Ethnic Conflicts in the Baltic States in Post-soviet Period. Сборник статей

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ regime in Latvia has two equally important and relatively independent dimensions: social (or vertical) and the culture-political (or horizontal). The first dimension reflects the hierarchical structure of society. On its base are allocated social classes with different levels of different social status, the scale of the use of resources, mechanisms of influence on the political process and socio-political and cultural characteristics. The basis of the same groups formed by the second dimension is common belief, culture and interests. This community is expressed in actions, consciously directed or indirectly contributing to different scenarios of social development. Combining these communities “horizontal” gives social strata, and “vertical” – the main political forces of differing resource capacity. “Intersection” of mentioned analytical dimensions allows allocating social groups that act as hierarchical actors in the political process (in particular, the dominant ethnic majority or mono-ethnic political elite). Such an approach to the identification of the real actors of modern social process is productive, as it enables to evaluate the strength of the social base of the main social forces and their possible consolidation with each other, the nature and extent of resources available to them to achieve their goals. Thus, the scholars of contemporary ethno-political process yield reliable methodological apparatus, with which to more soundly judge the probable scenarios of social development.

      It should be noted that the understanding of the vertical and horizontal dimensions of ethnic stratification as research tools differ significantly among political scientists. In this respect description and analysis of ethno-political conflicts and their classification also vary widely. Thus, representatives of the school of pluralistic ethnic and cultural communities traditionally describe the effect of “institutional pluralism” on the processes of ethnic politics, the result in ethnic cohesion and democratic pluralism.

      In contrast, in ethnically divided societies, Horowitz proposes to distinguish between vertically separated from society horizontally stratified (Horowitz 1985). Based on historical examples of ethnic exclusion and segmentation, Jung offers an introduction into scientific model of “the only dominant groups and minorities” or “leading culture with the central institutions of different ethnic groups on the periphery” (Young 1976). A related concept is the ethnic stratification in Rothschild, considering the existence of ethnically divided societies most dominant and subordinate ethnic minority or peripheral segments, and to stabilize the multicultural and ethnically segmented society allowed the achievement of a bipolar balance of ethnic, marginalized minorities (Rothschild 1981). By classifying the different modes of ethno-democratical regimes Rothschild highlights the model of vertical hierarchy, parallel segmentation and reticular mixed model. If the vertical hierarchy pyramid structure is present a rigid subordination and ethnic mobilization, and the parallel segmentation of the various ethnic groups are also quite asymmetric and scattered on its resource component, then the reticular mixed model all floors social structures include representatives of all significant ethnic groups. It is assumed that on reaching reticular mixed model of multi-national society being created prerequisites for gradual and peaceful resolution of ethnic conflicts (Rothschild, J., 1982).

      Search for the causes of ethnic conflicts, the factors of influence and the types of ethnic stratification is based among the Baltic expert on classical models of explanation by J. Rothschild and J. Horowitz. However, the borders of application and interpretation look quite problematic and not always fit into frame case. We may well agree with the finding of the Latvian researchers led by B.Zepa that it would be wrong to consider the ethnic situation in Latvia stable and unchanging. This finding made by them as a result of the study “ethno-political tensions in Latvia: the search for ways to resolve the conflict” (Zepa, 2005).

      Objection may cause ascription of reticular mixed model towards Latvian ethnic stratification, whereby the general conclusions about the ethno-political situation in Latvia shifted from conflict potential and vertical ethno-stratification to slurred asymmetric form of the Latvian society with the prerequisites for a “gradual and peaceful resolution of ethnic conflicts”.

      The empirical basis for these conclusions is general demographic data, the study of labor based on the CSB and data polls. According to the authors, in Latvia there are certain areas where more busy Latvians (public administration, education, agriculture), and there are areas where a higher proportion of non-Latvians (transport, industry, construction). However, significant differences in the incomes of Latvians, Russians and other nationalities are not observed. By attenuating the risk factors of ethnic conflict, as suggested by Zepa should be attributed the fact that in Latvia ethnic groups are not concentrated homogeneously in concrete regions and economic industries. These groups are represented in various fields and scattered across different regions, forming a reticular mixed model.

      The final conclusion the research team of B.Zepa is that in the case of Latvia, the situation where every ethnic group is represented in various activities and there are no significant differences in income by ethnicity, is estimated as a factor that reduces the possibility of an escalation of the ethnic conflict. Recognition of ethnic conflict and its inclusion into scientific and political rhetoric in most cases cause extremely hostile reactions, criticisms of being unscientific and lack of loyalty to the regime. It seems that the above estimate (and reticulation mixed ethno-stratificational model by Rothschild) rather justified in relation to the middle and lower strata of the pyramid of Latvian society. There is no default the most important in terms of sources and risk of ethnic conflict – the analysis of power and, in particular, mono-ethnic political elite, concentrated in its hands the power and economic resources (Stan A., 1997, 2003; Rodins M. 2012). Latvian political elite, demographically, socially and intellectually not representing the Latvian society is only less than one percent of the total population, possessing all the resource capabilities of ethnic mobilization, and building a dominant policy of ethnic renaissance and ethno-political revenge. Absolute ethnic hegemony (over 90 %) characterizes the bureaucratic class, national authorities and regional government. For the maintenance of the Latvian bureaucracy allocated not comparable to other socio-professional groups, a significant portion of the national budget. The lack of political representation of ethnic minorities in power and control are not only a barrier to expression and the protection of their interests, but also is the reason for the deficit of representative democracy in Latvia.

      The existence of vertical ethnic stratification in Latvia, as well as having a close and cohesive elite and corporate composition of the Latvian society allows coming to a conclusion about imitative and functionality for the ruling circles of ethno-political conflicts as instruments of cohesion and reproduction of the Latvian ethno-democracy.

      National identity as a conflict-generating resource in Latvia

      At the first approach to the phenomenon of ethnic and cultural identity in Latvia, there is confusion about the need for any new empirical data, the detection and assessment of what is happening. At the same time, the need for constant monitoring of the Latvian ethno-political relations and dynamics of growing ethno-conflicts in intensive European territorial mobility and the crisis of European multiculturalism is clearly relevant and needs.

      “Sleeping” conflicts and ethnic “frozen” ethnic relations, with their inherent oppositional oral historical memory in Soviet Latvia, transformed into an open confrontation in the post-Soviet period. At present Latvia steadily formed the dominant ethno-cultural identity of the titular nationality and ethnic minorities. Intense and painful period of searching and finding new regime identities to the mid-90s is over, but the political formula of Latvian statehood has become – “ethno-cultural and ethnic plurality in a single whole.” However, these multicultural and ethnic communities, and the practice of their relationship did not turn the liberalization of ethnic relations. None of the existing democratic institutions of the Republic of Latvia and could not lead to any noticeable leveling socially significant cultural differences and ethnic boundaries, as well as connecting the rich experience of the relationships of previous generations.

      Russian ethno-cultural continuity and other Latvian ethnic minorities, which proceeded the period of Awakening, uniquely treated as junk, pro-Soviet СКАЧАТЬ