- Today the crisis of multiculturalism in European countries is a very popular matter of discussion and the majority blames immigrants for the failure allegedly caused by their refusal to accept the dominant culture. Is it correct to think so? Is the state responsible as well?

 

- We should understand what multiculturalism is before answering these questions. According to the version widely accepted in Europe, multiculturalism is a process of integration of migrants into the society of their new homeland. This type of integration implies assimilation through acceptance of language and cultural norms of the dominant nation. When immigrants from Islamic countries that suffered from internal conflicts and military operations aimed at export of democracy arrived in Europe, the assimilation model stopped to work well: the religion was a stumbling block. As a rule, Muslim immigrants flatly refused to accept cultural norms that were not based on their religion such as appearance and leisure forms typical for the European population.

Europeans are less religious than migrants from the Middle East and North Africa, so they underestimated the fact that a large number of migrants were Muslims and neglected distinctive features of Islamic religion. European policymakers bent every effort to speedy assimilation of immigrants through compulsory language learning and various injunctions that caused a strong backlash. A lack of understanding between the titular nation and immigrants led to the situation which is now characterized by European leaders as a “failure of multiculturalism”. It is manifested in conflicts on religious ground within Europe and in creation of radical right wing nationalist parties.

At the same time there is another model of multiculturalism that is adopted in Canada and the USA – the melting pot concept. It implies integration without assimilation when different nations and ethnicities live together in the same territory with equal status of their cultures and languages ensured by the state. Perhaps, modern Europe needs such a model to be adopted.

 

- How topical is this issue for Latvia? Do European institutions care about the rights of the Russian-speaking minorities in Baltic countries? Is it discussed together with other similar issues or is it a separate topic for the EU? Does Europe have a political will to solve this problem?

 

- Latvia has not yet faced those problems of multicultural relations that Europe now seeks to overcome. We do not have so many immigrants, especially from Muslim countries, as Europe has. However, while demographic crisis is taking place everywhere in Europe, including Latvia, migration becomes the only factor of population growth. Nevertheless, we have time and opportunities to take into account the Western European experience beforehand in order to avoid a range of possible mistakes.

Latvia is not a big country which stayed under the dominance of bigger nations over a major part of its history due to its geographical position. Representatives of different nations have lived on the Latvian territory along with native population over centuries, so I think that cosmopolitanism is a natural feature of the Latvian nation. That is why I find it absurd to call Russian-speaking minorities “alien elements” of the modern Latvian society which is in fact consisted of two big language groups: Latvian and Russian. It is important to note that the Russian language group includes not only those who arrived in Latvia after 1940, but also descendants of ethnic Russians who lived there for a long period of time before the Soviet era.

I do not see any serious problems at all in relationships between the titular nation and Russian-speaking minorities in Latvia in everyday life. Young Latvian generation speaks very well both languages, often including the English language. The government does not legally oblige people to learn two languages, but they do that in order to meet the requirements of the market. Young people who want to make a good career in Latvia and obtain a high salary should speak English, two main languages of our country and one or two other European languages in addition to that.

I am a living example of what a representative of Russian-speaking minorities can achieve in Latvia. Despite I am an ethnic Russian, I have learnt the Latvian language and became a naturalized citizen. After that I was chosen to head the Harmony Centre political alliance that took its deserved place among the so-called “Latvian” parties. Today we are the second biggest party in the national parliament, and I am a mayor of Riga - the capital of Latvia.

From my point of view, a political problem of non-citizens who are mostly Russian-speaking is the main source of tension between the titular nation and minorities. According to 2010 statistics, 326.735 people or almost 15% of Latvians have had a non-citizen status that leads to different restrictions, including the absence of voting rights.

The Harmony Centre treats such practice as intolerable and supports the abolition of  some principal inequalities between citizens and non-citizens. In particular, we advocate the abolition of professional restrictions for non-citizens and their right to elect self-government institutions. Moreover, our party insists on the need to simplify naturalization procedure and claims that it should be specially supported by the state.

At the same time, European institutions do not possess a right to interfere in national policies of member states at this level. As for the state language and citizenship, they should not prescribe their own policies and can only give recommendations.

Perhaps, the European Union should more seriously consider the problem of non-citizens in Latvia and Estonia, but this demands political will, time and opportunities. Today the most urgent issue for the European Union is the Eurozone crisis, particularly the situation in Greece and Portugal that are likely to declare default which would be suffered after that by Italy and Spain. While all European summits, meetings and negotiations are devoted to this issue, Latvians should resolve the problem of non-citizens themselves.

 

- How efficient are modern democratic institutions in Latvia?

 

- Cooperation between ruling and opposition parties in Latvia is very feeble. In fact, almost all opposition proposals irrespective of their quality are doomed to failure just because they are not made by the ruling party. Thus the majority of opposition initiatives and amendments that reflect views and interests of a significant part of Latvian voters stays beyond the parliamentary consideration.

Another problem is that every parliamentary cycle implies in average the formation of not less than three governments. Does it prove efficiency of the political system? I am not sure of that, even despite the fact that this process is democratic.

Nevertheless, we have positive examples of how the Latvian political system works. For instance, recently the ruling coalition wanted to cut pensions in order to follow austerity measures. More than hundreds of lawsuits have been brought against the Latvian Seim to the constitutional court. After careful consideration of all the lawsuits, it has admitted that demands of the citizens are legitimate whereas the actions of the Seim are not. Then Latvian authorities were obliged not only to refuse austerity plans, but also to return money back to the Latvian citizens.

 

- These and other issues will be debated in one of the sections of the Yaroslavl Global Policy Forum. What are your expectations from these debates? What do you plan to say and what would you like to hear from other participants?

 

- As a Mayor of Riga and a chairman of the Harmony Centre political alliance I want to closer cooperation between Latvia and Russia. Latvia has long served as a natural bridge between Western Europe and Russia and we should strengthen this role. We are open to dialogue and different forms of cooperation at all levels and in all spheres.

 

By Yulia Netesova

 

Translated by George Plaschinsky

 

Foto: J?nis Deinats

Tweet