The discriminatory situation of the Russian–speaking population of Latvia through the prism of the Council of Europe - past and present

Dolzhenkova Ekaterina ORCID: 0000-0003-0261-763X PhD in Politics Associate Professor; Higher School of Jurisprudence and Forensic Technical Expertise; Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University 195251, Russia, St. Petersburg, Politechnicheskaya str., 29 litera B skinx@inbox.lv Other publications by this author

Introduction. Russian–speaking residents of Latvia include different nationalities of the post-Soviet space ^[1], but the unifying factor for them is the language of communication - Russian. According to the data presented by R. H. Simonyan ^[2], the number of Russian-speaking population in Latvia has hardly changed since the restoration of independence and still makes up the majority of society. The Russian–speaking population is divided by nationality - part of the population is Latvian citizens, part is Russian, and part of the Russian-speaking population has the status of a non-citizen. Such a division is important in shaping the political life of the state. Non-citizens and Russian citizens have no right to participate in elections. And Russian-speaking Latvian citizens cannot overcome the problem identified by L. S. Zhirnova ^{[3; 4]}, the ethnolinguistic split in the electoral sphere. Latvian political elites seek to isolate parties that promote the interests of the Russian-speaking population, which affects the situation of this part of the population, despite the fact that "pro-Russian" parties are trying to adapt to modern political foreign and domestic political discourse ^{[5; 6]}.

The socio-political and economic situation of the Russian-speaking population in Latvia depends on European institutions and on the internal political discourse of Latvian society. The cultural and social status of the Russian-speaking population depends on those socio-political ideas and ideologies that "circulate" in society, created by political elites. M. E. Megem ^[7] notes that the policy of memory pursued by Latvian political elites depends on the nature of relations with the Russian Federation. The Latvian government is reconsidering its attitude towards its own past, which is eventually realized in destructive actions aimed at historical objects of the Soviet period and at distorting historical facts ^[8]. Such actions of political elites affect relations in society, namely, the Russian-speaking population, on the one hand, feels the hostility of an odious society, and on the other hand, it isolates itself.

Latvian society, in a generalized form, can be represented as consisting of two main groups – the titular population, which is the actual majority, and Russian-speaking residents, who are the majority among all national minorities. The Russian-speaking population is endowed with a special status through a developed mechanism of social, political, economic and cultural discrimination, the main elements of which are fixed at the legislative level, and some of them develop in the form of ideology, cultural and social attitudes. The developed institutions of the Council of Europe, designed to protect human rights and freedoms, have so far failed to create comfortable and fair conditions for the largest part of the national minority living in Latvia. Quite a few scientific articles have been written recently about how the main actors of the European region influence the general policy towards Russia and some of its citizens (or, as in the case of Russian-speaking residents of Latvia, related to it by linguistic and national characteristics of a part of the population) ^{[9; 10; 11; 12; 13]}. The purpose of this study is to examine the main provisions of the Russian-speaking population of Latvia, which were reflected in the reporting documents of the Council of Europe after 1991, depending on the main foreign policy events involving Latvia and Russia, in order to explain individual actions of the Latvian government and try to determine the future position of this population group in the context of modern realities.

Materials and methods. The study is based on the historical method, which is based on the post-Soviet period of Latvian socio-political development up to the present time. In the historical retrospect under consideration, events occurred that influenced the situation of the Russian-speaking population. The first period (1997, 1998, 2003) is the post–Soviet period, when the Republic of Latvia aspired and prepared to join the European Union; in the second period (2007, 2011, 2021) Latvia is already a full member of the EU and carries out the procedure of European integration as a member state (at the same time the economic crisis of 2008 occurred; and also in 2014, the foreign policy situation with the participation of the Russian Federation became more complicated, which affected the reporting documents for 2021); the third period (2024) is the period when the main driving force of Latvian policy towards the Russian–speaking population was an external factor – events on the territory of Ukraine with the participation of Of the Russian Federation. Formal legal and institutional research methods are used to review the reporting documents of specialized institutions of the Council of Europe, to identify the specifics of the situation of the Russian-speaking population of Latvia in the above periods: Report on the situation of local and regional democracy in Latvia ^[14]; Recommendation 47 (1998) on local and regional democracy in Latvia) ^[15]; Report of Mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to Latvia on 5-8 October 2003 for the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly ^[16]; Report of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities on Local and Regional Democracy in Latvia ^[17]; Resolution CM/ResCMN(2021)9 on the implementation of Latvia's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities ^[18]; Report of the European Commission on Combating Racism and Intolerance ^[19]; ECRI conclusions on the implementation of recommendations regarding Latvia, taking into account interim and follow-up measures ^[20]; Fourth Opinion on Latvia of the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities ^[21]. The subsequent analysis and correlation of the obtained results was carried out in closer dependence on the events taking place.

Results. In a 1997 report, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe noted difficulties with the integration of non-citizens, 37% of whom were representatives of the nationalities of the USSR (most of them Russians). In the report, the Congress made the assumption that the issues of citizenship and ethnicity coincide in the Latvian political discourse. At that time, the naturalization procedure was very limited, including the presence of such rules as: a person who had lived in Latvia for at least 5 years since May 1990 could undergo the naturalization procedure; non-citizens could apply for naturalization only before reaching the age of 30. In conclusion, the Congress suggested that any action to achieve results within the framework of local and regional democracy depends "on the goodwill of the Government in power."

In 1998, the Congress, in its Recommendations to Latvia, noted the provisions according to which, in order to implement a democratic policy, it is necessary to allow Latvian non-citizens, as well as persons who are not citizens of Latvia living on its territory, to participate in local government elections. Which, in the opinion of the Congress, would be part of the integration of this category of the population into the democratic system.

The report of the Commissioner for Human Rights on the results of his visit to Latvia in 2003 speaks about the ambiguity of the status of a "non-citizen", which is close to the category of stateless persons. Despite all the arguments of the Latvian side that non-citizens should not be considered as stateless persons, the Commissioner was inclined to the opposite, noting also that the Latvian government should not dwell on the past and extrapolate a negative attitude towards the past to the Russian-speaking population in the present. It is also noted that non-citizens are deprived of voting rights, and their social and economic rights are limited. The Council of Europe called on the Latvian government to simplify the naturalization procedure for non–citizens, which was done - the window system was abolished, language tests for the elderly were simplified, naturalization fees were reduced, and school exam results were also taken into account. In the Commissioner's personal opinion, the language test was still difficult, and based on personal conversations with non–citizens, the Commissioner concluded that for most people the cost of the naturalization procedure represented a significant amount. The pace of naturalization in 2003 was assessed negatively, because the process was rather slow. In addition to the actual provisions implemented at the legislative level, special attention was paid to the social relations between representatives of the titular population and minorities – the Commissioner clarified that there is tension in society that can be overcome by creating conditions for an open dialogue based on mutual understanding and mutual respect. At that time, the situation with newborns, who were registered in non-citizen families with the same status, was also a significant problem.

In 2003, Latvia was just preparing to become a member of the European Union and the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of National Minorities had not yet been ratified. But despite this, the Commissioner noted that the Latvian Government has taken a number of measures to preserve the identity and culture of national minorities, including the availability of schools for minority children.

The use of minority languages in the social sphere in 2003 was characterized as a situation that is awaiting resolution, for example, the use of minority languages in communication with administrative authorities and in the media. At that time, there was a particularly acute problem in relations with administrative authorities – a ban was imposed on the acceptance of documents by municipal authorities and courts written in a language other than Latvian – documents without translation into the official language were not accepted. Correspondence with government officials was also impossible in a non-Latvian language, which was a particular problem for older people. Representatives of the Latvian authorities argued that it was possible to use the services of an interpreter, but such services were limited in rural municipalities.

In 2003, discussions were held about the upcoming education reform at that time (60% to 40% - 60% of education in Latvian, 40% in the minority language). Parents were concerned that there were not enough teachers who were able to conduct the educational process in these conditions. The reform was complicated by political hostility, which also involved students.

In turn, the Memorandum to the Latvian Government on the achievements of the recommendations of 2003 (2007) indicated that the problem with the naturalization of non–citizens had not been solved - its successes were only partial, since there were still a significant number of non-citizens. Language and historical tests have not been simplified for the elderly. Young people could not understand a number of questions indicated in the test. Children of non-citizens were still registered in the same status. The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities signed by Latvia has contributed to the separation in society and the marginalization of national minorities who are representatives of the non-titular population. Non-citizens have not been granted the right to participate in the political life of the country. The requirements for applying to administrative authorities only in Latvian did not change, but were implemented at that time quite flexibly, i.e. individual institutions accepted applications in minority languages, as well as provided translation services in some departments. Latvian language learning programs for parents and teachers, as well as for the elderly, were positively received. But these programs were underfunded in the short and medium term. The educational reform faced the problem of a shortage of textbooks, an insufficient number of qualified teachers and non-compliance on the part of participants in the educational process (there were widespread cases when teaching took place in Latvian only when visiting an inspector).

In 2011, the Latvian Government was recommended to grant the right to participate in local government elections to non-citizens. At the same time, the actions of the Latvian government aimed at integrating the Russian-speaking population by easing the naturalization procedure (including the availability of Latvian language courses for non-citizens permanently residing in Latvia) were positively assessed. At the same time, the Center of Consent pariah was very popular, which promoted a number of initiatives that would improve the integration process of the Russian-speaking population (for example, the right to participate in local government elections). In 2011, there was still the possibility of teaching in Russian, and schools for national minorities were funded from the State budget. The Russian language was also used by employees of public services. In general, despite a number of negative factors of the integration process of the Russian-speaking minority related to the use of the Russian language in communication with administrative authorities and in topographical names, the situation in the field of integration of the Russian-speaking population was assessed as positive and promising.

In early 2021, in a Resolution on Latvia's implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe noted both the positive and negative sides of the actions of the Republic of Latvia towards national minorities. The resolution proceeds from the provisions adopted by the Latvian Government under the Convention – non-citizens are excluded from its scope, i.e. the provisions of the Convention apply only to Latvian citizens and nationalities with close ties to Latvia.

The positive points noted by the Committee were that parents with the status of non-citizens could register a child with the status of a citizen of Latvia; for some categories of the population, the cost of naturalization services was reduced; non-citizens who graduated from a school institution in Latvian were exempt from taking the state language proficiency test; for persons over 65 years of age, it was provided exemption from the written part of the Latvian language exam.

The Committee of Ministers noted that the State system for studying and improving knowledge of the State language was actively developing and in demand in Latvia. According to the sociological survey presented in the Resolution, 90% of respondents for whom Russian is their native language rated their knowledge of the Latvian language as good. Russian Russian-language cultural events were also positively assessed, as well as the available information in Russian about the work of cultural and historical institutions. The mass media also continued to be published in Russian, both in print and in radio, telecommunications and electronic formats.

In turn, the Resolution highlights the provisions that have raised concerns on the part of the Committee. Thus, the attitude of national minorities towards the Latvian language, which consisted in a neutral or positive attitude, was insufficient for social cohesion.

It was emphasized that Russian-speaking residents were the majority among the national minorities of Latvia (provided that non-citizens of Latvia, as well as Russian citizens living in Latvia, are outside the scope of the Convention). This population group held different geopolitical views and a different cultural identity. In such a socio-political environment, the actions of the Latvian government to create a cohesive society based on citizenship did not bring significant positive results. The tension in society also stemmed from a situation in which public and human rights organizations did not find a response from the national Government when addressing injustice.

One of the most important observations of the Committee was the fact that domestic policy and pressure on the Russian-speaking population are driven by a political agenda, i.e. the actions of political elites and government agencies did not take into account the real situation in society, which was reflected in the restriction of the use of the Russian language in such areas as education, labor relations, public life and the media.

The nationality that the person wanted to indicate in the documents could not be based on freedom of self-identification. To indicate the nationality, it was necessary to provide supporting documents in which the nationality would be determined through kinship. If a person wanted to change their nationality to Latvian, then it was necessary to prove knowledge of the Latvian language to the highest category. The Committee characterized such actions of the Latvian authorities as a desire for national exclusivity.

The requirements for knowledge of the state language in the professional sphere began to expand over time and reached the point that representatives of municipal councils, as well as senior representatives of non-profit associations, needed to confirm their knowledge of the Latvian language at a high level, which was an obstacle to the participation of a large part of the population in the socio-political life of society. There was also a problem in the relations between national minorities and State bodies, as well as in the lack of information in the languages of national minorities when specifying topographical names, etc. Representatives of national minority languages continued to face increasing pressure in the educational sphere, including in schools of national minorities. All students, regardless of the status of the school, were required to take centralized exams in Latvian, and there was also no possibility of choosing a language when acquiring knowledge. Teachers and principals of educational institutions faced pressure through the introduced loyalty provisions.

In 2021, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) provided separate conclusions on the recommendations given to Latvia earlier. The conclusions concerned increasing trust in the police and providing information to law enforcement agencies about racist crimes, as well as granting automatic citizenship to children of non-citizens. According to the ECRI report, the first recommendation by the Latvian authorities was not implemented for 2021, because the Latvian side did not implement the activities of a specialized police unit to combat crimes related to racism. The second recommendation on granting automatic citizenship to children of non-citizens was implemented by Latvia, with the adoption of the law "On the termination of the assignment of non-citizen status to children".

In February 2024, the Secretariat of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities published an opinion on monitoring the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in Latvia. The document represents the opinion of the Advisory Council on the even more radical position of the Latvian authorities, and, consequently, on their even more radical actions against the Russian-speaking population compared to the previous report.

The report contains a description of the current situation, from which, according to the Council, the Latvian government proceeds by establishing and developing a discriminatory policy against the Russian-speaking population. The Soviet policy in Latvia is indicated, as well as the actions of the Russian Federation towards Ukraine in 2014 and in 2022, which, in the opinion of the Latvian government, is of a negative nature and is a threat to national security for Latvia itself. The Advisory Committee explicitly points out that the illegal actions of the Latvian authorities against national minorities cannot be based on a political course, and on an assessment of the foreign policy actions of the State to which these minorities belong on national, cultural or linguistic grounds. The Committee notes that special attention to the Latvian language within the socio-political discourse restricts the rights of residents belonging to other linguistic groups and does not contribute to social cohesion.

The 2024 report is a current document showing the real situation of the Russian–speaking population in Latvia – Russian–speaking Latvian citizens, Russian citizens permanently residing in Latvia and non-citizens - because most of the provisions in it repeat the realities reflected in the 2021 report, with amendments either to non-compliance or radicalization of the actions of the Latvian authorities, for greater clarity, it is advisable to present its main provisions in tabular form with separate comments from the Committee – Table 1.

Table 1. – Comparative analysis of the tightening of Latvia's policy towards Russian-speaking residents after 2022

Discussion. The Latvian Government interprets integration only through citizenship and the Latvian language, ignoring the fact that in the absence of socio-political work that would take into account the needs of national minorities, as well as all civil society groups, it is impossible to achieve the creation of a just and cohesive society. At the heart of the construction of Latvian society is only the titular nation, the exclusive position of which is fixed at the legislative level. The Russian–speaking population, together with other representatives of national minorities (including representatives of other nationalities of the former USSR), does not participate in the political, social and economic life of Latvia, regardless of their civil status - i.e. this provision applies to both non-citizens and Latvian citizens, depending on their nationality and knowledge of the state language.

Intercultural communication and tolerance in Latvian society directly depends on the actions of political elites, which contribute to the marginalization of certain groups of society. In this case, it is appropriate to talk about the closure of two large groups living on the territory of Latvia from each other – the Latvians themselves (the titular nation) from the Russian-speaking population (regardless of their civil status). Such actions do not promote dialogue, both in society itself and between society and the government. This situation has been developing for a long time, based on the domestic political agenda in the 1990s, at the same time, Latvia's foreign policy positioning has been added to this agenda, where geopolitical and ideological attitudes do not take into account the actual situation of Latvian society.

In the late 90s, the Latvian government pursued a strict policy towards the Russian-speaking population, which was expressed in strict restrictions on naturalization. No more than 10 years have passed since the restoration of independence - nationalist sentiments in society, supported by the actions of political elites, allowed discriminatory provisions to be approved at the legislative level, on the one hand, and on the other hand, to put the titular nation in a privileged position.

Subsequent changes in the early noughties affected the abolition of the "windows" system, as well as some reduction in the level of complexity of tests in the state language and history, for a separate category of persons. At the same time, discussions were held at the Council of Europe representatives' meeting on the status of non–citizens, which was compared with the status of a stateless person - despite the arguments of the Latvian government that non-citizens are granted the rights of Latvian citizens with only some exceptions.

As noted in the report of the Commissioner for Human Rights, the number of applications submitted for naturalization before Latvia joined the EU was a problem due to the low pace, which could be the result of an unproductive information campaign, and due to the lack of dialogue between the Latvian government and society. The current situation was characterized by a certain alienation of non-citizens, who were put in the position of "strangers" in Latvian society. At the same time, the memory policy continued, which was extrapolated to the Russian-speaking population, which made it possible to justify discriminatory legislation in the field of language, citizenship, education, labor, etc. against non-citizens. As in the late 90s, so in the two thousandth in the accounting documents of the Council of Europe, this circumstance is directly indicated, which prevented the creation of a "healthy, democratic" Latvian society.

The years 2003 – 2004 can be called a turning point, because during this period of time, Latvian society was preparing for changes, both social and political. In 2003, the issues of future educational reform were discussed, which consisted of several stages of transition of educational institutions to the Latvian language of instruction. The Latvian Government was to ratify the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of National Minorities and become a full member of the European Union. At that time, the Latvian Government took a number of measures, which were also noted by the Commissioner for Human Rights, namely, schools of national minorities were preserved, measures were taken to preserve the national and cultural identity of minorities. The Memorandum of 2007 notes that the Latvian government has taken a number of measures in the field of financing information campaigns aimed at popularizing integration, language courses have also been funded; after Latvia's accession to the EU, the number of naturalized persons has increased. Although these measures were not considered fully successful, they were implemented by the Latvian government at this stage of European integration.

The subsequent economic crisis (2008) ^[22] and the still functioning logistics infrastructure led the Latvian government to establish economic relations with the Russian Federation ^[23]. The development of relations in this area was reflected both in the political and social spheres – the political party "Center of Consent" became particularly popular, which was informally recognized as a party defending the rights of the Russian-speaking population. At the same time, the Latvian government was involved in the process of European integration ^[24] as a full member of the European Union ^[25]. The Latvian Government needed to find a socio-political course that would meet its national priorities. The foreign policy situation made it possible to do this after 2014, when a tense situation arose on the territory of Ukraine with the participation of the Russian Federation. After 2014, the Latvian government began to strengthen its own ethnonationalism at the national level with renewed vigor and assumed the role of an "expert" on Russian foreign policy, using a negative attitude towards its own Soviet past. All this has affected the situation of the Russian-speaking population.

By 2021, Russian-speaking residents of Latvia began to feel pressure regarding their views and opinions due to their national, cultural and linguistic affiliation, which led to an even greater reduction in the dialogue between the Latvian government and this group of society. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe stressed that Latvian human rights organizations could not get the Government to respond to requests related to human rights violations. Ethnic nationalism began to manifest itself in the inaction of law enforcement agencies, i.e. there was a situation in which a large group of the population became vulnerable in the face of nationalist ideology in society, supported by the actions of the state-political apparatus aimed at carrying out a policy of discrimination against the Russian-speaking population, including informational and ideological components. By this time, the Russian–language media had been severely restricted - special attention was paid to the content produced by the Russian side. Russian-language mass media, the content of which was produced in Latvia, including state-owned ones, were positive in nature and their situation was characterized by the need to provide socially significant and "politically correct" information to the Russian-speaking population.

According to the final document of 2024, the situation of the Russian-speaking population of Latvia has deteriorated sharply again against the background of foreign policy actions with the participation of the Russian Federation. The Latvian Government took advantage of the situation to pursue an even tougher discriminatory policy. The attention of the Latvian authorities has also shifted to Russian citizens permanently residing in Latvia – the introduction of strict restrictions on this category of persons was not the subject of socio-political discussion until 2022 due to the very nature of residence of Russian citizens in Latvia – mainly those who were previously Latvian citizens and/or non-citizens, but due to personal For economic reasons, they entered into Russian citizenship – in general, the situation of these persons contributed to a decrease in the number of non-citizens, which had a positive impact on statistics.

Russian Russian language policy has also been tightened – socially significant information has not been provided in Russian since 2022, including information from health authorities, which in no way can be a consequence of ensuring national security, but is exclusively socially necessary. The same applies to election campaigns, as well as the financing of state-owned media in Russian. The education policy has also undergone a number of changes, which, as a result, based on the plans of the Latvian government, should also affect the private sector due to the ban on the operation of private Russian-speaking schools.

Cases of conflicts motivated by national hatred have become more frequent, accompanied by the inaction of law enforcement agencies – the Latvian government is actively imposing bans on cultural and commemorative events for Russian-speaking residents, justifying them with political and historical narratives of a negative nature, which negatively affects public sentiment. In turn, the dialogue between the Russian–speaking population and the Latvian government has practically stopped - the Latvian side extrapolates the lack of dialogue with Russia to its own society, which is not monogamous and, due to its mixing with time, will never represent a single ethnic community. Incitement of national hatred leads to the disunity of society, where the titular nation, endowed with a privileged status, as well as enjoying state support, can freely express hatred against other people belonging to the Russian nation.

Conclusion. Since the restoration of independence, the Latvian government has sought to build a mono–national state - a state where the Russian-speaking population will experience the consequences of the policy of revanchism of the titular nation. The current human rights situation in the European Union and the economic component did not allow the Latvian government to pursue a discriminatory policy in full due to the lack of strong arguments and the resulting dependence on European democratic institutions.

The Latvian side was obliged to adhere to generally accepted European standards in the field of human rights, which it distorted in one way or another, having a number of possibilities – the most striking example is the adoption of the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of National Minorities, from which non-citizens of Latvia were excluded. In this case, the status of non-citizens turned out to be more than convenient for the Latvian Government, which did not agree with the Commissioner's opinion that it was similar to the status of stateless persons and was discriminatory and contrary not only to European but also international law.

The geopolitical conditions and foreign policy actions of the Russian Federation have become a convenient moment for the Latvian government to tighten its policy towards the Russian-speaking population. And the higher the level of disapproval of Russia's foreign policy actions by the European Union, the higher the level of discrimination against the Russian-speaking population in Latvia rose. Over time, not only the rhetoric of hatred against Russians from the Latvian government has intensified, but also the creation of an ideology – the ideology of national hatred against this category of persons. To the actual prohibitions in social, economic and political life, "hate speech" has been added, which circulates in Latvian society with the permission, and in some cases with the help of the Latvian government, which is confirmed by the reporting documents of the Council of Europe.

It can be assumed that the Latvian side will have to ensure respect for human rights in cases where it will be necessary based on generally accepted norms. But where it will be possible to carry out an even tougher policy of discrimination, including the expulsion of the Russian-speaking population, the Latvian government will try to carry out similar actions. The ongoing geopolitical tension provides the Latvian government with a number of advantages – to implement the planned discriminatory plans gradually and finding more and more justifications for them, having anti-Russian sentiments among representatives of the European community.