5. Concluding Remarks to the Theoretical Section
6.1. Integration Policy 2001
A brief review of the previous Latvian integration policy attempt is also necessary in order to understand the approach to integration taken by the government, the focus areas highlighted, to what extent was the sense of belonging of Russian speakers to Latvia a concern in 2001, and what are the target groups identified by the policy document.
The national program on the Integration of Society was adopted by the government in February 2001. In stating its justification for the need for an integration strategy the program notes that, “From the Soviet era, Latvia has inherited more than half a million immigrants and their descendants, many of whom have not
447 Baltic Institute of Social Sciences (2005)., p. 34.
448 European Commission (1997). Agenda 2000 - Commission Opinion on Latvia’s Application for Membership of the European Union. Viewed 17.10.2013 from http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/dwn/opinions/latvia/la-op_en.pdf, p. 19.
yet become integrated into the Latvian cultural and linguistic environment, and thus do not feel connected to the Latvian state.”449 Right away, it can be noted that the document defines the parameters of the entity into which the minority is expected to integrate in ethnic terms; as the Latvian cultural and linguistic environment. From the quotation it can also be understood that sense of belonging facilitation, in terms of promoting a felt connection to Latvia, is already a concern. The Soviet era immigrants and their descendants are identified as the specific target group.
The document goes further in stating that not only does integration concern non-citizens, but that many Latvian citizens also lack a connection to Latvia.450 However, at the time of the drafting of the document, a survey commissioned by the Latvian government was carried out in order to determine, among other things, the level of belonging to Latvia. In the survey, 81 per cent of citizens claimed a sense of belonging to Latvia, as did an overwhelming 80 per cent of non-citizens.451 Thus, it is not surprising that the rest of the document does not expand on the definition of belonging, or place particular emphasis on sense of belonging facilitation or encouragement.
Instead, the 2001 document places considerable focus on the education system stating that, “Latvian education system is the most important driving force and means of implementing the integration process….”452 and further identifying children and the youth as the most important target group of the integration policy.
Unsurprisingly, the emphasis on the education system goes hand in hand with emphasis placed on Latvian language knowledge and use in the document. Further, the emphasis on language and the education system reform is argued to be for the benefit of the minority youth, in order to promote their competitiveness in the labor market.453 Minority groups, at the time, heavily criticized the document and its assimilative nature in terms of the education and language policy, and they viewed the program as justification for the already passed controversial education policy.454
Another aspect very evident in the 2001 program is the focus on indivisible loyalty as the basis of integration. Loyalty to Latvia is mentioned as the end goal of
449 LR Valsts programma (2001)., p. 7.
450 Ibid., p. 7.
451 Baltic Data House (1998)., p. 61.
452 Ibid., p. 51.
453 Muižnieks, N., Rozenvalds, J., Birka, I. (2013)., p. 296.
454 Dorodnova, J. (2003)., p. 130.
social integration455 and that the task of the integration process is to, “…help those residents of who are loyal to the Latvian state in realizing their perspectives in Latvia….”456 Interpretation of this passage would suggest that those residents with transnational ties are not welcome to realize themselves within Latvia and are encouraged to sever such attachments. This would suggest that the document has a serious concern with the Russian external homeland influence, the transnational ties, and diaspora belonging associated with split loyalties and its influence on integration.
Exception to the indivisible loyalties rule in the document seems to be the European Union and European values, which, within the document, are understood to supplement the integration process.
Although, the document also has sections dealing with political participation and civic organization involvement, and notes the two-way nature of social integration and the need for mutual accommodation, the processes are heavily rooted in promoting Latvian language knowledge. For example, the section dealing with political participation as a means of integration, lists the first two projects to be realized as focused on language teaching.457 Thus, the program fails to address the various dimensions of integration and elements noted as important by the sense of community theory for sense of belonging development, focusing mostly on cultural integration, while any structural or interactive integration projects are, first and foremost, justified in linguistic and cultural terms. In his analysis of the program, Rozenvalds notes that the emphasis of the program was on the need for the minorities to adapt, to accept Latvian culture, understand history, and be loyal in order to belong.458
In summary, it can be concluded that the original 2001 Latvian framework for social integration placed a disproportionate amount of emphasis on cultural integration, specifically linguistic integration, and this emphasis is carried through in sections dealing with structural and interactive integration. The disproportionate emphasis placed on cultural and linguistic aspects of integration suggests that the national identity of Latvia is understood in ethnic or cultural terms, with the content of national identity defined by culture, language, ways of life and social customs
455 LR Valsts programma (2001)., p. 7.
456 Ibid., p. 7.
457 Ibid., pp. 20-21.
458 Rozenvalds, J. (2010)., p. 55.
characteristic of the particular community. The two-way nature of social integration is mentioned, however, the content of the document fails to consider mutual accommodation. Especially evident in the document is the concern with indivisible loyalty, suggesting that transnational ties, cultural, economic or political, are construed as undesirable, thus suggesting that the maintenance of an identity other than Latvian may be frowned upon. The task of adapting, in this version of the document, falls on the minority with very little leeway afforded for actually amending the existing structures of the nation-state.
The 2001 integration policy document identified children and youths as the most important target groups of the integration policy, and expressed concern with Soviet era immigrant and their descendent felt attachment toward Latvia.
Additionally, it has already been mentioned and illustrated in Table 2 (p. 100) of this dissertation that Russian speaking youths in Latvia express the weakest sense of belonging to Latvia. Thus, in testing the theoretical assumptions of belonging in order to identify what factors and dimensions of the sense of community theory show a consistent correlation with a sense of belonging to Latvia, it is wholly applicable that the survey data used should be that of Russian speaking youths in Latvia in the time frame between the two integration policy approaches.