scholarly journals Language, nation and citizenship: Contrast, conflict and convergence in Estonia's debate with the international community

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Hogan-Brun ◽  
Sue Wright

This paper investigates the clash of (language) ideologies in Estonia in the post-Communist period. In an analysis of changing Western recommendations and Estonian responses during the transition of Estonia from Soviet Socialist Republic to independent state, we trace the development of the discourses on language and citizenship rights. Different conceptions of the nation-state and of how citizenship is acquired, together with different approaches to human rights, led to disagreement between Estonian political elites and the political actors attached to international institutions. In particular, the Soviet demographic legacy posed problems.We use a context-sensitive approach that takes account of human agency, political intervention, power, and authority in the formation of (national) language ideologies and policies. We find that the complexities of cultural and contextual differences were often ignored and misunderstood by both parties and that in their exchanges the two sides appeared to subscribe to ideal philosophical positions. In the following two decades both sides repositioned themselves and appeared to accommodate to the opposing view. In deconstructing the role of political intervention pressing for social and political inclusion and in documenting the profound feeling of victimhood that remained as a legacy from the Soviet period and the bargain that was struck, we hope to contribute to a deeper understanding of the language ideological debates surrounding the post-Communist nation-(re)building process.

Author(s):  
Yuriy Maksimenko

oday, as a result of the reform of decentralization and administrative-territorial organization, actually a new administrative-territorialunit is being established in Ukraine – a united community. But the basis and at the same time the reason for the joint of communitieswere first of all the most numerous local and at the same time the smallest administrative-territorial units in Ukraine – villagecouncils, inherited by Ukraine since Soviet times.Historically, the state and municipal system of modern Ukraine did not arise by itself, but was built on the “foundation” of theSoviet era, because Ukraine as an independent state is the successor of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR), which, in turn –the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic (USSR), founded 100 years ago – in 1919. The smallest local authority in Soviet times and afterthe declaration of independence in Ukraine was the village council, which for a hundred years of its existence evolved from a componentof the mechanism of state governance at places to the basic level of local self-government.The article presents the result of historical and legal study of the establishment and development of the structural organization oflocal administrative bodies in Ukraine during the Soviet era on the example of village councils, their legal status, structure, main powersand tasks done by these bodies and the status of their members and officials. Village councils became the basic bodies of local managementof Soviet Ukraine and its smallest administrative-territorial units. On the basis of the organization of the activities of Sovietvillage councils with certain evolutionary changes, local self-governing bodies – village councils of independent Ukraine – still functiontoday. Investigation of formation and development of these bodies in the Soviet period of the history of the state and law of Ukrainedeserves the attention of legal science, including in the current reform of decentralization and administrative-territorial organization.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-152
Author(s):  
Khagan Balayev ◽  

On April 28, 1920, the Peoples Republic of Azerbaijan was overthrown as a result of the intrusion of the military forces of Russia and the support of the local communists, the Soviet power was established in Azerbaijan. The Revolutionary Committee of Azerbaijan and the Council of Peoples Commissars continued the language policy of the Peoples Republic of Azerbaijan. On February 28, 1921, the Revolutionary Committee of Azerbaijan issued an instruction on the application of Russian and Turkish as languages for correspondences in the government offices. On June 27, 1924, the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic executed the resolution of the second session of the Central Executive Committee of Transcaucasia and issued a decree “on the application of the official language, of the language of the majority and minority of the population in the government offices of the republic”. Article 1 of the said decree declared that the official language in the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic was Turkish.


Author(s):  
S.Sh. Kaziyev ◽  
E.N. Burdina

The article is devoted to nation-building in Kazakhstan in the first years of Soviet power. It is noted that significant attention in this process was given to the languages of the titular nations as official languages. The authors made an attempt to present the formation of legal guarantees for the functioning of the Kazakh and Russian languages of the Kazakh Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and their use in the state apparatus of the republic. The study is based on legislative acts and documents of 1917-1924 with the involvement of archival materials. The authors examined practical steps of korenization (nativization) with respect to party and Soviet administrative structures and transition to paperwork in two state languages in the KASSR. The article reflects the main problems of the implementation of language legislation and percentage korenization as a policy aimed at the formation of national management personnel and solving the problems of serving the population of Kazakhstan in their native language. The problems of introducing office work in the language of the titular nation of material, personnel, mental and other nature are investigated. The authors drew attention to the failure of the attempts of the Soviet state to quickly create an administrative apparatus in the KASSR from national personnel and introduce paperwork in the Kazakh language, as well as to the fact that the Soviet leadership understood this. The study shows the reasons for a significant revision of the korenization policy in the USSR and Soviet Kazakhstan, as well as the introduction of office work in the national language since 1926. Among the positive achievements of the Soviet regime, the creation of strong legal guarantees for the functioning of the Kazakh and Russian languages as the state languages of Kazakhstan of the studied period, as well as the partial korenization of the administrative apparatus of Kazakhstan as a result of targeted and progressive steps of the Soviet state to create national personnel, were noted.


Kavkaz-forum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Е.И. КОБАХИДЗЕ

В статье предлагается анализ Конституции Северо-Осетинской АССР 1978 г., отразившей этап развития ее государственности в советский период. Научное осмысление правовых аспектов истории Северной Осетии в статусе автономной республики, анализ ее места и роли в системе советской государственности во многом объясняет противоречия в реализации органами государственной власти республики функций политического самоуправления в эпоху «застоя» и «кризиса социализма». Анализ показывает, что декретированный ранней советской властью национальный суверенитет народов, населяющих советскую Россию, не нашел правового подтверждения в Конституции СССР 1977 г., на основе и в соответствии с которой были разработаны и приняты Конституции РСФСР и входящих в нее автономных республик, в том числе и СОАССР. Фиксация статуса автономной республики в качестве государственного образования без признания ее государственного суверенитета ограничивало пределы компетенции республиканских органов власти и управления и ставило их в фактическую зависимость от вышестоящих властно-управленческих структур даже в решении вопросов, отнесенных к ведению автономной республики. Все это вместе взятое превращало автономную республику в «квазигосударственное образование», высшие государственные органы которой действовали в режиме «местной власти». Противоречивые конституционные положения 1977-1978 гг., закрепленные в Основных законах СССР, РСФСР и СОАССР, стали одним из факторов деструкции советской власти и социалистической системы и последующего затем «парада суверенитетов» бывших автономных образований в пределах РСФСР. The article analyzes the 1978 Constitution of the North Ossetian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, which reflected the stage of development of its statehood relevant to the Soviet period. Scientific comprehension of the legal aspects of the history of North Ossetia in the status of an autonomous republic, an analysis of its place and role within the system of the Soviet statehood largely accounts for the contradictions in the implementation by the republican state institutions of the functions of political self-government in the era of "stagnation" and "crisis of socialism". Analysis shows that the national sovereignty of the peoples inhabiting Soviet Russia, that was decreed by the early Soviet government, did not find legal confirmation in the USSR Constitution of 1977, on the basis and in accordance with which the Constitution of the RSFSR and its autonomous republics, including NOASSR, were elaborated and adopted. Fixing the status of the autonomous republic as a state entity without recognizing its state sovereignty limited the competence of the republican authorities and made them in fact dependent on the higher power structures even in resolving issues attributed to the jurisdiction of the autonomous republic. All this taken together turned the autonomous republic into a "quasi-state entity", the highest state bodies of which operated in the regime of "local power". Contradictory constitutional provisions of 1977-1978, enshrined in the Fundamental Laws of the USSR, RSFSR and NOASSR, became one of the factors of the destruction of the Soviet power and the socialist system and the subsequent “parade of sovereignties” of the former autonomous entities within the RSFSR.


2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele E. Commercio

Freedom from the Soviet empire created an opportunity for elites of each former Soviet Socialist Republic to “nationalize” their newly independent state. Most observers of contemporary Kazakh politics would agree that Kazakhstan has taken advantage of this historic opportunity, and can thus be classified as a nationalizing state. For Rogers Brubaker, a nationalizing state is perceived by its elites as a nation-state of and for a particular nation, but simultaneously as an “incomplete” or “unrealized” nation-state. To resolve this problem of incompleteness and to counteract perceived discrimination, Brubaker argues, “nationalizing elites urge and undertake action to promote the language, culture, demographic preponderance, economic flourishing, or political hegemony of the core ethnocultural nation.” While the foundation of any Soviet successor state's nationalization program is a cluster of implemented formal policies that privilege the titular nation, these policies are often reinforced by informal practices, primarily discriminatory personnel practices, with the same function. Much has been written about Kazakhstan's nationalization strategy, and not surprisingly scholars rely on what they know about formal policies and informal practices to characterize that strategy. Little has been written, however, about the “Pugachev Rebellion” in Ust'-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan, and nothing has been written about the relationship between the official Kazakh reaction to what I call the “Pugachev incident,” and Kazakhstan's nationalization strategy in general. This article sorts out confusing events surrounding the Pugachev incident, and offers an interpretation of the official Kazakh reaction, which is best understood when situated in the broader context of Kazakh nationalization, to the incident.


2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 222-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liutauras Nekrošius

The trends in Palanga architecture of the second half of the 19th – first half of the 20th century are represented in the National Cultural Heritage List by 10 villas, 14 residential houses, two hotels (Kurhauses of Nemirseta and Palanga), a pharmacy, a spa building, a ship rescue station and a bus station. But such heritage objects reflect the stages in the town development only partially. If the cultural heritage list of Palanga town is treated as a coherent and continuous collection reflecting different stages in architecture and culture of this town (as it should be), it would be relevant to add a few more samples of the mid and second half of the 20th century architecture to the list. Taking into consideration the presence of exclusive Soviet period architectural objects on the list (made according to recommendations of different professional and social communities), and recommendations of the list founders, the following two educational institutions realized less than 50 years ago that these may as well be enrolled as examples of specific historic period and acknowledged artistic style or trend, and as most progressive and/or artistic architectural solutions of the time, to be protected for public information and use purposes: the music school designed by architect I. Likšienė,1981, (Maironio St.8; see Fig. 1) and former Pioneers’ Palace designed by I. Likšienė and G. P. Likša,1985, (now the elementary school, at the address Virbališkės Takas 4; see Fig. 2). These buildings are distinctive examples of contemporary architecture development. At present managed by the local municipality, they are in good physical state, with retained initial qualities of space and volume structure, use of materials, environment and purpose. In the category of accommodation buildings the following may be marked out: the early architectural design works by A. Lėckas, namely, the Žilvinas hotel (Kęstučio St. 34; see Fig. 4, a.), designed and implemented in 1968 as a rest house for 45 guests (21 apartment) on commission of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Lithuania and the Žilvinėlis apartment building for 24 guests implemented in 1970 (Birutės al. 44; see Fig. 4, b.). These objects still owned by the state have been prepared for privatization. Before privatization it is suggested to enroll them on the Cultural Heritage List, identify their valuable qualities, character and level of significance and perform any other required procedures. It is also recommended to make agreements for protection of cultural heritage objects with the new owners of such buildings. The initial protection is also needed for the Rąžė book shop and café building (Vytauto St.84; see Fig. 5) designed by R. V. Kraniauskas in 1967 and considered mature in the artistic sense. The building has retained its small scale, which is characteristic for the resort town, and thus enriches the spatial perspective of the street. Considering its physical shape, functional and aesthetical qualities and the use character, it is also highly recommended to grant the heritage protection status to the administration building Komprojektas (Gintaro St.30,30A; see Fig. 6) designed by G. P. and I. Likša in 1988. The collection of Palanga architecture may also be enriched by the conserved pavilions of the summer reading hall of the National Martynas Mažvydas Library (Vytauto St.72, (1968); see Fig. 7) and Kupeta (S.Daukanto/ S.Dariaus and S.Girėno St., (1969); see Fig. 8) designed by architect A. Čepys; an example of the original concrete plastics, the coffee shop Banga (J. Basanavičius St. 2; see Fig. 10) designed by G. J. Telksnys in 1976–77 and realized in 1979. The present shape and use character of these buildings cause serious threat to their preservation. There is little probability that within the context of the on-going reconstructions traditional acts for enrollment on the heritage list could somehow contribute to the conservation of values of the Vanagupė resort center, the laureate (1984) of prestigious prize by the USSR Council of Ministers (architects A. Lėckas, S. Šarkinas and L. Merkinas; see Fig. 3); the resthouse Guboja implemented only partially in 1976 (in Šventoji, Jūros St 65A., architect. R. Buivydas); resthouse Auska (presently, hotel, Vytauto St.11; architect J. Šipalis, 1977); and the resthouse Šiaulių Tauras (Vytauto St.116, architect G. P. Likša,1983). Nevertheless, the identified architectural, urban, landscape and engineering values of objects and analyzed possible forms for their conservation (ex-situ and in-situ) could become a basis for scientific study of contemporary architecture and urban planning in Palanga resort. Based on their design material, the initial concepts of such objects should be identified and their present as well planned for the future transformations should be analyzed. Such study to be presented publicly (for example, on the National Cultural Heritage List database) could ensure conditions for better understanding of past and present values of the objects, for both, specialists and public at large, and be a highly valuable source of information describing the architecture of the time to be used for information, scientific and professional purposes. Such study may also become a stimulus for preparation of complex regeneration design projects of objects and landscapes, which would comprise the conservation and development needs and add new artistic values. Santrauka Dėl pakitusių politinių, ekonominių ir kultūrinių sąlygų XX a. II pusės architektūros ir urbanistikos kūriniai dažnai nebeatitinka šiandienos naudotojų poreikių ir keliamų reikalavimų. Todėl apleidžiami, griaunami ar reikšmingai kinta. Dėl to ryškėja iniciatyvos siūlyti į KVR įtraukti kuo daugiau šio laikmečio kūrinių. Tačiau XX a. IX dešimtmetyje kultūros paminklais tapę naujosios architektūros kūriniai dėl neraiškios saugojimo strategijos, žmogiškųjų ir finansinių išteklių tvarkybai stokos vis tiek nyksta. Todėl kyla abejonių ar registro plėtra bus veiksminga. Straipsnyje Palangos miesto pavyzdžiu nagrinėjamos galimybės sudaryti vėlyvojo modernizmo architektūros kolekciją. Manoma, kad sistemingas kultūriškai vertingų architektūros objektų rinkinys formuojamas apjungiant skirtingus saugojimo metodus gali paskatinti atsakingas institucijas, vietos ir profesines bendruomenes susitelkti atsakingam architektūros paveldo puoselėjimo ir tvaraus naudojimo procesui.


2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Serhy Yekelchyk

In February 1944, as the victorious Red Army was preparing to clear the Nazi German forces from the rest of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, a surprise official announcement stunned the population. The radio and the newspapers announced amendments to the Soviet constitution, which would enable the union republics to establish their own armies and maintain diplomatic relations with foreign states. While the Kremlin did not elaborate on the reasons for such a reform, Radianska Ukraina, the republic's official newspaper, proceeded to hail the announcement as “a new step in Ukrainian state building.” Waxing lyrical, the paper wrote that “every son and every daughter of Ukraine” swelled with national pride upon learning of the new rights that had been granted to their republic. In reality, the public was confused. In Ukraine's capital, Kiev, the secret police recorded details of rumors to the effect that the USA and Great Britain had forced this reform on Stalin and that Russians living in Ukraine would be forced to assimilate or to leave the republic. Even some party-appointed propagandists erred in explaining that the change was necessitated by the fact that Ukraine's “borders have widened and [it] will become an independent state.”


Author(s):  
Adrian Brisku

Arguably, an account of modern Georgia is one about the country’s emergence as a political nation (independent republic and nation-state) in the region of the Caucasus—geographically straddled in between the Eurasian landmass—and the challenges of redefining, developing, and preserving itself. It is also about how it was forged under and often against its powerful neighbors, most notably the tsarist Soviet and Russian state, and about its equally uneven interactions with other neighboring nations and nationalities within its political borders. And while one cannot put a precise date on the cultural and political processes as to when this modern Georgia emerged, the late 19th century is that period when people within the two tsarist governorates of Tbilisi and Kutaisi interacted more intensively among themselves, but also within the imperial cultural and political centers of St. Petersburg and Moscow as well as beyond the imperial confines, in Central and Western European capitals. This in turn—following impactful events: the 1861 tsarist Emancipation of Serfs, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, the First World War, the February and October Revolutions of 1917, the brief making of the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (1918)—led to a diffusion of and reaction to political, economic, and cultural ideas from European and imperial metropoles that on May 26, 1918, culminated with the establishment, for the first time, of Georgia as a nation-state: the Georgian Democratic Republic. A social democratic nation-state in its political content, the political life of this first republic was cut short on February 25, 1921, by the Red Army of a re-emerging Russian (Soviet) state. In the ensuing seventy years in the Soviet Union—initially, from 1922 to 1936, as a constitutive republic of the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic and then as a separate Soviet Socialist Republic until the implosion of the union in 1991—the republic and its society experienced the effects of the making and unmaking of the Soviet Marxist-Leninist modernization project. Especially impactful for the republic and its society was the period of the 1930s and 1940s under the hyper-centralized rule of the Georgian-born Soviet Communist Party leader Joseph V. Stalin: a period marked by implementation of a centrally planned economic model and political purges as well as a consolidation of the nation’s ethnocultural and territorial makeup. Also important was the late Soviet period, particularly that under the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, whereby thanks to the economic and political reforms undertaken in the later 1980s, calls for the recovering of the republic’s political independence were intensified and ultimately realized. This happened on April 9, 1991—with the first Georgian president, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, declaring the independence of the Republic of Georgia before the Soviet Union’s dissolution on December 26, 1991—and its international recognition would come easily and fast. But what would prove difficult and slow, from the outset, was building a European-style nation-state—meaning a liberal democratic order based on the rule of law and a market society—as was the case in the brief presidency of Gamsakhurdia (1991–1992). The latter’s term was marred by an ethnopolitical war in the South Ossetian region and brought to an end by a civil war fought in the capital city of Tbilisi and the Megrelian region. It continued to be difficult during the long and interrupted presidency of the former Georgian Communist Party boss, Eduard Shevardnadze (1995–2003)—the 1995 Constitution established a semi-presidential system of government—in which an ethnopolitical war with Abkhazia started and ended (1992–1993), state institutions stabilized, and a pro-Euro-Atlantic as opposed to a pro-Russian foreign policy was articulated, but state corruption also thrived. A European-style republic appeared closer during the full-term “hyper-presidency” of the Western-educated president Mikheil Saakashvili (2004–2013), marked by concrete steps toward Euro-Atlantic integration (NATO membership and EU partnership/toward membership) and a distancing from Russia as well as top-down neoliberal domestic reforms. But the republic was scarred by a war with Russia in August 2008 and a growing authoritarianism at home. It remains so despite a shift, since 2013, from a presidential to a parliamentary republic with the last directly elected president being the first woman president, Salome Zurabishvili (2018–). Since 2012, the Georgian Dream Party—established by billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili (prime minister, 2012–2013)—governs the republic by pursuing Western-oriented domestic reforms, EU and NATO integration, and a nonconfrontational position against Russia. The latter continues to undermine the country’s territorial integrity, having recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia’s independence in 2008 and maintaining its military bases there.


2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-365
Author(s):  
Mayhill C. Fowler

AbstractIn the Soviet Union theatre was an arena for cultural transformation. This article focuses on theatre director Les Kurbas’ 1929 production of playwright Mykola Kulish’sMyna Mazailo, a dark comedy about Ukrainianization, to show the construction of “Soviet Ukrainian” culture. While the Ukrainian and the Soviet are often considered in opposition, this article takes the culture of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic seriously as a category. Well before Stalin’s infamous adage “national in form and socialist in content,” artists like Kulish and Kurbas were engaged in making art that was not “Ukrainian” in a generic Soviet mold, or “Soviet” art in a generic “Ukrainian” mold, but rather art of an entirely new category: Soviet Ukrainian. Far from a mere mouthpiece for state propaganda, early Soviet theatre offered a space for creating new values, social hierarchies, and worldviews. More broadly, this article argues that Soviet nationality policy was not only imposed from above, but also worked out on the stages of the republic by artists, officials, and audiences alike. Tracing productions ofMyna Mazailointo the post-Soviet period, moreover, reveals a lingering ambiguity over the content of culture in contemporary Ukraine. The state may no longer sponsor cultural construction, but theater remains a space of cultural contestation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 183-212
Author(s):  
Mare Kõiva ◽  
◽  
Kristina Muhu ◽  

The paper compares changes in the celebration of holidays in the period from 1992 to 2018. The data originate from large Estonian children’s lore corpora from 1992, 2007, and 2018. The first collections are preserved at the Estonian Folklore Archives of the Estonian Literary Museum (ELM) in Tartu, Estonia, and the 2018 collection as well as the digitized data of the earlier campaigns are available in the digital archives EFITA – the Research Archives of the Department of Folkloristics of the ELM. The calendar corpus allows us to monitor changes in the structure and essence of folk/ethnographic/local traditions, feasts celebrated at home, church feasts, and public holidays at school. The authors indicate that endeavours to establish national public holidays to accompany traditional agrarian ones began in the early 20th century. During the 20th century, the system of holidays changed three times (1918, 1940, 1991) due to political changes: the establishment of an independent state in Estonia, the loss of independence and continuation as the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, and restoration of independence in 1991. In addition to state, church, and folk holidays different ways to introduce novel international holidays (Valentine’s Day, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Halloween, Mother Tongue Day), and a search for new forms of celebration were also noteworthy during this period. As students, youngsters participate in the celebrations of their school as well as in the celebrations of public holidays, and at the same time are involved in maintaining their family traditions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document