Introduction to the Document

The Latvian government adopted the latest policy guidelines, drafted by the Ministry of Culture, in October of 2011. The key goal of the integration guidelines is to be found in section 1.4 stating that, “…the goal of Latvia’s national identity, civil society and integration policy is a strong, cohesive people of Latvia; a national and democratic community which ensures the maintenance and enrichment of its unifying foundation – the Latvian language, culture, and national identity, European democratic values, its unique cultural space.”⁵⁰⁹ Thus, the document calls for a combined approach to integration, focusing on both the national or cultural content of a national identity and the democratic principles as the foundation of integration.

As discussed in the theoretical section of the dissertation, this is the common approach to integration employed by most Western nations, favoring integration within one national community, delineated by a national identity. Thus, the Latvian integration policy does not envision the pursuit of cultural pluralism, or multiculturalism, and does not endorse the maintenance of various cultural identities and communities within one civic state framework. The integration document clearly states that the Latvian national identity is to be the foundation of integration in stating that, “The common basis for integration is the Latvian language, the feeling of

509 LR Kultūras ministrija (2011)., p. 10.

belonging to the Latvian state, and its democratic values, respect for Latvia’s unique cultural space, and the development of a shared social memory.”⁵¹⁰

However, the emphasis on European democratic values, also suggests the civic aspect of the nation and the integration process. By referencing European democratic values and the unique cultural space of Europe as the foundation of integration, the Latvian policy document undoubtedly alludes to the European Union and the previously discussed European Council agreement on Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy in the EU,⁵¹¹ thus signaling its compliance and membership. Nevertheless, as discussed, the EU agreement is rather vague, and leaves room for interpretation, requiring only that the process of integration itself be interpreted as a two-way process of accommodation, with participation expected from the immigrants and their descendants, and the adherence to policies of non-discrimination and the promotion of equality from the member states. However, the fact that Latvia within the context of Europe is mentioned so early on in the document, does signal the significance of the expanded concept of a European membership that can be accessed through a Latvian identity.

The situation of Latvia, and the need for an integration policy, is described in sections 1.2 and 1.3. The document notes that integration has to combat the development of parallel worlds or the formation of a two-community society, characterized as division between two communities, where there is no common state language and integration does not take place on the basis of common values, cultural space, and shared social memory. “With the formation of a large Russian speaking community of immigrants during the occupation, signs of a two-community society can be observed; separate information spaces, and observable rift in political sphere based on national characteristics, differing social memories, language segregation at the workplace, in schools and kindergartens.”⁵¹²

This situation in Latvia, according to the document, is the result of the occupation, during which the Latvian state was unable to restrict immigration in any way. The majority of the immigrants are said to have arrived between the 1950’s and the 1980’s, “As a result of the deliberate Russification policy implemented by the Soviet Union which had the goal of securing Latvia as an inseparable part of the

510 LR Kultūras ministrija (2011)., p. 5.

511 European Union Justice and Home Affairs Council (2004).

512 LR Kultūras ministrija (2011)., p. 7.

USSR….”⁵¹³ A significant portion of the immigrants, according to the document, have successfully integrated and gained Latvian citizenship. However, the portion that continue to be isolated, negatively influences the functioning of democracy and create social tension.⁵¹⁴

In defining what constitute immigrants, the document makes it a point to label the Russian speakers who arrived during the Soviet period and their descendants, who have not naturalized, as immigrants. This is done in section 1.1, in which concepts and terms used in the policy document are clarified.⁵¹⁵ The maintenance of this distinction between immigrants and national minorities, as discussed in the theoretical discussion of integration, is important because of the different integration requirements the groups may command and the special treatment that could be afforded to national minorities by way of international law and agreements. The Latvian government decision to emphasize this distinction in the integration policy guidelines in order to avoid any legal concessions, has been argued to be unfair, and even immoral. This is because, the document is mostly focusing on second generation representatives, with youths and children who have been born in Latvia and have gown up in Latvia, and Latvia is the only country they have ever known.

The labeling of this group as immigrants is considered highly insensitive and counter-productive to integration efforts.⁵¹⁶

Very prominent in the document is the special role afforded to a sense of belonging. As alluded to in the dissertation introduction, the concept of belonging is mentioned roughly forty-five times in the policy document, in a wide variety of contexts ranging from; belonging in general, belonging to the Latvian state, nation, or cultural sphere, emphasizing belonging to Europe through European traditions, values, and principles and the Western way of thinking. Where the 2001 document had noted the lack of belonging, or connectedness to Latvia, as a result of integration shortcomings, it did not expand on how integration and a sense of belonging were interlinked. However, the 2012-2018 policy guidelines perceive a sense of belonging to have a very central role in the integration process, even using the concept in defining social integration by stating that, “…the basis of integration is the Latvian

513 LR Kultūras ministrija (2011)., p. 10.

514 Ibid., pp. 8-9.

515 Ibid., p. 7.

516 Upleja, S. (2011). Latvietis pareizais (The Correct Latvian). Politika.lv Viewed 17.10.2013 from http://politika.lv/article/latvietis-pareizais

language, sense of belonging to Latvia, and the democratic values, respect for the unique cultural sphere of Latvia, and formulation of cohesive social memory.”⁵¹⁷ The document emphasizes, that it is the state responsibility through social integration to,

“…strengthen national identity, and the sense of belonging to Latvia….”⁵¹⁸

In Section 5 of the document, the policy results and outcome indicators for their achievement are set out. Here, once again, the prominent role afforded to feelings of belonging to Latvia in the integration policy is in emphasized. The first integration policy goal suggested is, “Stronger feeling of belonging to Latvia among schoolchildren.”⁵¹⁹ As an indicator of outcome, an increase in expressed belonging to Latvia and Europe amongst schoolchildren in minority language programs of study is suggested. The proposed goal is to facilitate an environment in which 50 per cent of schoolchildren in minority programs express a ‘close’ or ‘very close’ attachment to Latvia by 2014, and 75 per cent to express ‘close’ or ‘very close’ attachment to Latvia by 2018.⁵²⁰ The policy document outlines various other hoped for policy results, and in order to establish how the state, within the context of integration policy, plans to strengthen the sense of belonging to Latvia, the dissertation section below uses the parameters established by the sense of community theory to analyze the policy document further in the proposed categories. As the main focus of the policy document is in strengthening the sense of belonging to Latvia amongst the minority schoolchildren, empirical findings of factors impacting Russian speaking youth’s feelings of belonging are compared with the proposed policy focus areas.

8.2. Policy Analysis – Membership / Shared Emotional