Presentation given at the expert seminar: New era in integration policies in the Baltic Sea Countries? Tallinn, Estonia, 25.2.2013

1. Sabiedriskās politikas centrs
Challenges of
integration: case of
Latvia
(Presentation by Iveta Kazoka, Centre for Public Policy
PROVIDUS for expert seminar on integration in the Baltic Sea
countries, Feb 25, 2013, Tallinn)

2. Relevant statistics (1)
1.Where the people of Latvia have been born (2011 vs
2000)?
In 2011 – 85.4% Latvia, 7.7% Russia
Data and charts: 2011 census data http://www.csb.gov.lv
Centre for Public Policy
PROVIDUS

3. Relevant statistics (2)
2.Citizenship/nationality (2011 vs 2000)?
In 2011 – 83.5% Latvian citizens, 14.2% Latvian non-citizens; 2.3%
other country nationals
Data and charts: 2011 census data http://www.csb.gov.lv
Centre for Public Policy
PROVIDUS

4. Relevant statistics (3)
3. Ethnic origin(2011 vs 2000)?
In 2011 – 62.1% Latvians, 26.9% Russians
Data and charts: 2011 census data http://www.csb.gov.lv
Centre for Public Policy
PROVIDUS

5. Relevant statistics (4)
4. Language usage at home?
62.1% - Latvian;
37.2% - Russian;
0.7% - other languages
Data : 2011 census data http://www.csb.gov.lv
Centre for Public Policy
PROVIDUS

6. Based on these data, is the need for
integration related policy obvious?
How much do you feel you have in common with:
Data and chart: SKDS opinion survey, 2012
http://www.skds.lv/doc/Nacionalo_ideju_popularitate_sabiedriba_072012_LV.pdf
Centre for Public Policy
PROVIDUS

7. No deep-rooted tensions, but
several contentious issues
 Attitudes towards history;
 Non-citizens – status and rights;
 Language issues (usage of Russian language in
education, in official communication, in public
services);
 Attitudes towards Russia;
 Political representation.
Centre for Public Policy
PROVIDUS

8. Integration policy 1
 Since 1990’s: attempts to define the aims of such a
policy. Principal challenges:
 Should one focus on finding solution to contentious
issues or find some other way to consolidate society?
 Deep confusion on the categories of ethnic/national.
“Latvian” – citizenship? Ethnic origin? Linguistic
category? Self-identification? Attitudes towards
history?
 Integration: one way or two way process?
Centre for Public Policy
PROVIDUS

9. Integration policy 2
 2011. Guidelines of National Identity and Society Integration for
2012-2018 .
 Proclaims: 1) Latvians to be a state nation (which defines Latvian
cultural identity); 2) There are ethnic minorities with deep roots in
Latvia (but prior to 1940) and whose rights should be protected; 3)
People (and their descendants) who came to Latvia during Soviet
occupation should be considered immigrants; 4) Being a “Latvian”
is an open category – anyone can assimilate to being a Latvian if
he/she accepts Latvian culture.
 Main focus on: 1) Teaching Latvian language; 2) Expanding the
usage of Latvian language; 3) Creation of common “social memory”
Centre for Public Policy
PROVIDUS

10. Integration policy 3
 Guidelines turned out to be deeply contested!
 Main objections towards guidelines:
1. Cultural identity, not civic values as the basis of integration;
2. People born in Latvia perceived as immigrants;
3. They’ve been given just one legitimate option: to assimilate with
Latvian cultural identity;
4. Perception of integration as a one-way process where Latvians
should continue being as they are, why the others should make
effort to integrate.
Centre for Public Policy
PROVIDUS

11. Any paradigmatic changes?
(1)
 Deply traumatic referendum on introduction of two state languages
in the beginning of 2012.
 But ... in part due to the referendum there are four silver linings!
Four new trends in public discourse on integration:
1) less beligerence and self-righteousness (president;
Ministry of Education; politicians);
2) focus on things everyone can do in common regardless
of their differences - common events, civic participation as a
unifying activity;
Centre for Public Policy
PROVIDUS

12. Any paradigmatic changes?
(2)
3) Conceptual shift from the neccessity to “integrate Russian
speakers” to the neccessity of creating a “consolidated
society” – which requires input from everyone.
4) Reconceptualization of identities. What does it mean to be a
Latvian (44% percent of Latvian inhabitants still perceive it as a
“blood”-related category: you cannot be a Latvian if you haven’t
been born to ethnic Latvian parents)? Can there be a black-skinned
Latvian?
A noticable move away from ethnicity-based identities to identities
defined by citizenship. Symptomatic struggle over inscription of
one’s ethnic origin in passports.
Centre for Public Policy
PROVIDUS