The role and rights of minority languages around the world is part of a growing area of human rights law. Article 4, Section 3 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities argues that “States should take appropriate measures so that, whenever possible, persons belonging to minorities may have adequate opportunities to learn their mother tongue or to have instruction in their mother tongue”. Russia is one battleground for minority linguistic rights. In the various semi-autonomous republics inside of Russia, the changing environment for minority language education has brought up issues of autonomy from the federal government of Russia and the central government's growing influence within the semi-autonomous region. In the independent former Soviet republics, the pushback against the Russian language reflects fears of “Russification” while establishing their language as a bellwether for national identity. Latvia provides a notable example of this, where, while taking different stances, their concerns over identity, linguistic rights, and Russia’s more aggressive approach to cultural influence beyond its borders create parallels. Going forward, language and other cultural elements are set to become more important to minorities as Russia’s semi-autonomous republics see autonomy as more than political, and countries on Russia’s border become more concerned about their own sovereignty through Russia’s soft power tactics.
There are over 35 languages other than Russian recognized as official languages in Russia. These are the languages of the various republics inside Russia. The republics are able to declare their own official language, institute their own form of government and formulate independent policy that secure these republics' autonomy and preserve their unique ethnic identities. However, this policy of relative autonomy has come under assault in recent years. In 2018, Russia passed a law that limited the amount of time per week that classroom time could be dedicated to minority languages. Furthermore, the 2018 language law made all language instructions optional except for Russian. Public reception has been mixed, with those inside the autonomous ethnic republics seeing the state’s push to further Russian identity as a threat to their own. Ethnic Udmurt sociologist Albert Razin committed self-immolation in protest over the new language law, quoting Soviet poet Rasul Gamzatov with a sign saying ““If tomorrow my language will be forgotten, I am ready to die today.” This brought the issue to national prominence, with many Udmurts and other ethnic minorities supporting Razin’s cause, and Kremlin advisor Valery Tishkov continuing to argue for Russian language superiority. The law has also brought up broader issues of ethnic identity, the importance of autonomous republics, and how language interacts with the local and national politics affected by this law. For example, a lawsuit filed in Tatarstan regarding the claimants unwillingness to learn Tatar, instead preferring Russian on identity-based terms, was rejected. However, in an interview with TRT World, a seventeen-year old from Dagestan argued that “This law is a threat to this linguistic diversity” and that the law “put limits on our education and deprive[s] us of studying our own language.” This shows a divide inside the ethnic autonomous republics, between those who prefer to learn and study the language of their ethnic group, and those who are willing to assimilate into the broader Russian identity. The Council of Europe noted that “The greater emphasis on the Russian language and the uniform approach to educational reform have weakened the position of minority languages in the education system” and advocated for education that is bilingual/multilingual, and greater involvement of minorities in affairs related to their cultures and cultural autonomies.
In Latvia, recent legislation doubled the amount of Latvian-taught classes in minority Russian schools to 80 percent of classes. Latvia has a sizeable Russian minority population, and Russia has made efforts to re-engage them with the Russian state and further emphasize Russian identity within the population. Russia’s OSCE envoy, Alexander Lukashevich called plans to increase Latvian language usage in classrooms a“discriminatory policy with the goal of forced assimilation of the Russian-speaking population.” Furthermore,previous legislation reducing Russian language education has set the stage for a potential domestic divide in Latvia’s “two-community society.”
Russian minority political parties, in Latvia, have framed this as a human rights issue, similar to the arguments of the ethnic minorities facing linguistic repression inside Russia.For example, European Parliament MP Tatjana Zdanoka called on the European Commission to further protect linguistic minorities, using the Lisbon Treaty to argue that countries “who act[s] against the rights of persons belonging to minorities (including linguistic rights) act[s] against the core values of the European Union.” In 2018, three different UN Special Rapporteurs expressed concern on the pushes to “Latvianize” the Latvian education system. They referred to Articles 19 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, along with other international human rights documents, to express their concern over possible legal and human rights violations targeting the Russian minority population. The Latvian government has justified their actions by focusing on broader issues of national identity and societal harmony. The most recent Education Law was brought up to the Latvian Constitutional Court, where the Court stated that “every person living in Latvia should be able to understand the Latvian language to participate fully in the life of a democratic society” and that “the state must support the preservation and development of the individuality of ethnic minorities within the framework of a unified education system, promoting the development of the identity of a common democratic society.”
Additionally, school autonomy is a right that schools inside the Russian republics have enjoyed for years, but has been threatened in recent years. Latvian schools for Russian minority students have also seen this threatened through educational policies over the last 15 years. Beginning in 1992, the Latvian government has ordered Latvian to be the primary language in all levels of education. This has varied over time, with new laws ranging from Latvian-only education in public education, to loosened guidelines after protests in 2004 which led to minority high schools teaching up to 40 percent of their curriculum in a minority language. One primary argument that proponents of minority language education use is that the education system’s Latvianization would “cause irreparable damage to national minority schools” due to rising inequality as a result of less allocated resources. Russkiy Mir, a Kremlin-backed organization promoting the Russian language, paralleled their situation in Latvia to the ongoing situation in Ukraine, arguing that it is a violation of human rights and “very disturbing that in the Baltic republic, Russophobia is becoming more and more intense, and the authorities act according to the same scenario as Kiev, where the ruling regime purposefully destroys everything Russian.”
The Latvian government, however, has justified their actions by focusing on the need for a stronger national identity in order to prevent internal strife between the two main ethnic communities as fears of Russian influence become more prevalent. International observers have continued to voice concern, and have generally gone against the stance of the Latvian government and its justification for the increasingly restrictive policies. In Freedom House’s 2019 Freedom of the World Report, Latvia’s score on academic freedom went down one point, with the organization noting the reason for the demotion being the most recent education policy changes, saying that “the measures [are] generally viewed as targeting Russian-language instruction”. Allowing these linguistic divisions and restrictions to continue inside Russia, while simultaneously criticizing similar practices by neighboring countries and former Soviet states, is hypocritical on the part of the Russian government. While calling on European human rights bodies to show concern on Latvian policies is valid, ignoring their own policies of linguistic repression makes their argument much more questionable.
The various laws outlined above show a clear desire by Russia to use the Russian language as a first step towards establishing influence inside the country’s various semi-autonomous republics that have, since the beginning of the Soviet Union, preserved their ethnic identity and culture through their separation from the larger Russian state. Latvia, on the other hand, seeks to affirm official national identity based upon the language of the ethnic majority in the state, at the expense of their Russian minority. The criticism of policies and practices that limit the freedom for linguistic minorities to use their mother tongue should not be selective. The protection of their language in day-to-day usage, education and official recognition is a right enshrined by the United Nations, and cannot be twisted for nationalist pursuits. Russia has echoed concerns of human rights observers to restrictive language policies against Russian minorities in Latvia and Ukraine, but has echoed the same rhetoric of maintaining a single, unified national identity across a linguistically diverse population. Doing so has put minority languages under threat, and must be seen as a threat to personal rights of minority populations. As both Russia and Latvia continue their push towards identity formation through nationwide language policies in education and the public sphere, we must continue to frame and shame any policies that threaten one's ability to communicate and learn their native language, and promote ways to balance cultural and linguistic diversity in all areas of society.