Interview: 'Considerable Mismatch' in Official Attitudes and Integration Expectations
In an e-mail interview, Timofey Agarin, a researcher studying Baltic ethnic issues, discussed progress and lack thereof in integration, and how, in his opinion, Estonia is guilty of the same criticism that KAPO has made of Russia's "compatriots policy."
You have researched and written on inter-ethnic relations in the Baltics. What were some of your main findings? What is unique about the situation in the Baltics or Estonia, and how does it compare and contrast with other cases?
The issue of inter-ethnic relations in the Eastern Baltic is really a complex one, and there is much work on the matter. When I was working on the Baltics from Scotland there was a big crowd around me who looked at the area from outside and from a very Western perspective. In short, we all treated the post-Soviet Baltic [region] as a part of Western Europe, historically linked to cultural and social, but also to economic and political processes through trading and communicative routes of the Baltic Sea.
For me then, it was surprising to see that though back in the day, the Baltic states were generally perceived to be multicultural and multilingual, perspective on the region after the Soviet Union has changed – there is a great degree of belief in the region and beyond that Estonia, Latvia and Estonia are states with relatively homogeneous ethnic societies. Many of my colleagues see this as a result of nation and state building taking place in the region today, as it was between the wars, but I think it is very often the very complex situation domestically that impacts on such shared perceptions.
The work I have been doing on and in the Baltics essentially claims that inter-ethnic tensions exist everywhere, but they prevail over all other issues only in some societies. And these societies are the ones facing the greatest challenges to the very democratic core of the European Union. How societies deal with inter-ethnic tensions is indicative of whether they are democratic, that is open to dialogue and negotiate on middle grounds or not, whether they are liberal - that is, ready to concede that there is no predetermined positive advantage of being a member of titular ethnic community or not - and whether they are fit for Europe, that is ready to speak up and allow their adversaries not only to speak but also to allow equal decision making or not.
You recently visited a forum organized by the City of Tallinn that focused on ethnic relations in Estonia. What did you think of the atmosphere and what people were saying, both on the panel and in the audience, and how that might reflect on Estonian society?
The forum is now nearly a month behind us and though some time has passed, I must say it did leave a lasting impression on me. There were three things that spring to mind when I think back on the meeting. First and most crucially, I was astonished by the screaming absence of Estonian speaking public. Surely this was meant as a “forum,” which I take to mean a place for a dialogue; but in the absence of the ethnic majority, clearly, something central was amiss at the event.
Second, and related to my first point, was the very pool of attendees. Though there were a considerable number of young people, leaders of NGOs and cultural groups, minority collectives and academics even, all their talk and discussion was taking place among the people who think alike. This, it seems, made it very difficult to come up with ideas and practical innovation as to how to address, even if not reverse, social exclusion which everyone seemed to see in Estonia's Russian community.
And finally, and I think this speaks volumes on the local situation in Estonia, surely with all these people there, they all knew each other from before. Some appeared to have been good friends, others did not like each other so much, but they all knew what one another had to say from the start.
I had to ask myself why there were only two people from outside Estonia in the program. It would have greatly enriched the exchange – and what people would have been able to take home – if there were reports from other countries with similar situation, e.g. Latvia, or where ethnic conflicts seem to dominate politics too, e.g. Slovakia. I think all these three points gave me much to think of this compulsive interest in oneself in Estonia; in the first place, it definitely prevents people from finding solutions to problems in the country – if one was really interested in making suggestions that would be listened to, one would need to borrow from somewhere else. We have seen for nearly 20 years that Estonian minorities are unhappy with the local situation but they keep on trying similar strategies that have all failed in the past. The forum made me think again whether minorities in Estonia are not really afraid of changes, why would there otherwise be so little learning from elsewhere?
Where do you think Estonia is today with its integration policies with regard to social, economic and political aspects? What have been Estonia's biggest successes and failures with regard to integration since the break-up of the Soviet Union?
Integration policies in Estonia have been noted for their positive outcomes by many leaders of Western European countries over the past decade, this of course does not mean that things could not work better. This is of course understandable because the Estonian Constitution puts a premium on ethnic Estonians being able to have a state accountable to them and having the language of their community preserved.
Unfortunately, however, there has been too much following the letter of the Constitution in all things ethnic, and very little in matters related to equality of citizens of the state and, as of late, in the EU, to taxpayers who allow for the state to be in place and serve all taxpayers. We know from various Western European states that their constitutions and basic laws are rather strict on who and what kinds of residents can enjoy which rights, but in all countries in the “old” EU there have been ways found to negotiate strict constitutional provisions with the shared, European concept of equality of all before the law, equality in people's right to have rights and also in ways any one individual can enjoy the right to non-discrimination, whether we are talking about covert or open discrimination.
And here again, I suspect looking outside of the country-specific context would allow Estonia's policy makers to effectively “shop” for policies and practices that work and support constitutional order of their country by all residents, integrated or not, speaking the state language or not, but always determined to live together under the same legal order with members of the other ethnic group peacefully.
In this sense, Estonia's politicians' greatest success after 1991 is that they made EU accession possible; EU membership comes as an acknowledgement of your country's will to work with other like-minded countries in Europe on a common social, economic and political project of creating a multicultural Europe that sticks together because people respect each other. I think crucially, this acknowledgement of the EU ability of Estonia comes also with high expectations that Estonian society and its political leadership would craft domestic peace and stability together while showing commitment to European objectives of peace and stability, social and economic cooperation, and respect of cultural and linguistic diversity together.
What are the most important issues to focus on now in order to create a truly multicultural society?
Multicultural society must have common references, political elites jointly elected by all minority and majority individuals, and economic elites from both sides, social and cultural elites who come from different ethnic, linguistic communities and can speak, and are proud to be able to speak languages and dialects of other communities.
This is what we unfortunately do not see in Estonia. There is still a considerable mismatch between numbers of residents and citizens of Estonia, linguistic identity of a person has a disproportionate impact on chances and quality of employment, ethnic identity is a very good predictor of social and economic welfare of a person in Estonia. Taken together, all these factors do not bode well for commitment of Estonia's policy makers to really create a multicultural society, however contested the term might be. Overall, what I see from developments in the area of integration in Estonia for a decade now, Estonia's political leadership systematically demonstrates its lack of commitment to non-titular residents of the country.
The annual report published by the Estonian Internal Security Service (Kaitsepolitsei) on April 12 criticizes, as it has in previous years, Russia's "compatriots policy" as a threat to Estonia. How does the compatriots policy tie into this?
The report has been a very interesting read for all 15 years that it has been published; I have always enjoyed reading it as it so concisely underlines domestic and foreign perspectives of the agency. What is remarkable about this year’s report though is that it also sets a clear benchmark in policy priorities for Estonia’s democratic developments. This is a very welcome step. I have to applaud the authors’ perspectives to uphold Estonia’s constitutional order specifically, and indeed this relates to much of what we have spoken before. I must say that I am positively surprised to much attention is given to the issue of “soft power” in the document and how issues related to state security are couched in its framework.
The agency is obviously of the view that Russian speakers in Estonia are being used by another state to steer Estonia’s politics. The first question arises is to why is it possible, and why these very same people are reluctant to assume the role of ambassadors of Estonia to other societies.
The Estonian government has already invested millions of euros into integration programs, and provides opportunities for language teaching and learning, which is an excellent start. The question is, of course, as the report surmises, why these people are so ungrateful to Estonia? This, I think, is the centerpiece of the report, that the policies and the investment in human capital have not been effective.
This is, however, also where I see major challenges for the constitutional order of Estonia: My understanding so far has been that the Estonian Constitution sets out the country to be a liberal democracy tolerant to all views expressed in and outside state boundaries by citizens of Estonia and other countries. This is in effect the cornerstone of European freedom of speech to which the Republic of Estonia subscribes. Surprisingly, however, much intolerance is expressed in the language of the report about opinions of those who do not share the view of the report's authors: and this is where the report seems to contradict the very basic principle of the Estonian Constitution and many European documents to which Estonia has signed.
To be really effective as a state, all countries demonstrate credibly to their populations at home and abroad that they are valued for what they are: as active agents of democratic political process, as participants in economic development of the state, and valuable cultural and linguistic asset for their country's development in the years to come. States cease to be perceived as democratic once they start to prescribe to their residents how to behave politically, where to work, how to worship and which language to speak. I have a gut feeling that this is where the report stands in marked contrast with principles outlined in the Estonian Constitution.
The detailed reference to the Russian Federation’s compatriots policy is a good case in point. In fact, the Estonian government itself has prioritized many – or even all? – similar policies with regard to ethnic Estonians living outside the country, has channeled considerable funds to support development of Estonian culture and language in communities that do not enjoy the benefits of secondary education in their native Estonian because they live in other countries, e.g. in the UK or US. Many of my Estonian friends elsewhere in the EU regularly boast of the amounts of funding they individually and their NGOs receive from the Estonian taxpayer to promote and enhance their activities promoting Estonian culture and language outside Estonia.
It seems that report criticizes the very same methods used by the Russian Federation while seeing the Republic of Estonia's work elsewhere, in Russia among other places, as legitimate.
I think the report additionally underlines the fact that the Estonian state has withdrawn attention from its non-titular populations’ needs and as a result bemoans the fact that they turn to other countries for support. If anything this points out that Estonia needs to invest more in its non-Estonian residents to ensure that they view themselves – and indeed are valued – by the titular majority in your country and in the EU – as legitimate and welcome members of the liberal and democratic Estonian society.
Timofey Agarin is a lecturer of politics and ethnic conflict at Queen's University Belfast in Northern Ireland. Agarin completed doctoral and postdoctoral studies at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, where he wrote his PhD thesis on comparative democratization in post-Soviet Baltic states.
Interview by Ott Tammik