically elected
legislature)? Any comments from the list members on these most
interesting issues are welcome.
Boris
---------------------
--
==============================================================
MINELRES - a forum for discussion on minorities in Central&Eastern
Europe
Submissions: [email protected]
Subscription/inquiries: [email protected]
List archive: http://www.riga.lv/minelres/archive.htm
==============================================================