Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Anders Fogelklou The Åland Islands Peace Institute Legal and Institutional Framework Analysis: Karelian, Veps and Seto in Russia Mainz Ÿ Helsinki Ÿ Wien Tartu Ÿ MariehamnŸ OuluŸ Maribor
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Working Papers in European Language Diversity is a peer-­‐reviewed online publication series of the research project ELDIA, serving as an outlet for preliminary research findings, individual case studies, background and spin-­‐off research. Editor-­‐in-­‐Chief Johanna Laakso (Wien) Editorial Board Kari Djerf (Helsinki), Riho Grünthal (Helsinki), Anna Kolláth (Maribor), Helle Metslang (Tartu), Karl Pajusalu (Tartu), Anneli Sarhimaa (Mainz), Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark (Mariehamn), Helena Sulkala (Oulu), Reetta Toivanen (Helsinki) Publisher Research consortium ELDIA c/o Prof. Dr. Anneli Sarhimaa Northern European and Baltic Languages and Cultures (SNEB) Johannes Gutenberg-­‐Universität Mainz Jakob-­‐Welder-­‐Weg 18 (Philosophicum) D-­‐55099 Mainz, Germany Contact: eldia-­‐project@uni-­‐mainz.de 2014 © European Language Diversity for All (ELDIA) ELDIA is an international research project funded by the European Commission. The views expressed in the Working Papers in European Language Diversity are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. All contents of the Working Papers in European Language Diversity are subject to the Austrian copyright law. The contents may be used exclusively for private, non-­‐
commercial purposes.Regarding any further uses of the Working Papers in European Language Diversity, please contact the publisher. ISSN 2192-­‐2403 Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 1 Foreword The Legal and Institutional Framework Analyses represent the collected knowledge of the ELDIA project in the field of law, politics and policies and of their institutional representations with regard to the languages studied in this research project. Each report examines one or two languages in their wider national and international context. The core scientific questions in the present law and policy studies are: What role is played by law in the use or non-­‐use of different languages in different domains? What role is played by law in promoting or inhibiting language diversity as such? Finally, which factors related to legal and institutional matters influence language use, language maintenance and language diversity? Each study consists of three main parts: a) The overall legislative and institutional framework; b) Languages and minority policies in practice (a section which covers the discussions and the implementation, or non-­‐
implementation, of constitutional provisions, language legislation, education and media legislation) and c) an identification and analysis of the legal actors, i.e. persons, organisations, and public authorities engaged in the development, interpretation and monitoring (judicial and other) of the relevant legal frameworks. The law researchers involved in this part of the research have benefited greatly from the input of and interactions with the broad network of researchers represented in the project, and thus we are now even more convinced that contacts across scientific disciplines is a precondition for a deeper understanding of complex societal processes. The Legal and Institutional Framework Analyses shall form part of the background for the development of the comparative and interdisciplinary work that is currently taking place within the ELDIA-­‐project. As all Working Papers published on the project website and within ELDIA, also these studies have been submitted to extensive project internal as well as external review under the supervision of Associate Professor, Jur. Dr., Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark. The Åland Islands Peace Institute is responsible for this component of the ELDIA project. Any comments can be sent to sia@peace.ax We wish to thank all those that have kindly contributed to our work with their comments and advice. Mariehamn in June 2014 Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark The Åland Islands Peace Institute Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 2 Editor’s foreword to WPELD 21 Of the ELDIA Legal and Institutional Framework Analyses, this report is the last one to appear. It has, for various reasons, been particularly long in the making. In addition to the author’s health issues, the work was severely delayed by technical problems connected with the particularly complicated formatting of the original text as well as by language and transliteration issues. At the last stages of the work, the ELDIA project and its funding had officially come to an end, and no additional resources for the technical editing were available. For this reason, we have not had time and manpower for the final checking of source references, or for updating the references to the current political situation in Russia. At this point, as the editor-­‐in-­‐chief of the WPELD/SELD series, I would like to express my special gratitude to Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark and her team in Mariehamn for their patience and their painstaking work in the editing of this particularly problematic text. In the course of the final editing of this published version, I have done some minimal stylistic and technical corrections and added some footnotes to clarify issues which may be unknown to many readers. The transliteration of the Russian names and titles has been unified according to the British Standard. Vienna, June 2014 Johanna Laakso Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 3 Table of Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Editor’s foreword to WPELD 21 .......................................................................................................... 2 1 The overall legislative and institutional framework ..................................................................... 5 1.1 The position of Seto, Karelian and Veps languages and minorities in the legal and political context of the Russian Federation (RF) ........................................................................................... 5 1.2 Language as an area regulated by law ................................................................................... 8 1.3 Language diversity and multilingualism ................................................................................. 9 1.4 The Karelian and Veps languages in the Russian Federation ............................................... 13 1.5 Political and legal tradition in dealing with minorities and language .................................. 16 1.6 Characteristics of the legal system ...................................................................................... 18 1.7 Languages covered by legislation ........................................................................................ 20 1.8 Regulation in relation to minorities and languages ............................................................. 20 1.8.1 Federal Constitutional provisions ............................................................................................................... 21 1.9 Language legislation ............................................................................................................. 27 1.10 Education legislation .......................................................................................................... 33 1.11 Media legislation ................................................................................................................ 34 1.12 Other legislation ................................................................................................................ 34 1.13 Relation between national and international law in the domestic legal order ................. 35 1.14 Debates on language rights and “old” and “new” minorities ............................................ 36 2 Language and Minority Policies in Practice ................................................................................ 37 2.1 Parliamentary debates on languages and minorities ........................................................... 37 2.1.1 Federal constitutional debate ..................................................................................................................... 37 2.2 With respect to language legislation ................................................................................... 38 2.2.1 The Federal Law on the Languages of the Nationalities of Russia .............................................................. 38 2.2.2 Recent legal initiatives in Karelia on languages and minorities .................................................................. 43 2.3 Case law on languages and minorities ................................................................................. 46 2.3.1 The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation ................................................................................... 46 2.3.2 The Karelian Supreme Court ....................................................................................................................... 50 2.4 Practice of administrative bodies or other supervisory bodies ........................................... 51 2.5 Practice of international monitoring bodies and courts with respect to language and minority issues .............................................................................................................................. 52 Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 4 2.6 Programmes and action plans on language and language diversity in practice .................. 54 2.7 View of language and minority legislation in the wider public discourse and media .......... 55 2.8 Perceived effects of the examined legislation on the languages and language communities studied .......................................................................................................................................... 58 3 Legal actors ................................................................................................................................. 59 3.1 Minority and language groups involved in legal and policy debates. .................................. 59 3.2 Other Actors ......................................................................................................................... 64 3.3 Channels of participation in language related matters ........................................................ 65 3.4 Use of channels of participation .......................................................................................... 66 3.5 Institutions responsible for minority and language policies ................................................ 67 3.6 The role of the kin-­‐state ....................................................................................................... 68 4 Concluding remarks .................................................................................................................... 70 4.1 Regulation of the languages and language communities in the legal and institutional system ........................................................................................................................................... 70 4.2 Attitudes towards the legal and institutional regulation of the languages and language communities ................................................................................................................................. 72 4.2.1 The position of language diversity in the legal and political system ........................................................... 72 4.3 The overall quality of the legal system in language matters ............................................... 73 5 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 74 Monographs and articles .............................................................................................................. 74 Media reports ............................................................................................................................... 77 Reports, investigations, and government propositions ................................................................ 79 Laws and ordinances ..................................................................................................................... 80 Organisations and websites .......................................................................................................... 82 Parliamentary protocols ............................................................................................................... 82 Jurisprudence ................................................................................................................................ 83 Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................... 85 Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 5 1 The overall legislative and institutional framework 1.1 The position of Seto, Karelian and Veps languages and minorities in the legal and political context of the Russian Federation (RF) The original goal of this report was to analyse those languages researched in the ELDIA project which are spoken in the Russian Federation, viz. the Seto, Karelian and Veps languages. However, very few legal sources deal with the Seto language and language community.1 For this reason, with the exception of the following paragraph the report will only deal with the Karelian and Veps languages. The Seto speakers and their language are seldom mentioned in Russian legal and political documents. The obvious reason for this fact is that the number of Seto speakers in the Russian Federation is very low. According to the Russian census from 2010, only 214 persons identified themselves as belonging to the Seto ethnic group.2 Of this small number 127 persons live in the Pskov region (oblast’) close to the Estonian border, concentrating in the Pechorskii district (rayon).3 But even despite the small number of Setos in the Pskov region the regional constitutional legislator has included the Seto people in the regional Charter by giving the Seto people special protection. The Pskov (regional) Charter from 12 April 2001 states: “On the territory of the region the rights of the Seto nationality/ethnic group (narodnost’) to their ancient living environment will be guaranteed through the preservation of their life conditions, language, customs and traditions” (Art. 21).4 This provision is clearly declarative and does not include any implementation mechanisms. This report does not cover any more material on the Seto language and people in the Russian Federation either. As Russia is a multi-­‐ethnic state with one dominating language, the legal framework dealing with the Karelian and Veps languages in the Russian Federation is rather complex and characterised by perpetual, sometimes swift changes. The Russian language has a strong position both in law and in 1
Although the Setos have traditionally belonged to the Russian cultural sphere, as indicated, for instance, by their Orthodox religion, the major part of the Seto speaker community lives on the Estonian side of the border; cf. Koreinik 2013, Meiorg 2012. 2
http://www.perepis-­‐2010.ru/results_of_the_census/results-­‐inform.php, accessed 6 May 2013. 3
http://www.pskovgrad.ru/seto/jekspedicija_2005, accessed 5 May 2013. 4
http://constitution.garant.ru/region/ustav_pskov/chapter/3/, accessed 5 May 2013. Translated by the author. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 6 fact in the Russian Federation. More than 99% of the population speak Russian.5 According to the 2010 census 80% of the population are Russians by nationality (ethnicity).6 The privileged position of the Russian language coexists with an extremely high degree of linguistic diversity.7 It is well known that the Russian Federation has within its territory 160–170 ethnic groups and more than a hundred languages.8 Such sociolinguistic facts may easily lead to the conclusion that the smaller languages are likely to be in a precarious position. This report will describe the various legal and political measures that have been taken to preserve and maintain the Karelian and Veps languages in view of the present sociolinguistic situation. The foundations and the background for the present language legislation point to a rather dramatic history closely associated with the political development of the Russian Federation and one of its federal units, the Republic of Karelia. Historically, the present Russian Federation is a successor state both to the former Soviet Union (USSR) and the former Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (RSFSR). The first Constitution of the USSR was adopted on 31 January 1924 and preceded by multilateral agreements between major republics in the former Russian Empire. According to the 1924 Constitution, the USSR was formally established as an association of sovereign Union republics. The Union republics had on paper, formally, but not in reality, the right to secession. Within some Union republics, especially the largest one, the RSFSR, autonomous republics were established which now form the basis for the present twenty-­‐one republics in the Russian Federation. Important autonomous republics with large indigenous and traditionally Moslem populations and rich natural resources were (and are) the Tatar and Bashkir (autonomous) republics. The autonomous republics within the RSFSR and other former Soviet republics did not have the right to secession and were in the 1920s encouraged by the Communist Party leadership to develop their own languages and traditions. This was in line with Lenin’s national policy which would allow protection for minorities. Also non-­‐
territorial ethnic or religious minority groups such as the Jews were supported by the Soviet regime in the 1920s through the support of schools and cultural activities especially in the Belarusian Union republic, which before 1936 had four official languages, including Yiddish.9 5
http://www.perepis-­‐2010.ru/results_of_the_census/results-­‐inform.php, accessed 5 May 2013 http://constitution.garant.ru/region/ustav_pskov/chapter/3/, retrieved 5 May 2013. Note that the terms nationality (natsional’nost’, narodnost’) and national according to the Russian and East European practice refer to ethnicity (membership in an officially acknowledged ethnic group), not to citizenship and statehood. 7
Tishkov et al, p. 2. 8
Puura et al., p. 7–9. 9
This could be seen in the 1924 version of the Arms of Belorussia which are represented in a pictorial historic overview of the arms in Soviet Union. The letters of the texts around the arms are not clearly visible. http://www.great-­‐
country.ru/content/sssr/simb.php?page_cal=simb_gerb, accessed 23 May 2012. 6
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 7 The 1925 RSFSR Constitution (art. 13) guaranteed the right of national minorities to be taught in their native languages in their schools.10 The collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917 as well as the dissolution of the Soviet Union 1991 had many causes but one main dominating element was nationalist tensions and ambitions. Vladimir Ilich Lenin (Ulyanov) gave various nationalities his support for emancipation from the Russian Empire. After the foundation of the RSFSR and the USSR with its multi-­‐ethnic population, Lenin warned against Russian assimilationist policies and Russian nationalism. In his Testament, Lenin demanded language legislation to protect and respect the ethnic and linguistic identity of the non-­‐
Russian population in the Union republics: “The strictest rules must be introduced on the use of national languages in the non-­‐Russian republics […]. A detailed code will be required, and only the nationals living in the republics in question can draw it up all successfully.”11 The support to minority cultures had also clear political aims. The minorities should be made familiar with Communist ideology and the political aims of the new socialist state.12This process of supporting the cultural autonomy of various minorities, such as the Veps and Karelian nationalities and smaller, vernacular languages was called “korenizatsiya”, “going to the roots” to support the culture and languages of the indigenous population in the Russian Federation.13Even though it is hard to judge how sincere Lenin was in his reflections, a reverse process of centralisation and disregard for smaller languages was launched in the Soviet Union since the start of Stalinist Bolshevism period in the middle of the 1930s. Already in 1929 the Tatar association for Tatar Studies was disbanded.14 Accusations of “bourgeois nationalism” echoed repeatedly during the Soviet regime also indirectly in relation to propagating the use of vernacular languages. This process also continued and was strengthened after 1953. The “international language” of the Union, i.e. the Russian language gained more and more weight. A politics of assimilation came closer and closer to the official politics of integration or “rapprochement” (sblizhenie) between the various ethnic groups and nationalities of the Soviet Union and the RSFSR. According to a party treatise on Communist ideology which was used as a university textbook, the process of rapprochement between the various nations and ethnic groups should develop in a natural way which would have meant that in the long run the Russian language would have become more and more dominant and smaller, vernacular languages would in time lose their significance without specific measures.15 To get wider audiences, authors and literary figures representing smaller languages preferred to use Russian as the international medium for their writings according to the 10
Nahaylo & Swoboda, p. 64, referring to Istoriya Sovietskoi Konstitutsii v dokumentakh), Moscow 1957, p. 240-­‐246. V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 36, p. 605-­‐611. 12
Nahaylo & Swoboda, p. 64. 13
Predislovie (Foreword) in Vepsy, p. 9; Predislovie (Foreword) in Karely, p. 13. 14
Nahaylo & Swoboda, p. 66. 15
Nauchnyi kommunizm, p. 392-­‐393. 11
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 8 textbook.16 What the textbook says is true. The national languages of the Union republics and the autonomous republics increasingly played a more secondary role, meaning that smaller languages were disadvantaged. The more dominating role of the Russian language was indirectly supported constitutionally. All pupils in the vast Union had to be taught in their mother tongue (rodnoi yazyk). This was the case in Estonia. Such rule facilitated the influx of Russian immigrants, for instance, to the Baltic republics. They did not have to learn the language of the nationally or ethnically defined region where they lived. The assimilation process in Belarus (as an example) had at the time of the beginning of perestroika under Gorbachev gone so far that there was not a single national school in Minsk in 1989.17 In the state and party apparatus Russian was the official and working language in non-­‐Russian Union republics. Besides, constitutional and legal regulations were only the external framework to the main institution of power, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the CPSU. 1.2 Language as an area regulated by law Given the multinational and federal character of the Russian Federation it is not surprising that the area of languages is covered by constitutional and legal regulations. The general framework is laid out in the 1993 Constitution in provisions dealing with the federal official language (Art. 68.1), the state languages of the republics in the Russian Federation (Art. 68.2), the right for all nationalities (narod) to use their own languages (Art. 68.3), and, finally, the rights of small indigenous nationalities (narod) to use their languages (Art. 69). Thus, according to Art. 68.2, the republics could adopt their own state language(s). The languages of small indigenous nations should be protected according to Art. 69. Following the decision of the Russian Government in 2006 the Veps should be included among the small indigenous nations.18 The first comprehensive language legislation in the Russian Federation was, however, adopted already in 1991. Towards the end of the 1980s, Karelia and other national republics experienced what has been called yazykovaya mobilizatsiya19, “language mobilisation”. Such mobilisation also took place in the Union republics. As a result of the national awakening in the various regions of Russia in the shadow of the collapse of the USSR, the RSFSR Law No. 1807 on the Languages of the Nationalities of the Russian Federation from 25 October 1991 (henceforth: Law on Languages of 16
Ibid. Ortë (Ortjo) Stepanov, Karelia, 7 March 1997, in Karely, p. 186–188. 18
See Perechen korennykh narodov Severa, Sibiri i Dal’nego Vostoka, utverzhdennyi razporyazheniem Pravitelstva RF 17 aprelya 2006 g. N.536-­‐r., GARANT EXPERT 2010, http//www.graph.garant.ru8080/SESSION/PILOT/main.htm, accessed 11 December 2011. 19
Predislovie (Foreword) in Karely, p. 10. 17
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 9 the Nationalities)20 gives the republics the power to adopt their own state languages besides Russian (Art. 3.1 and 2). Actually, both Union republics and Autonomous republics received this right already in the USSR language law from 1990 and some also used this right. For instance, the (then) Latvian SSR adopted a Law on Language on 5 May, 1989, according to which Latvian was introduced as the official state language. On the same day an amendment to the Constitution of the Latvian SSR made Latvian the only official language in the Latvian SSR.21 Another important legislative act is the Federal Law on the State Language of the Russian Federation of 1 June, 2005 (henceforth: Law on the State Language)22. The law determines the mandatory use of the language in federal, regional and municipal institutions in the Russian Federation. The aim of the law is to enhance the “mutual understanding, [and] the strengthening of the links between the nationalities (narodov) of the Russian Federation within an integrated (edinyi) multinational state” (Art. 1.4). 1.3 Language diversity and multilingualism The goals and policies of the Russian Federation and its regional units in the area of language law are rather complex and partly contradictory. With a change of language policies since 1991, several legislative layers have occurred. Therefore, great caution is advised before language diversity and multilingualism can be regarded as guaranteed or seen as an independent goal of the legal, political, and educational. These goals could rather be regarded as potential instruments having a legislative basis. It is significant that the more ambitious model for the protection and enhancement of minority languages, i.e. the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML) has been signed by Russia but has not yet been ratified.23 Multilingualism is not endorsed as a clear goal despite the ideological statements in the Preamble of the Russian Constitution. According to a report written in connection with the possibility for the Russian Federation of ratifying the ECRML, Russian (minority) language policies and language law is comprised of four elements: 1. “Ethnic federalism” which essentially refers to the existence of territorial autonomous ethnic entities with titular nations and special official languages; 2. Federal and regional guarantees of the special status of indigenous small nationalities; 3. The right to extra-­‐territorial national and cultural autonomy; 20
Vedomosti RSFSR No. 50, item 1740; Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 1998 No. 31, item 3804 (with changes and amendments). 21
The law is published and printed by the Publishing House “Avots”, Riga, 1989. 22
Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 2005 No. 23, item 2199. 23
It was signed 10/5/2001. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 10 4. Federal and regional initiatives to support and develop non-­‐official languages (under targeted programmes and other arrangements).24 However, the Russian Federation as a state is a new formation with old strong historical roots. As a new state, the Russian Federation is also highly concerned with the state and nation building language, i.e. the Russian language. Whereas the national awakening within the Soviet Union on the one hand led to the adoption of the 1991 Law on Languages of the Nationalities, the Putin regime’s main concern, on the other hand, has been to enhance the internal cohesion and to preserve the territorial integrity of the country. In line with this tendency the Law on the Languages of the Nationalities was changed in 11 December 2002. According to this amendment all regional state languages must use Cyrillic script.25 The change of the 1991 Law on the Languages of the Nationalities in 2002 was regarded to be in conformity with the Russian Constitution by the Federal Constitutional Court on 16 November 2004.26 According to the Court, the federal legislator 1) has the right to legislate this area, and 2) the reason for the mandatory use of Cyrillic letters is “the historically developed reality” (realia) in the Russian Federation “with the Russian language as a uniting element”. For this reason in the Court’s opinion letters of the state languages of the republics and the letters of the language of the Federation should be similar. Consequently, the fact that the Russian language is proclaimed as the official state language of the Russian Federation is not surprising (Art.68.1 of the Constitution of RF). The maintenance and development of the Russian language is a central goal of the regime: “The protection and maintenance of the Russian language promotes the expansion and mutual enrichment of the spiritual culture of the Nationalities of the Russian Federation” (Art. 1.5 of the Law on the State Language ). These political aims and the perception of the Russian language as a general instrument for a more consolidated integration and the deepening of cohesion in the Russian Federation are supported by the “Concept of federal comprehensive programme ‘Russian language’ for the period 2011-­‐
2015”.27 The secondary aim of the Russian language policy is the maintenance and development of the state languages of the Russian republics (Art. 68. 2 of the Constitution). The aim of this policy must not be seen as alternative to the primary goal of maintaining the dominating position of the Russian language but rather as a possible option or possibility of maintaining the ethnic and national autonomy of the republics. From this perspective bilingualism could be seen as a goal for those republics which are concerned with their cultural and (political) integrity, such as, for 24
Tishkov et al. (2009), p. 11. http://graph.garant.ru:8080/SESSION/PILOT/main.htm, accessed 12 May 2012. 26
Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 2004 No. 47, item 4691. 27
Addition to the Federal Law from 1 June 2005; No. 53-­‐FZ "Оn the State Language of the Russian Federation”, GARANT EXPERT 2010, http//www.graph.garant.ru8080/SESSION/PILOT/main.htm, accessed July 15 2011. 25
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 11 example, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, and Chechnya, but less clearly as a federal goal. In some North Caucasian republics with several language minorities, multilingualism is promoted. Language diversity on the societal and individual level is guaranteed by the 1993 Constitution (Art. 26). According to Articles 68.3 and 69, smaller minority languages such as Veps enjoy protection. These provisions are made more precise in the Law on Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Minority Nationalities of the Russian Federation.28 That linguistic diversity or even bilingualism does not have high priority all over the Federation could be discerned from the repeated criticism by members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in relation to some minorities in the Russian Federation and in particular to the Finno-­‐Ugric Mari population in the Mari Republic. In spite of the fact that the Mari language is the state language of the republic with more than half a million Mari-­‐speaking inhabitants, the official use of the language has decreased in recent years according to reports to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. However, the Assembly did not take any resolution on that matter.29 A resolution on the condition of the minorities in the Russian Federation was passed unanimously by the European Parliament within the European Union in 2005.30 The resolution states that the Mari minority faces considerable difficulties in obtaining education in their native language, since there is no secondary or higher education in Mari. Moreover, the publication of Mari textbooks has declined in the past years.31 Finally, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe expressed its concern in a resolution, adopted on May 2, 2007, pointing out that the country has not done enough to implement existing federal legislation on minority protection, including a sufficient supply of textbooks for minority languages.32 The Law on Languages of the Nationalities (Art. 2) provides that the Russian state shall support or “supports the development of national languages (ethnic languages), bilingualism and multi-­‐
lingualism” (emphasis added).33 The Federal Law on Education (Art. 5) states that citizens are guaranteed education in a non-­‐discriminatory way also in relation to languages. Art. 6 provides that students in general public schools have the right to receive their education in their mother tongue and also a choice of languages within the possibilities of the educational system, i.e. depending on available financial means. The right to receive education in the mother tongue 28
See Federal Law No. 82 FZ of April 30, 1999, Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 1999 No. 18, item 12208 (with changes and amendments). 29
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. Doc. 10548, 12 May 2005. The situation of the Mari minority in the Russian Federation. 30
P6_CRE-­‐PROV(2005)05-­‐12 FULL Compte rendu session Strasbourg 12 mai 2005 16.2 -­‐ Violations of human rights and democracy in the Republic of Mari El in the Russian Federation. 31
Mercator News May 2005, http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/index-­‐gb.htm, accessed June 29, 2011. 32
lgi.osi.hu/documents.php?id=1634, accessed 3 July 2011. 33
Vedomosty S”ezd narodnykh deputatov RFSFS i Verkhovnogo Soveta RSFSR, Izdatel’stvo “Yuridicheskaya literatura”, 30 July 1992, No. 30, item 1797. http//www.graph.garant.ru8080/SESSION/PILOT/main.htm, accessed 12 December 2011. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 12 should be guaranteed through the creation of such schools, classes or groups which would give an education in the chosen language. Students in general schools should have the right to receive their education in their national language or mother tongue according to the Federal Law on National and Cultural Autonomy from 17 June 199634 which obliquely means that multilingualism is promoted in the Russian Federation. The Law on the Foundations for Legislation on Culture in the Russian Federation of 9 October 199235 should be mentioned in this context as well. According to Art. 21 of this law, the right to establish circles, cultural centres, and national-­‐ethnic associations for studies of indigenous languages should be strengthened and supported. Given the partly conflicting aims in Russian legislation between the 1991 Law on Languages of the Nationalities and the Law on National and Cultural Autonomy on the one hand, and the change in the Law on Languages of the Nationalities, prescribing the use of Cyrillic letters in the state languages of the republics, and the 2005 Law on the State Language on the other, linguistic diversity and multilingualism cannot be firmly asserted as unequivocal federal goals in the Russian Federation. There is a tendency for the state to withdraw from ethnic politics. The nationality (ethnicity) of a Russian citizen is no longer shown on passports.36 The “Concept of State Nationality Policy of the Russian Federation”37 adopted under President Boris Yeltsin in 1996 could be seen as an intermediate document between the renaissance of language emancipation around 1990 and the need to promote unity and cohesion in the Russian Federation under President Putin. It must be seen as partly outdated.38 Suggested creation of national municipal units as a possible tool for protection of minority languages was very vague in general, promoting the Russian language and minority languages at the same time. To complicate the matter further, the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation which only allowed Cyrillic letters in the state languages of the Republics also mentioned in its reasoning the notions of bilingualism or multilingualism as (federal) goals of the Russian Federation.39 The Court promoted linguistic diversity both at the societal and individual level, but the emphasis was on the societal level. Simultaneously, the Court diminished the possibility to make Karelian a state language. 34
Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 1996 No. 25, item 2965 (with changes and amendments). Vedomosti RF 1992 No. 46, item 2615. 36
Klementiev (2008), p. 114. 37
Kontseptsiya gosudarstvennoi natsionalnoi politiki Rossiiskoi Federatsii, Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 1996, No. 25, item 3010. 38
Tishkov et al., p. 5. 39
Ruling of 16 November 2004 No. 16-­‐P, Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 2004 No. 47, item 4691. 35
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 13 The Constitutional Court in its Ruling from 3 March 2004 decided that it is permitted to create only one ethnic association in each Republic within the framework of the Federal Law on National and Cultural Autonomy. This has the consequence that in the Altai Republic only one German ethnic regional association was permitted to be established. Here, however, linguistic and ethnic diversity was not promoted. It would be, therefore, more appropriate to speak of an ambivalence of language policies. An impressive number of relevant legislative acts promote linguistic diversity and – to a lesser degree – multilingualism. Yet, other policies and partly legislative acts are pointed to another, centralising, direction. 1.4 The Karelian and Veps languages in the Russian Federation The complex and dramatic legal history of minorities and languages of the Russian Federation and the Soviet Union does not stop at the borders of Karelia. The language policies of the Karelian Commune in 1920 and the Karelian ASSR after 1923 were discussed and formulated at the All-­‐
Karelian Soviet Congresses 1921–1921 and the Second Regional Party Conference in 1923.40 The Karelian language then and today has at least three main varieties, which makes it difficult to legislate and regulate an official language for Karelia.41 This fact could be and has also been used as a justification not to designate an official state language.42 A similar problem also partially concerns the Veps language. Due to the absence of a unified written Karelian language no decision was made to establish a Karelian language as an official language in the 1920s. However, following the decisions of the regional authorities, spoken Karelian was to be used in the local Soviets and public organisations. In the Northern regions the use of the corresponding Karelian version developed successfully.43 However, through a regional Party decision the Finnish language had to replace Karelian dialects as official language.44 In schools where Finnish was used as the language of instruction, Russian was to be taught, while Finnish was the second language in schools with Russian language of instruction. This had serious consequences for the Veps minority in Karelia who did not 40
Afanasieva, p. 24-­‐26. 42
Anatoly Grigoriev, Ob ofitsial’nykh yazykakh v Respubliki Kareliya, Karjalan Sanomat, 19 October 1996 in Karely, p. 147-­‐148. 43
Afanasieva, p. 24. 44
Ibid. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 14 understand Finnish. The situation of the Veps language was better and different in the Leningrad region (oblast’) where 53 Veps schools operated between 1935-­‐1936.45 In a drastic change in 1937, at the height of the Stalinist repression, a contrary decision was made. Finnish was to be abolished and in a short time a unified written Karelian language was about to be developed. This decision was, again, changed in 1940 in connection with the war with Finland and the establishment of a new Karelo-­‐Finnish Union Republic (which in the future would include Finland as well). After the war the Finnish language had to be taught as a subject for Karelian pupils.46 Finnish was not an official language according to the Constitution existing then, but all laws had to be published both in Russian and in Finnish.47 After World War II three phases could be discerned in Russian language policies in relation to the Karelian and Veps languages. From 1956 when the Union Republic of Karelia became an Autonomous Republic once again, schools with Karelian as a medium of teaching were closed and Finno-­‐Ugric pedagogic institutions together with the corresponding department at the Petrozavodsk University were abolished.48 In the name of “sblizhenie” (rapprochement) smaller vernacular languages would in the long run disappear. Due to deliberate intentions of the political authorities and the leadership of the CPSU as well as development attributed to demographic, social, and economic elements, and irrespective of assimilation processes in Karelia, the use of spoken and written Karelian, Finnish and Veps languages in Karelia and other regions of the RSFSR was continuously decreasing. While in 1926 94.7% of the Veps population considered the Veps language as their mother tongue, only 46.1% declared the same in 1959. The great influx of labour from other parts of the Soviet Union and the forced industrial development of its main natural resource, forestry, made ethnic Karelian and other minorities foreigners in their own republic. But more problematic was the voluntary assimilation of the Karelians themselves. Karelians increasingly defined themselves as Russians. Towards the end of the 1950s more than half of the urban young Karelians (up to 20 years of age) considered Russian as their mother tongue.49 This process of linguistic assimilation has been accelerated both for Karelians and Veps. According to the census from 2002, only 38% of the 8240 of those that identify as Veps master the Veps language.50 In 1989 only 51,5% of the Karelians considered Karelian to be their mother tongue.51 According to the census from 2002 only 48% of Karelians master their 45
Predislovie (Foreword) in Vepsy, p. 13. Ibid. 47
Interview on 1 March 1997 with the then Chairman of the Government of the Republic of Karelia, V. N. Stepanov in Karely, p. 183–184. This practice was connected with the fact that Karelia at that time was a Union republic. 48
Stepanov, Karelia, 7 March 1997, in Karely, p. 186–188. 49
Predislovie (Foreword) in Karely, p. 9. 50
Predislovie (Foreword) in Vepsy, p. 15, 19. 51
Ibid., p. 9. 46
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 15 national language.52 According to the census of 2010, 25,605 persons in and outside of Karelia speak Karelian, whereas only 3,613 master the Veps language.53 Until 1985 the issue of the Karelian language was not to be discussed. It became possible to raise the issues of a reviving Karelian culture and the Karelian and Veps language only when democratic transformations started in the country. The increasingly strong nationalist tensions which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union also reached the autonomous republics within the RSFSR in 1989-­‐ 1990. Boris Yeltsin supported a national revival in the autonomous republics. The Karelian Declaration of State Sovereignty came in August 1990 shortly after the Declaration of State Sovereignity of the RSFSR on 12 June 1990, and laid the foundation for the future constitution of Karelia and the relations with other parts of the Federation. These dramatic changes led to intense discussions concerning the Karelian and Veps languages and their protection which continued in the 1990s in Karelia. The discussion on the protection of these languages continues today but under different conditions.54 The 1993 Constitution (Art 68.2) makes it possible for therepublics in the Russian Federation to adopt the language(s) of the titular nationality as a state language beside the Russian language.55 This has been the case in all republics except Karelia and Dagestan. In Dagestan, there is no language law at all but all 14 languages enjoy protection. According to Art. 11 of the Karelian Constitution, only the Russian language is the official language of Karelia. Consequently, the Karelian language is potentially, though not actually, protected by the Federal Constitution and its spatial method of language protection (ethnic federalism). Although Karelian has not been established as a state language, the republic has adopted the Law on the State Support of the Karelian, Veps and Finnish languages in the Republic of Karelia, 31 March, 2004 (henceforth: Law on Support).56 Although bilingualism is not an unequivocal goal but only a potential goal in Karelia in relation to the Karelian language, the Karelian and Veps (and Finnish) languages enjoy support through the programs in the Law on Support. Besides, Veps are included since 200657 in the groups of small ethnic minorities which are protected by the Federal Law on the Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Small Nationalities within the Russian Federation, 30 April, 1999.58 The explanatory note (poyasnitel’naya zapiska) to the order (prikaz) No. 443/100/208, 28 May 2009 adopted by the Karelian Ministry of Nationality Policy and Contact with Religions 52
Klementiev (2008), p. 70. http://www.perepis-­‐2010.ru/results_of_the_census/results-­‐inform.php, accessed 11 October 2012 54
See below. 55
The republics are these 21 regional units which are organised around a minority nationality. 56
19.03.2004 (http://www.gov.karelia.ru/Karelia/1162/15.html) approved by the Decree of the Government of the Republic of Karelia, 17.05.2005. 57
Through a Decision of the Russian Government from 17 April 2006. No. 530 r. 58
Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 1999 No. 18., item 12208 (with changes and amendments). 53
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 16 Associations and the Ministry of Education and Culture expresses a strong concern for the loss of the mother tongue (Karelian) among citizens living in Karelia. The note indicated declining ability of Karelians to speak their (former) mother tongue and relates this fact to urbanisation and globalisation. Through the same order a list of “Comprehensive measures” to implement the Plan “Development of the Karelian Language in the Republic of Karelia for the years 2009-­‐2020” was adopted in which countermeasures to the declining use of Karelian language were defined. However, the change of the 1991 Law on Languages of the Nationalities in 2002, determining that the Cyrillic alphabet must be used in the regional state languages, could be interpreted as an obstacle for Karelian to become an official language in Karelia and would make the Veps language even more marginal. 1.5 Political and legal tradition in dealing with minorities and language The present concern with territorial integrity and maintaining power of the centre gives us the hypothesis that there is a continuity between the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (the RSFSR) and the present Russian Federation which affects the language policy and language law. The problems of creation of integration and cohesion within an extremely large and multinational state could be seen as a recurrent issue in Russian language politics and law, an issue which has appeared both in the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, the RFSR, and the present Russian Federation. As a general observation or general hypothesis, it is suggested that language policy and language law must not be perceived by the relevant actors as a threat to the unity and cohesion of the state. Threat perceptions may vary over time in relation to different (geo-­‐) political situations. This has the consequence that the problem of integration and/or provision of space to linguistic minorities has been changed under various regimes within three basic state formations. General policy has, however, been to integrate rather than to assimilate smaller ethnic-­‐linguistic groups by virtue of the idea of autonomy. Although the Russian empire was a centralised autocratic state, there is also a long history of varying degrees of autonomy. The autonomy given to the Grand Duchy of Finland is an extreme example. Art. 1 of the Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire of April 23, 1906 says: “The Russian state is one and undividable.” But after that comes Article 2: “The Grand-­‐Duchy of Finland, though constituting an inalienable part of the Russian state, is to be governed in its internal affairs by special laws”.59 Similarly, Poland and the German Baltic provinces had a certain form of religious, linguistic and cultural autonomy which was diminished over time. A process of forced dominance of the Russian 59
The Russian Fundamental Laws 1906, http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ImperialRussian/royalty/russia/rfl.html, accessed 1 May 2012. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 17 language took place by the end of the 19th century, especially under the reign of Tsar Alexander III (1881-­‐ 94).60 In the Russian part of Poland, the Russian language had to be used in all official settings and in schools. In the German-­‐Baltic provinces Russian should have become the teaching medium in schools. In Finland, the Russian language was made mandatory in schools but a process of forced “Russification”61 took place there only under Nicholas II (1894–1918) which was then cancelled in the aftermath of the 1905 revolution. The autonomy granted in 1906 was, however, curtailed in 1910.62 Smaller (linguistic) minorities seldom represent a security problem but can be perceived as dangerous for the cohesion of the state if they live in compact areas close to the borders of the state and if their linguistic affiliation is different from that of the majority. An example today would be the North Caucasus republics (Chechnya and Dagestan in particular) with their predominantly Moslem population. Karelia has historically been a contested region. A part of Finnish Karelia was annexed to the Soviet Union after 1945 and became a part of the Karelian Republic.63 This could have led to a potential reluctance of advocacy measures for the support of the Karelian and Finnish languages in Karelia. Although Russian is the only state language in Karelia, the sheer possibility to introduce other official languages in the Republic according to the Karelian Constitution (Art. 11) is presently regarded by some as a threat to Russian unity and indivisibility.64 A special feature for the protection of linguistic minorities was to give them territorial space within the country. In that respect, present constitutional design coincides with the Soviet model and partially, as we have seen, with the former Empire. Stalinist repressive policies and Alexander III’s legislative measures to promote “Russification” as a representation of a symptom of Russian nationalism or Panslavism must be seen as aberrations from the general policy for integration rather than explicit assimilation of linguistic minorities. There is a deep structure of continuity between the present and the past in the sense that the Russian Federation is formally not a nation state, nor were the Russian Empire and the Soviet 60
Strachovsky, p. 467–492. According to Kochan & Keep, p. 209, the term “Russification” must not be taken too literally. 62
1910. The Collection of Decrees of the Grand Duchy of Finland. Nr 45.1097. Concerning the procedure to be complied *
with issuing laws and decrees of all-­‐Empire significance in Finland cf. http://www.histdoc.net/history/c1910.html, accessed 1 May 2012. 63
Editor’s note. The complete population of the areas annexed to the Soviet Union was evacuated and resettled in Finland. The present inhabitants of the area have come from other parts of the Soviet Union, and thus the annexation probably rather decreased than added the percentage of Karelian or Finnish speakers in the Karelian Republic. 64
Olga Tynyanova, Incomplete Centralization, Russia in Global Affairs,№ 3, July -­‐ September 2008. Accessed 12 July 2011; Oleg Alexandrov, The Role of the Republic of Karelia in Russia’ s Foreign and Security Policy, Working Paper No 5 (2001) fertig.qxd,www.css.ethz.ch/.../Working_Paper_No_5.pdf , accessed 12 May 2012. 61
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 18 Union. However, today Russian nationalism is increasing among some influential groups of the society.65 A clear legal step or even discontinuity from the earlier legal landscape is the attachment of the Russian Federation to international conventions protecting (linguistic) rights of minorities.66 The Soviet Union signed the United Nations 1996 Covenants and other international documents but did not put efforts to implement them. The Russian Federation, in contrast, makes serious attempts to comply with its international obligations although it does not always succeed. However, the present political regime attaches less importance to its international obligations than in the 1990s. Separatist tendencies in the Russian Federation, for example, in Chechnya or Tatarstan, have led to centralising tendencies already in 1999. These tendencies have gained force during the Putin-­‐
Medvedev regime. These policies have affected the third phase of the language legislation of the Russian Federation, including the status of the Veps and Karelian languages. Examples of such legislation include the 2005 Federal Law on the State Language and the change in 2002 of the Law on Languages of the Nationalities which demanded that the Cyrillic script has to be used in the legislation of the Russian republics. Nevertheless, international commitments of the Russian Federation and legislation of the 1990s which have not been abolished point to another direction. Especially the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities has led to new legislation, including anti-­‐discrimination amendments to the Labour Code of the Russian Federation in 2004; amendments aimed at counteraction of incitement of ethnic and religious hatred and extremist activities, including amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.67 Moreover, the fact that Karelian and Veps, despite not being state languages, are supported by financial measures and special programmes shows that there are general tendencies to support minority languages. Thus, current situation is characterised by ambiguity and is not completely transparent. Additionally, it is rather complicated to assess the stability of the present situation. One can,however, discern a rather constant centralising tendency. 1.6 Characteristics of the legal system Formally, the Russian legal system belongs to the Civil or Romanistic legal family with the main focus on legislation and the tradition of Roman law. The Civil Law tradition must be seen as a 65
M. Van Herpen, Putinism. The Slow Rise of a Radical Right Regime in Russia. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. See above. 67
(State reports FCPNM 2000, 2005, 2010). 66
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 19 contrast to the Common Law or Anglo-­‐American legal family where judicial practice plays a more prominent role. This traditional difference has, however, become less important in view of the continuing convergence of legal systems of the world in the face of globalisation and Europeanisation. The structure of Russian legislation shows peculiarities in the sense that in order to make legislative acts effective, implementation acts are often needed. That makes the system complex.The horizontal complexity refers to the relation between various laws at the same level. The vertical dimension relates to potential contradictions between federal and regional legislation. The relation between higher and lower legislative acts on the same issue decides the efficacy of the norm. Parts of federal and regional laws are declarative without enforcement mechanisms, i.e. they only give a skeleton of an area and are not operational. Federal or regional legislative acts must be made effective through government or ministerial decrees or directives. In the area of minority legislation the 1992 RF Law on the Foundations for the Legislation of the Russian Federation on Culture illustrates the declarative nature of such law. The law enumerates various areas, programmes and dimensions of cultural support for ethnic groups in the Russian Federation but does not impose any binding duties for various institutions and officials. Sometimes it has been considered important to see the Russian legal system in its historical position as successor to the Soviet socialist law. However, the transition period is over.68 The political and economic development has led to adoption of legislation which in many aspects today corresponds to international standards. In that concrete sense the transition phase is over, but legal reforms under Putin have not succeeded to create a rule of law state, in Russian “pravovoe gosudarstvo”.69 This is connected with three circumstances. 1. An institutional heritage exists for example in the police which might be an obstacle to a modernisation of the work of that institution.70 2. The attitude of larger groups of society to the law is not as positive as it should be, precisely because institutions applying the law do not enjoy sufficient trust among the population. 3. Corruption is rampant, which also diminishes trust to law-­‐implementing institutions. Negative attitude towards the law has been characterised by former President Dmitry Medvedev as “legal nihilism”.71 Attitudes and legal culture do not change automatically because of new 68
Thomas Carothers, “The End of the Transition Paradigm” in Journal of Democracy Vol. 13, No. 1, January 2002, p. 5-­‐
21. 69
Jeffry Kahn, “Vladimir Putin and the Rule of Law in Russia.” 36 Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law , p. 511-­‐558. 70
Gilles Favarel-­‐Garrigues, “Policing economic crime in Russia (from 1965 to 1995)”. Paper presented at a Seminar 16 October 2012 at UCRS. 71
Lionel Barber, Neil Buckley and Catherine Belton, ”Laying down the law: Medvedev vows war on Russia’s ‘legal nihilism’”, Financial Times 24 March 2008; Anders Fogelklou, Reflections on Legal Nihilism and the Dual State, Utblick Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 20 legislation which in many areas lives up to international standards as has already been shown. According to a prevailing opinion, shared by informed scholars, Russia lacks the “rule of law”.72 The constitutional principle of equality before the law formally exists, but in practice it is only partially implemented. Even though courts and legislators enjoy little trust among the population, citizens use the courts to an increasing degree to promote their interests. In case of minority language legislation it would be incorrect to assert that justice is selective – although the sense of importance of such legislation among legislators and administrative institutions is hard to discern. However, there is a sense of formalism which might further the interests of the use of minority languages. An example of a recent case filed to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation shows the importance of formalism. A man from Chechnya claimed an interpreter in spite of the fact that he mastered the Russian language. Lower instances denied him that procedural right and political leaders supported that standpoint, but the Supreme Court gave him the right to have an interpreter since it was provided by law, e.g. Art. 47. 7 of the 2001 Code of Criminal Procedure.73 1.7 Languages covered by legislation The Federal Constitution mentions solely the Russian language. Within the 21 national units (republics) of the Russian Federation many languages are mentioned in constitutional or other legislative acts. The Karelian, the Veps and the Finnish languages are mentioned in Karelian legislation and the Seto language is mentioned in the Charter of the Pskov oblast’. 1.8 Regulation in relation to minorities and languages The complexity of the legislative system dealing with language(s) in the Russian Federation depends on the following elements: temporal, horizontal and vertical (see above 1.7). The temporal element refers to the strong political and constitutional difference between the time when the first law on languages was adopted in 1991 and the present situation after the adoption of the Law on the State Language in 2005 and the changes of the 1991 Law on Languages of the Nationalities in 2002. och inblick: vänbok till Claes Sandgren, Tom Madell, Per Bergling, Örjan Edström & Jan Rosé, (eds), Uppsala: Iustus 2011, p. 181–190. 72
Kathryn Hendley, ”Telephone Law” and the ”Rule of Law”: The Russian Case, Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, p. 241–262, 2009. 73
This case was reported by Vladimir Malakhov at the Seminar “Multiculturalism á la Russe: politics of identity in contemporary Russia in a Workshop on “Multiculturalism in Russia” 3-­‐4 May 2012, 2012 at UCRS. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 21 1.8.1 Federal Constitutional provisions 1.8.1.1 Introduction Although the Russian Constitution from 12 December 1993 is ambiguous in several aspects and especially in the area of federalism74 and, consequently, already in the beginning can be interpreted from different perspectives, it was the only legal act corresponding to European legal standards at the time when the Russian Federation was in the process of becoming a member of the Council of Europe according to a report from 1994.75 Adherence to democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights are enclosed in the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation (Art. 1. and 2). The main tenor is the emphasis on democracy and the value of an individual.76 Several provisions of the Russian Constitution acknowledge these principles. There are especially important provisions recognising the importance of universally recognised principles and norms of international law for the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms (Art. 17.1), stating that fundamental human rights and freedoms are inalienable (Art. 17.2). The Constitutional emphasis on human rights is formulated in Art. 18 providing that “The rights and freedoms of man and citizen shall be directly operative. They determine the essence, meaning and implementation of laws, the activities of the legislative and executive authorities, local self-­‐government and shall be ensured by the administration of justice.” Provisions on federalism and the rule of law are also relevant for the protection of languages. According to Art. 15.1, the Constitution has “supreme force” [and] “direct effect” and overrules legal norms, adopted by the Federal Assembly (the Russian Parliament) and regional legislatures and lower state organs. Such provision could have wide reaching effects, making the constitution formally very strong and the master of the legal system. Given the formally strong position of the Russian Constitution in the Russian legal order according to Art. 15.1, its protection is crucial. The defence of constitutional norms is primarily the task of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation which should function as a watch-­‐dog for the maintenance and as a protector of the 74
For this judgement see for example, N. Varlamova, “Konstitutsionnaya model’ rossiiskogo federalizma”, Konstitutsionnoe pravo: vostochnoevropeiskoe obozrenie, No. 4, 1999, p. 113-­‐121; T. Ya. Khabrieva, “Doktrinal'noe i kompetentnoe tolkovanie Konstitutsii” in: Izvestiya vyshchikh uchebnykh zavedenij / Pravovedenie 1998 No. 1, p. 22–34. 75
The Russian Foreign Ministry admitted that Russian legislation, with the exception of the 1993 Constitution did not meet European standards. See Explanatory Note of the Issue of Signing the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in G. Vinokurova, A. Richter, V. Chernishova (eds), European Court for Human Rights and the Protection of the Freedom of Speech in Russia: Precedents, Analysis, Recommendations Vol. 2, Moscow: Institute of Problems of International Law, 2004. 76
Vitruk, p. 59. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 22 Russian constitutional order. According to Art. 125 of the Federal Constitution, the Court shall examine the constitutionality of federal and regional legislative acts. Provided they (legislative acts) do not comply with constitutional norms they become void and lose their validity at a given moment. Citizens have access to the Court according to Art. 125.4.77 An impressive practice shows the importance of the Constitutional Court for the protection of various constitutional provisions but simultaneously that the Court has acquiesced to the centralising and increasing authoritarian legislation of the Putin regime in the area of federalism, democracy and (political) rights of minorities.78 Besides, courts of ordinary jurisdiction have to apply directly those constitutional norms that instead of norms in lower legislative acts if they are in conflict with the Constitution and are not within the jurisdiction of the Russian Constitutional Court.79 Consequently, all legislative acts within the Federation enjoy constitutional protection through the judicial system. 1.8.1.2 Ethnic federalism as a constitutional method for protecting (linguistic) minorities Federalism is important especially for the protection of the Karelian language as the spatial model that governs the legal regulation of nationalities (ethnic minorities) in the Russian Federation. It has been called “ethnic”80 or “asymmetrical federalism”.81 The fact that the Russian Federation constitutionally is not an ethnic Russian nation state could be seen from the Preamble and the first constitutional principles of the Constitution. The Constitution stipulates: “The names ‘Russian Federation’ and ‘Russia’ shall be equal” (Art.1.2). This introductory provision should be read in conjunction with Art. 3.1 which refers to the democratic principle according to which “the only source of power in the Russian Federation shall be its multinational people” (emphasis added). These formulations make it difficult to use in the concept of minorities. In a strict formal sense all ethnic-­‐linguistic groups with at least the status of having their own federal entity (titular nationality) do not belong to a minority.82 77
See below. Roemer Lemaitre, “The Rollback of Democracy in Russia after Beslan”, Review of Central and East European Law 31 (2006) p. 369–411; Anders Fogelklou, “Interpretation and Accommodation in the Russian Constitutional Court”, in F J M Feldbrugge, ed., Russia, Europe and the Rule of Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden Boston 2006, p. 29–
46. 79
According to a decision by the Russian Supreme Court from 31 October 1995, Byulletèn VS RF No. 1. 80
Tishkov et al., p. 8 -­‐ 9. 81
William Pomeranz, “The Russian Constitutional Court’s Interpretation of Federalism: Building Center-­‐Regional Relations,” 4 (4) Parker School Journal of East European Law (1997), p. 401-­‐443. 82
Tishkov et al, p. 8-­‐9. 78
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 23 The wording of the article poses several questions.What does it mean that the designations “The Russian Federation” and “Russia” are “equal”? Why is the constitutional lawmaker not satisfied with the term “Russian Federation” given that the Russian people are named “multinational” and the state is “multinational”? Why is “Russia” added after the “Russian Federation”? This terminological question, unimportant at first glance, requires a more detailed discussion from the perspective of language legislation. The emphasis on Russia cannot simply be described as a symptom of Russian ethnic nationalism but rather as a reflection of the idea of Russia as a nation of Rossiyanins (not only of ethnic Russians, Russkie) which is not an ethnic designation but a civic one.83 A Rossiyanin might be a Tatar or a Karelian with the Russian language as the common, uniting language. From that perspective the Russian Federation is a nation state but the Russian nation is not seen as an ethnic designation – but it is regarded as a civic, uniting community. The term “multinational people” created in late Soviet times should in Valery Tishkov’s vision be regarded as the Russian nation in its civic meaning. According to Tishkov, giving the Russian language a privileged position – which does prevent the Constitution from having a comprehensive area of protection for minorities, including linguistic minorities – is not a contradiction to the multi-­‐ethnic character of the Russian Federation. The reason for these designations is the great formal varieties of the eighty-­‐three federal units, “subjects” in Russian terminology, which form part of the Russian Federation. This variation is supposed to accommodate the diversity in cultures and languages within the Federation. The Constitution makes several distinctions between these units (Art. 67). Twenty-­‐one (national) republics are mentioned first; then the names of the nine border territories (krai), the 47 common regions (oblast) and two main cities are enumerated. Finally, the Jewish autonomous region and four ethnic (national) autonomous areas are mentioned. While some federal units are named “republics”, “the Jewish autonomous region” and “the autonomous areas” should refer to “national”, i.e. the ethnic, linguistic, cultural and historical specificity of these units. The republics are from the beginning supposed to be led by presidents (which would, at least symbolically, accentuate the constitutional difference between territorial and national units which are led by governors), but now this difference has little or no importance. The title of the leader of the Karelian Republic is, precisely, “head” (glava) and not “president”. The term “asymmetrical federalism” may also be used in a factual meaning. In contrast to several other national units, the titular ethnic group of Karelia comprises only about 9.2% of the population. This fact has had important legal consequences and is one of the factors behind the fact that Karelian is not an official language in Karelia. 83
Valery Tishkov, The Russian People and National Identity "Russia in Global Affairs". № 3, July -­‐ September 2008, accessed 12 May 2011. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 24 The area of federalism includes also distribution of competences to regulate language legislation. The power to regulate language law in the Russian Federation belongs to the Federation although it is included both in the area of the exclusive competence of the Federation and in the area of joint jurisdiction of the Federation and the federal units (Art. 71 c and Art. 72 b). These different competences are similar, albeit not identical. Article 71 uses the expression “regulirovanie” (regulation) and Article 72 “zashchita” (defence) of human rights and minorities, since language law is to be included in the area of human rights and the rights of minorities both have jurisdiction in the area of language law. However, ultimate power belongs to the federation as in cases of conflict federal statutes prevail over statutes of republics or other federal units (Art. 76.1.2). Also the constitutions of the federal units must not be in contradiction with the Federal Constitution. During the Putin regime, both the federal principle in the Constitution and the difference between national and territorial units have lost their significance. Through federal legislation which has been seen in conformity with the Constitution by the Russian Constitutional Court, important legal changes have taken place. As a result, one could assert that the principle of (ethnic) federalism legally has little significance today. 1) Seven federal districts have been established as control organs over the regions in 2000. 2) The representatives from the federal units to the Federal Assembly (the Federal Parliament) to its Chamber, representing the federal units, the Federation Council, are no longer governors or heads of regional assemblies but less important political actors. The regions now send the most important constitutional actors to the State Council which only gives recommendations. 3) The change from 11 December 2004 of the Law on the General Principles Governing the Organisation of Legislative (Representative) and Executive State Authorities of Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation of 6 October 199984 (henceforth: Law on Regions) has had the following consequence: The heads of the republics will be nominated by the President and elected by the regional legislative assembly and, in reality, be appointed by him. Before this change of the above-­‐mentioned law, heads of the regions had to be elected by the population. This change was approved by the Constitutional Court in a Ruling from 15 December 2005.85 The Court then changed its earlier judgement from 1996. The Court said then that regional leaders should be elected in the same way as the President of the Federation, i.e. by voting. However, currently Russia reverts (May 2012) to 84
Sobranie zakonadatel’stva RF 2004, No. 50, item 4950. Sobranie zakonadatel’stva RF 2006, No. 3, item 336. Ruling of 21 December 2005 On the Case of verification of the constitutionality of some provisions of the Federal Law of 6 October 1999 No. 184 -­‐ FZ “On general principles of organisation of legislative (representative) and executive organs of public power in the subjects of the Russian Federation”. 85
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 25 direct election of governors, though in a more complicated procedure.86 This change has been described as “cosmetic” since the elections are controlled by federal or regional authorities so the prospects for more democracy are not very promising.87 4) The heads of the regions may be dismissed by the President on discretionary grounds according to the change in the above mentioned Law on Regions. 5) Political parties may not be established on a religious and/or ethnic basis. Besides, they must comprise more than half of the regions. These restrictions were approved by the Russian Constitutional Court in two Rulings.88 Some restrictions have also been lifted in April 2012.89 1.8.1.3 Constitutional language legislation For the protection of languages the Russian Constitution contains six particular norms related to the use of languages spoken within the Russian Federation. Veps and Karelian as vernacular languages in the Russian Federation are constitutionally protected. The Constitution prohibits discrimination in relation to the use of languages. The relevant norm refers both to the mother tongue of an individual and to the language that a person may choose to use at a given occasion for expressing him/herself (Art. 19.2).90 There is also a general right to use any language. Thus, Art. 26 gives everyone the right to use one native language freely, but also freely to choose any language “in communication, upbringing, education and creative work.” On the other hand, propaganda in favour of the superiority of any language, race, social class, religion or nation is constitutionally prohibited (Art. 29.2). Art. 68 is central for the constitutional regulation of languages in the Russian Federation, formulating three levels of constitutional protection of languages. This provision regulates the official use and protection of the majority language in the Federation. It allows several languages to have an official status on the territory of the republics, but always in conjunction with the Russian language. Languages of other linguistic minorities are constitutionally protected, especially in case of the indigenous and small community languages by means of Article 69.91 Accordingly, the provision contains three parts. 86
Russia returns to direct election of governors, May 2, 2012, Russia Beyond the Headlines, http://rbth.ru/articles/2012/05/02/russia_has_the_direct_gubernatorial_elections_returned_15558.html 87
Ibid. 88
Ruling from 15 December 2004, Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF 2004, No. 51 item 5260; Ruling from 1 February 2005 on the Constitutionality и part 2 of Article 3 и Part 6 of Article 47 of the Federal Law“On Political Parties Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF 2005, No. 6, item 491. 89
Russia returns to direct election of governors, May 2, 2012, Russia Beyond the Headlines, http://rbth.ru/articles/2012/05/02/russia_has_the_direct_gubernatorial_elections_returned_15558.html 90
U.S. English Foundation Research Russia Language Research,1. Legislation: Legislation dealing with the use of languages, updated July 2002. www.http//Usefoundation.org.research, accessed March 15 2011. 91
Ibid. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 26 According to Art. 68.1, the Russian language is the official language of the Federation. Art. 68.2 gives the republics the legal power and option to adopt the titular language(s) and other languages of the republic as the official language(s) but it is not mandatory for a republic to do so. In contrast, nothing prevents the republics from proclaiming other languages as official, even if they are not the languages of the titular ethnic group within the given territory.92 The national language can be used alongside with the Russian language which always has to be used in all official settings and transactions. Consequently, the federal structure of the Russian Federation plays a potentially important role in the protection and maintenance of the (titular) language of a republic such as the Karelian language. According to Art. 68.3, other smaller, vernacular languages in the Russian Federation enjoy protection of their maintenance and development. Article 69 must be seen as an extension of Art. 68.3; it provides that “the Russian Federation shall guarantee the rights of the indigenous small Nationalities according to the recognised principles and norms of international law”. For the Veps language these constitutional norms (Articles 68.3 and 69) give an opportunity for its protection and development. According to a well-­‐known constitutional commentary93, the rights of indigenous ethnic groups to their own vernacular language must be seen as a collective right with four dimensions: 1) The right to preserve one’s language which presupposes the possibility for its renaissance (vozrozhdenie) and freely to use the language orally and in written form in the (ethnic) community in conjunction with a prohibition for the state and its administration to limit the use of the language or through its actual behaviour contribute to its dissolution as an organic community. 2) The right to receive support from the state to develop the language in a written form is an important element. In contrast to the official languages of the Federation, this written form must not necessarily use Cyrillic letters. 3) The right to study the minority language in question, a right which presupposes for these ethnic communities a possibility to create educational institutions and issue textbooks. When it comes to teaching the minority language and its scholarly study, such activities depend on assistance from regional and/or federal authorities. 4) The right to develop the (minority) mother tongue, which must be based on the activities of the linguistic-­‐ethnic group in question, for example through printing books in the minority language. 92
Ibid. rd, Kommentarii k konstitutsii Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 3 ed. gen.e d., L. V. Lazarev, Moscow 2009, p. 380-­‐381. 93
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 27 These activities should also be supported by the state through financial and other assistance. Thus, both the state and the communities in question bear responsibility for this collective right to be implemented.94 Article 11.1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Karelia provides that “The official (state) language of the Republic of Karelia is Russian. The Republic of Karelia has the right to establish other official languages on the basis of a direct expression of the people’s will of the Republic of Karelia through a referendum.” Thus, the Karelian and Veps languages have a double potential constitutional protection. According to the Federal Constitution Art. 68.2, every Republic in the Russian Federation has the right to establish their own official languages and the Karelian Constitution also allows such possibility via a referendum. But it is very unlikely that this potential will be used. According to Art. 10.2 of the Karelian Constitution, it is possible to create municipal national units.95 Law on national units was adopted in 1992 but was abolished in 2001.96 A special Veps national volost, consisting of three smaller municipalities was also established in 1994 but has now been abolished. However, village municipal units, in particular the Veps Sheltozerskoe village municipal unit, are mentioned in the law of the Karelian Republic from 1 November 2004, “On town and village municipal units in the Republic of Karelia”.97 It must, however, also be noted that a Council of Representatives of the Karelian, Veps and Finnish minorities attached to the Government of Karelia has been established by decision No. 154 of 22 June, 2001.98 The task of the Council is to represent the interests of these groups and provide advice on questions of the culture and language of these minorities. The Council is convened at least once every four months. It is also possible to establish national elements in the formulation of educational standards according to Art. 29.2 of the Karelian Constitution. 1.9 Language legislation The Federal Law on the State Language is fairly short. The main function of the law is not only to “strengthen mutual understanding and interethnic relations […] in an integrated, multinational state” (Art. 1.4), but also to enrich and expand “the spiritual culture of the nationalities of the Russian Federation” (Art. 1.5). 94
Ibid., p. 388 -­‐381. Through the amendment from 21.3.2003, No. 661-­‐ZRK. 96
Sobranie zakonodatel’stva Respubliki Kareliya 2001, No. 6, item 712. 97
N 813-­‐ЗРК 2004. 98
O Sovete predstavitelei karelov, vepsov i finnov v Respubliki Kareliya pri Predsedatelei Pravitel’stva Respubliki Kareliya, Decision of the Chairman of the Government of the Republic of Karelia from 22.06.2001 No 154. О sostave Soveta predstavitelei karelov, vepsov, i finnov v Respubliki Kareliya pri Glave Respubliki Kareliya. Decision of the Head of Republic of Karelia from 23.11.2007 No. 880-­‐r. 95
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 28 The use of the Russian language is mandatory in federal, regional and municipal administrations, judiciary, advertising, naming of geographical objects, road signs, and in the formation of official documents. Even though the Constitution and the 1991 Law on Languages of the Nationalities also allow the use of the state language of the republics and other minority languages in public administration alongside with Russian, their use is permitted by the 2005 Law on the State Language. The use of minority languages in public administration is possible only with an identical translation. According to Art. 3.2, the translation must “be identical in relation to content and technical design”. All Russian citizens enjoy the right to receive education in the Russian language in educational establishments and to get information in Russian language from federal, regional and local authorities. In relation to media the law allows the use of the official language of the republics, other vernacular languages, and foreign languages. The 1991 Law on National Languages is radical in its insistence on the equality between the languages of ethnic groups in the Russian Federation, reflecting the political situation at that time. The law does not use the term “minority language” but speaks only of vernacular languages within the Russian Federation belonging to nations (narod) living on the territory, excluding thereby new immigrants. According to Art. 2.1, the equalityof all languages within the Federation has resulted in the whole range (sovokupnost’) of rights of nationalities and individuals to preserve and develop comprehensively their mother tongue, in the freedom to choose languages and their equal and free use in communicating with other people. According to Art. 2.2, “the Russian Federation guarantees all its nationalities irrespective of the number of their members (emphasis added) equal rights in the preservation and development of their mother tongue, in the freedom of choice of languages, and in its use as a tool of communication”. Consequently, according to Art. 2.3, everyone has the right to use his/her mother tongue without discrimination in communication with others, upbringing, and educational and creative activities. Finally, according to Art. 2.4, no one may limit the use of the ethnic languages within the federation or give privilege to a particular language without legislative basis of the Russian Federation. Since the principle of equality between languages is mentioned first in the law, regulation proclaiming Russian language as an official language of the Russian Federation (Art. 3.1) can be regarded as an exception from that principle. Besides, republics have a competence to establish the language(s) of a titular nation as state language(s) of the republics (Art. 3.2). Furthermore, all federal units have the competence to adopt other legislative acts on language issues (Art. 3.3). Finally, in places where a compact ethnic group lives other language can be used alongside with the Russian language and the state language of the republic in their communication with official authorities (Art. 3.4). However, these law provisions must be seen in conjunction with the 2005 Law on the State language. From this perspective the notion of the equality of the languages must be strongly modified in the sense that the Russian language is not an exception to the principle but, on the contrary, that the principle of the equality of languages must be regarded in conjunction with the constitutionally and legally privileged role of the Russian language. Thus, the Karelian and Veps languages are Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 29 constitutionally and legally not equal to the Russian language but to all other vernacular languages in the Federation. The Federal Law of 6 October 2003 on the General Principles of the Organization of the Local Authorities in the Russian Federation99 includes among its articles the prohibition of discrimination based on language and confers competences to the autonomous territorial entities in matters related to education (Article Art. 3.2). The Federal Law on National and Cultural Autonomy100 should be seen as a corollary to the principle of ethnical federalism. Minorities which have not been given a specific territory should also be granted cultural rights. The Federal Law should be seen as a development of the RF 1992 Law on the Foundations for the Legislation on Culture in the Russian Federation.101 Although the form may be different, the basic protection of minority cultural rights is in a way provided for the given ethnic group on a federal, regional or local level. Chapter III is devoted to language rights. The Federation should, according to Art. 9, secure social, economic and legal defence of vernacular languages in Russia. Clear rights, however, are not provided by the law. According to Art. 10, citizens have the right to receive basic education in their mother tongue, and to choose the language within the framework of the educational system according to Russian legislation. The law refers to other laws and does not give clear binding rules. The effectiveness of the law, thus, depends on supplementary legislation. Since 2006 the Veps are included102 in the groups of small ethnic minorities which are protected by the Federal Law on the Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Small Nationalities within the Russian Federation of 30 April 1999.103 The purpose of the law is to protect smaller ethnic communities in the Russian Federation, especially in the North. The communities should be given opportunities and support in order to continue their traditional life style. The law was changed considerably in January 2005.104 Centralising elements were strengthened. Some of the powers of the regions in these matters and the right for local ethnic communities to have a fixed representation in regional or municipal assemblies have been taken away through an amendment in 2005 (the same year in which the Law on the State Language was adopted). The law provisions cover individuals who belong to the list of small minorities and live permanently in the areas traditionally populated by the minority in question. Besides, the ethnic group should be involved in traditional economic activity and handicraft. According to Art. 5 of the law, federal authorities were given power to adopt programmes supporting cultural development of these small 99
Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF 2003, No. 40, item 3822. See above. 101
Vedomosti RF 1992 No. 46, item 2615. 102
Through a Decision of the Russian Government from 17 April 2006. No. 530r. 103
Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 1999 No. 18, item 12208. 104
http://base.garant.ru/180406/, accessed 12 October 2012. 100
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 30 minorities, especially the development, maintenance, and renaissance of their languages. Realisation of these programmes should be based on federal budgetary means and other sources outside the federal budget. Similar powers were given to regional and local authorities before amendments in the 2005 law. According to Art. 10.1, individuals belonging to a minority have the right to maintain and develop their mother tongues. According to the decision of the Russian Government from 4 February 2009, “Concept for a sustainable development of the indigenous, small populations in the North, in Siberia, and Far Eastern part of the Russian Federation”, languages of small ethnic groups mentioned in the name of the decision should be supported. However, in this rather comprehensive document the question of languages is allocated a very modest part. Its focus is on social, economic and political development through self-­‐governing bodies. The responsibility for its implementation lies with the Ministry of Regions of the Russian Federation. These goals should be accomplished through legislation on various levels and federal subsidies. However, no places in Karelia are included in the list where traditional activities of indigenous populations take place. Detailed mechanisms for the implementation of the law are not clearly articulated in the legislative act. The Law on the State Support for the Karelian, Veps and Finnish languages in the Republic of Karelia of 17 March 2004 should guarantee protection and development of these languages, referring also to the Law on Languages of the Nationalities of the Russian Federation. The Law on Support proclaims an ambitious program for strengthening of the above mentioned languages in the educational and cultural spheres, including: 1. Support for establishment of mass media in the three languages. 2. Organisation of educational system of the Karelian, Veps and Finnish languages. 3. Establishment of educational institutions providing education in the mentioned languages and/or providing possibilities for their study. 4. Support for publication of textbooks, scholarly books and literature in the relevant languages. 5. Support for scientific research, education, and training of scholars and experts in the given languages. According to Art. 5, citizens living in Karelia have the right to freely choose languages for the upbringing and education of their children. They have the right to receive basic education in Karelian, Veps, and Finnish. Public authorities may publish laws and other normative acts in the mentioned languages which concern the rights of citizens in mass media printed in the relevant languages (Art. 6.). Geographical names and road signs may also, together with the Russian name, be given in the Karelian, Veps and Finnish languages. The financing of these programmes should be based on the budgetary means mainly from the Republic of Karelia, as well as from Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 31 municipalities within Karelia. Municipalities with a minority population may also conduct their business in one of the minority languages. The Karelian Ministry of Nationality Policy and Contact with Religious Associations set up in 1991 is in charge of the implementation of the Law on Support.105 On 17 May 2005, the Government of Karelia adopted a Programme for the implementation of the Law on Support106. The Programme is rather comprehensive, and detailed budgetary figures and names the various institutions which are responsible for the implementation of the Programme are provided in the attachment to it. The Programme follows the fundamental directions in the Law on Support. However, after the above mentioned programme ended in 2010, no new one has been launched. The Law on Support remains in this sense only on paper; the focus of the programmes is on ‘Harmonisation’ and ‘Karelia is our home’ (see below), i.e. on the relations between nationalities. In these latter programmes language issues are also included but they constitute only parts of the programmes. A Decree (Razporyazhenie) No. 1000-­‐g of the Head of Karelian Republic, entitled “Fundamental Directions for the realisation of public policy in the area of national development, interethnic relations and relation with religious associations for the period through 2010” was adopted on 31 December 2007. The Directions should, inter alia, support minority cultures and languages on the Karelian territory and support (legal) immigrants in Karelia. However, the Karelian language is granted a special support by the provisions of the recent Order (Prikaz) No. 100 of 28 May 2009, adopted by the Ministry of Nationality Policy and Contact with Religions Associations and the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Culture.107 Through the same order a list of comprehensive measures to implement the plan “Development of the Karelian Language in the Republic of Karelia in 2009-­‐2020” was adopted. The list enumerates implementation mechanisms for the realisation of state guarantees for the preservation, study, development, and use of the Karelian language and use of Karelian languages in the public sector; it is divided into six parts. Each part contains a plan for measures to be taken. The period between 2009 and 2020 is divided into four stages. A large number of measures issupposed be launched after 2011. The first part describes the status of the Karelian language; the second part, the maintenance and development of “the ecology” of the Karelian language; the third part, the educational plan for the use of the Karelian language; the fourth refers to the organisational basis for the linguistic support and development of the Karelian language in practical life through the creation of a centre monitoring the use of Karelian language, and the publications of dictionaries. The fifth part of the programme concerns the creation of a research base for the development of a Karelian literary language. The last part concerns the study on the efficacy of the measures to improve the position 105
See its recent Regulations adopted on 3 May 2011, No. 132. Decree (Razporyazhenie) of the Karelian Government 17 May 2005 No. 133-­‐g. 107
Legislative acts in Karelia have been taken from the official website of the Karelian Government “Official Karelia”. Only the Russian version”Kareliya ofitsial’naya” gives the relevant normative documents. 106
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 32 of the Karelian language. Budgetary sources and the responsible agent(s) such as e.g. the Ministry of Nationality Policy and Contact with Religions Associations are listed to each measure. The financing of these programs should be based on the federal budget, the Karelian budget, and the means which were provided through the Law on Support. However, no budgetary monetary figures are given. The following projects should be finished already in 2011: Additional measures to support media and the publication of books in Karelian, Veps and Finnish languages, thereby implementing the Law on Support. Other measures include a project on the Law on the Status of National Municipalities in the Republic of Karelia, a project for Government resolution, supporting elaboration of a list of naming geographical objects, road signs and other elements of public information in the Karelian language, and elaboration of a normative act establishing mechanisms for the creation of a Karelian literary language. Later on-­‐going projects are as follows: television programmes in Karelian and Russian languages, informing about the vitality and problems of Karelian language; libraries functioning as information centres for the preservation and development of Karelian culture. Other on-­‐going projects include educational measures, such as elaboration of standards for the teaching of the Karelian language, including methodological instruments and textbooks, organisation of seminars and conferences for the introduction of the Karelian language in public institutions, support for the scholarly efforts to establish Karelian dictionaries, grammar, phonetics, syntax, dialectology, and similar linguistic research. An important part of the programme is education of specialists in Karelian language and literature, the purpose of which is to preserve, study and propagate the Karelian language, history and culture. This is to be combined with a programme for re-­‐educating specialists in writing Karelian, using Karelian in their professional activity, and in the way Karelian will be established and strengthened as a literary language. A competition to nominate the best teacher of the Karelian language should be organised. An ambitious project is to put into practice the result of the innovations of linguistic research on Karelian language, assessing their potential vitality but also the Karelian language as part of Karelian cultural heritage. Other projects include competitions which should be organised on projects, directed at the preservation, study, and development of the culture of the Karelian speakers and elaboration of comprehensive measures to support preservation and development of the Karelian language when it is used in family life. If Karelian is spoken at home, the language should be preserved and developed. A new long-­‐term comprehensive program “Maintenance of the unity of nationalities and ethnic groups in Karelia in 2012-­‐2016: Karyala is our home” was adopted on 12 December 2011.108 It 108
Decision of the Government of Karelia 12 December 2011 No. 349-­‐P. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 33 replaces the Programme for the implementation of the Law on Support in the Republic of Karelia. The title is interesting. The word “unity” is central, while language issues may be present in a covert form: in Karelian and Finnish, the name Karjala can refer both to the country and to the language. It could be seen as continuation, extension and concretisation of earlier programmes. Primary aims of the Programme are to guarantee the support for the Karelian, Veps and Finnish languages in Karelia but also to preserve and develop traditional Russian culture in certain parts of the region. Expected results include a) that the number of the participants in the programme for sustainable development of indigenous nationalities should increase by 2% of the total population of Karelia and b) that the degree of satisfaction of representatives of the indigenous minorities with their ethno-­‐cultural development should be 78% in 2012 and increase to 80% by 2016. Local municipalities could receive budgetary assignments for ethno-­‐cultural development on the basis of co-­‐financing. The programme foresees quite detailed mechanisms for the suggested subsidies for local municipalities. It is not clear how this programme should be seen in comparison with earlier programmes. The precise but rather modest goals of the programme are worth noticing, but the Programme shows also clear centralising tendencies by emphasising unity. It is not clear whether the Programme replaces or supplements the Order of 28 May 2009. To sum up, there are differences between how Karelian and Veps are supported in Karelia. The Veps language is promoted through the Federal Law on Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Small Nationalities within the Russian Federation of 30 April 1999,109 the Law on Support, the Programme of 17 May 2005 and the new comprehensive programme from 12 December 2011, whereas the Karelian language is primarily promoted through the Law on Support, the Programme of 17 May 2005, the order of 28 May 2009 of the Karelian Ministries of Nationality, Policy and Contact with religious associations, of Education and of Culture and the Comprehensive Programme from 12 December 2011, which has replaced the Programme of 17 May 2005. The relation between the order of 2009 and the Programme of 2011 does not seem completely clear. 1.10 Education legislation The Federal Law “On Education” of 10 July 1992 (Art. 5) states that citizens are guaranteed education in a non-­‐discriminatory way also in relation to languages.110 Art. 6 provides that students in general public schools have the right to receive their education in their mother tongue and also a choice of languages within the possibilities of the educational system; i.e. the system in question provides other possibilities but a right to education in a minority language is not guaranteed. The right to receive education in the mother tongue should be created through the establishment of schools, classes or groups that could provide education in these languages. 109
Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 1999 No. 18, item 12208 (with changes and amendments). Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 1996 No. 3, item 150 (with changes and amendments). 110
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 34 According to the former Karelian Law on Education, the Republic should create favourable conditions for the education in the mother tongue for the Veps and Karelian linguistic minorities and also for other linguistic minorities within the possibilities of the educational system.111 However, in spite of the efforts of the Society of Veps Culture and other similar organisations, the rule was abrogated in 2005 and the formulations became considerably weaker.112 Educational programs should be elaborated considering “national” and “cultural” interests (Art. 2.3), but the question of languages was omitted. According to the Charter for Schools with ethno-­‐cultural Finno-­‐Ugric educational elements their tasks are to give education to these ethnic minorities.113 Priorities of these schools are to satisfy the ethno-­‐cultural needs of the Karelians, Veps and Finns by giving students the opportunity to study their mother tongue and culture. They should establish an educational programme with respect to ethnic-­‐regional component but in accordance with federal standards and model programmes for basic and middle schools. A list of elementary schools with ethno-­‐cultural elements is attached to the Charter. However, the most important legal source for the Karelian language education is the Plan “Development of the Karelian Language in the Republic of Karelia in 2009-­‐2020” in its third part. The plan, however, lacks precise obligations, and potential contradictions to other relevant pieces of legislation remain unresolved. 1.11 Media legislation According to Art. 10 of the Law on Mass Media from 27 December 1991, the language of mass media should be indicated when the media provider makes an application to be registered. As we have seen the Karelian Law on Support also promotes media in the Republic in conjunction with the Plan for the Comprehensive Development of the Karelian language. 1.12 Other legislation According to the Federal Law from 31 May 2002 on Citizenship in the Russian Federation (Art. 13. 1), knowledge of the Russian language is one of the necessary conditions of obtaining Russian citizenship. All applicants must pass a language test.114 111
Sobranie zakonodatel’stva Respubliki Kareliya, No. 4 1997,item 356. Sobranie zakonodatel’stva Respubliki Kareliya,29.04.2005 № 874-­‐ЗРК; Klementiev, 2006. p. 189. 113
See the website of the Karelian Government “Official Karelia”. 114
http://base.garant.ru /184539/1/#block_100, accessed 13 May 2013 112
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 35 1.13 Relation between national and international law in the domestic legal order The relation between the domestic legal system of the Russian Federation is regulated by the Constitution. According to Art. 15.4, “the universally-­‐recognized norms of international law and international treaties and agreements of the Russian Federation shall be a component part of its legal system. If an international treaty or agreement of the Russian Federation fixes other rules than those envisaged by law, the rules of the international agreement shall be applied.” A constitutional commentary discusses the meaning of “the universally-­‐recognised norms of international law” either as international custom and/or as part of multinational conventions such as the UN Charter but concludes that primarily conventions and treaties ratified by the Russian Federation are binding.115 In this report, only the significance of international treaties for the protection of the Karelian and Veps languages will be analysed. Such treaties and conventions could potentially lead to domestic legislative norms not being applied in a concrete case when the application of the international norm would lead to other legal consequences than the application of the norm of the domestic legal system. In the norm hierarchy of the Russian legal system, norms and principles taken from international treaties would rule out the use of the domestic norms on the level of federal statutes and lower federal or regional acts. Also the constitutions and charters of the regions must not contradict treaties ratified by the Russian Federation since they must be regarded as autonomous parts of a unified constitutional system.116 It is clear from the formulation found in the Constitution that the Russian Constitution enjoys priority in case of conflict between the Constitution, as well as federal constitutional laws and international treaties ratified by the Russian Federation.117 Consequently, norms in treaties and conventions contradicting the Constitution and federal constitutional laws will not be applied. If there is a contradiction between a norm in a ratified treaty and the Constitution of the Russian Federation then, according to the Federal Law on International Treaties of the Russian Federation of 15 July 1995 (Art. 22), a decision to make treaty provisions valid in the Russian legal system in the form of a federal law must be preceded by a process of amending the Constitution in the prescribed order. 115
Kommentarii k konstitutsii Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 3rd, gen. ed., Lazarev. L. V, Moscow 2009, p. 102. Konstitutsionnoe pravo sub’ektov Rossiiskoi Federatsii, Kryazhkov, V. A., gen. ed., Moscow 2002. p. 29–30. 117
Kommentarii k konstitutsii Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 3rd gen. ed., Lazarev. L. V. Moscow 2009, p. 103. 116
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 36 1.14 Debates on language rights and “old” and “new” minorities The question of immigrants has entered the political agenda in the Russian Federation. Large cities in the Russian Federation lack labour force and that has led to immigration from Northern Caucasus and from former Soviet republics. Russia is facing a demographic crisis. The general population in the Russian Federation has in spite of immigration fallen from145,167,000 in 2002 to 142,857,000 in 2010.118 The general public does not always distinguish between nationalities from Northern Caucasus who are Russian citizens and immigrants from Southern Caucasus and Central Asia who are not citizens. In the social media debates on “Russification” in Karelia, some of the participants were more inclined to discuss immigrants rather than the protection of the Karelian language.119 Immigrants from some of these new states, like Ukraine, are close to the Russian Federation culturally but the majority of immigrants from Caucasus and Central Asia are perceived as more distant. The latter immigration has partly been illegal. Constitutional protection of language minorities is exclusively given to old, indigenous minorities (Art. 68.2,3, Art. 69). Constitutional human rights are, however, applicable to everyone (kazhdyi), for example, everyone has the right to use his or her mother tongue (Art. 26). In its third report on the implementation of the FCNM the Russian Government stressed that its legislation has clarified the legal position of immigrants.120 In Moscow children of immigrants receive basic education.121 See also the debate in Russian and Karelian social media below in Section 2.7. 118
http://www.perepis-­‐2010.ru/results_of_the_census/results-­‐inform.php, accessed 5 May 2013 See below section 1.9.1. 120
In the report from 09/04/2010. 121
According to Olga Vendinaat (the seminar at UCRS on 10 May 2012 “Migration and social segregation”), the children of non-­‐legal immigrants receive basic education as well. 119
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 37 2 Language and Minority Policies in Practice 2.1 Parliamentary debates on languages and minorities 2.1.1 Federal constitutional debate The adoption of the present Russian Constitution on 12 December 1993 by a referendum was preceded by use of force and violent political contradictions. A number of constitutional drafts circulated between 1990 and 1993. The main debated issue was not the choice between federalism and centralism but whether ultimate power would lie in the parliament or in the presidency. Both camps sought support from various regions. For this reason, protection of national minorities and a concern with a genuine federal structure were generally a shared ideology of the main actors at that time. However, minorities were not seen as such but as nationalities of the Russian multinational state (cf. section 1.8.1 above). The main principles of the actual Constitutional language regulation (Art. 68 and Art. 69) seem to have been elaborated by a working group within the Constitutional Commission already in a draft of November 1990. It appeared in slightly different versions in later drafts. No objections could be discerned in the final Constitutional Commission but the provision was mentioned positively by one member of the Commission, S. N. Byldaev.122 He stressed that the Constitution should reflect the Federal Treaty recently adopted then (1992), which emphasised the independence of the regions. In the Concluding and Transitional Provisions of the Federal Constitution, however, it is pointed out that in cases of conflict between the Federal Treaty and the Constitution, the Constitution should prevail. The records of the debate in the Karelian Legislative Assembly concerning the language provisions in the Karelian Constitution have not been available for this report. Rather lively parliamentary and public debates took place in Karelia during the 1990s on several language law projects (see section 2.2 below). 122
Stenogrammy 16 10.1992. Iz istorii sozdaniya konstitutsii Rossiiskoi Federatsii. Konstitutsionnaya kommissiya: stenogrammy, materialy, dokumenty v 6 tomakh (1990–1993). Tom 3/2 1992 p. 233. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 38 2.2 With respect to language legislation 2.2.1 The Federal Law on the Languages of the Nationalities of Russia Formulations in the 1991 Law on the Languages of the Nationalities also echo various Constitutional drafts. For this report the most important part is changes that came when the 1991 Law on the Languages of the Nationalities was adopted. The most important and relevant change of the 1991 Law on the Languages of the Nationalities was adopted on 11 December 2002 when the amendment to Art. 3 was introduced, which prescribed mandatory use of the Cyrillic alphabet in the official documents of the republics. The amendment also included a provision that federal law may legislate on the use of other alphabets in official languages in the federation and in the republics. Such federal law has not been adopted. The debate in the State Duma began with a discussion of an amendment to the draft which first had been introduced by the (former) dissident and Duma member Sergei Kovalëv and at that moment was presented by the deputy A. Yu. Wulf.123 Wulf’s amendment to the draft had not been approved in an earlier reading. His objection to the law is founded on the argument that regions should govern the question. In the last sentence, “federal law” should be substituted with the phrase “laws and other normative acts from the republics”. The draft amendment is, according to Wulf, evidently not in conformity with at least three provisions in the Russian Constitution (Arts. 55 Part 2, 68, and 73). Counterarguments to Wulf’s draft amendment were mentioned by the deputies K. A. Bicheldei, A. V. Chuev and S. A. Popov. The first mentioned that the regulation is within federal competence (emphasis added) since it concerns human rights. Another objection to Wulf’s draft amendment was that Popov’s argument on its collision with the Constitution is not valid since the first reading of the proposed law should also examine its constitutionality. The first reading found it to be in conformity with the Constitution. The deputy O. V. Morozov stated that using a script other than Cyrillic does not violate human rights since the other state language in the republics is Russian. The state language of the republics is only an addition to the federal state language in the republics. Another deputy, F. Sh. Safiullin, asserted that the introduction of the Karelian language with Latin script in 1987 did not present any problems in that region. Moreover, other languages in the Russian Federation have their own alphabets, for instance Ivrit and Azerbaijani. Bicheldi concluded the discussion with the remark that the question concerns state languages but Karelian is not a state language in Karelia. The proposed law regulates solely the use of state languages. 55 members voted for Wulf’s 123
Stenogramma zasedaniya 15 noyabrya 2002 g. N 201(649), p. 4–16.) http://transcript.duma.gov.ru/node/1600/, accessed 12 December 2011. The report from the Duma debate is based on this protocol. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 39 amendment and 141 voted against it. In the final result 336 voted for the original amendment and 15 deputies voted against it in its third reading which came immediately after the second reading. The main arguments for the introduction of the discussed amendment to the 1991 Law on Languages of the Nationalities in the Federation Council were given by the first deputy chairman of the Committee of the Council of Federation on Federalism and Regional Policy, V. T. Kadokhov.124 He stressed that the amendment concerned only state languages of the Federation and the republics but no other spoken languages in the Russian Federation. The new provision of law proclaiming Cyrillic script as mandatory in federal and state laws is aimed at creating an “integrated” (edinoe) linguistic space” in the country which in its turn would strengthen the common legal, economic and information space of the Federation, and facilitate national and international interaction and communication. The proposed amendment would further maintain equal access to legal acts and equal communication with state institutions. The use of the Cyrillic script in legislation of the republics will make it easier for citizens to get information from state organs. Kadokhov also stressed that a federal legislation may also allow other alphabets than the Cyrillic. However, the main argument for the mandatory use of the Cyrillic alphabet was its function of uniting the country.125 V. N. Stepanov, a Karelian representative in the Federation Council, was critical to the proposed amendment and referred to earlier attempts to create a unified written Karelian language in the 1930s. His main argument against the amendment was that it “will in reality destroy (unichtozhit’) the Karelian language since the sounds of the Karelian language cannot be reflected in Cyrillic script.” Stepanov argues that intervention in the language use of the republics would create a similar situation as the one created by Stalinist scientist Lysenko; Lysenko’s theories practically destroyed research into genetics in Russian scientific life.126 The use of “the axe and the whip” leads to “psychological traumas” among the Karelian minority who would “lose faith in federal power”. According to his view, Articles 71 and 72 of the Federal Constitution do not give the federal lawmaker the right to regulate language legislation in the republics.127 A contrary opinion was held by V. E. Shuderov, chairman of the Committee of Culture etc., who asserted that the proposed amendment does not violate the rights of language minorities but, on the contrary, strengthens them. The amendment establishes equality before the law and enhances 124
Stenogramma zasedaniya Soveta Federatsii 27 noyabrya 2002 g. This report is based on the protocol from the 98th session of the Federation Council, www.http://.council.gov.ru/lawmaking/sf/report156/ind, accessed 13 December 2011. 125
Ibid., p. 6. 126
Stepanov refers to an episode in Russian science history, to the pseudo-­‐scientist, plant-­‐breeder Trofim Lysenko (1898–1976) who under Stalin destroyed Russian genetics. He became director of the Institute of Genetics of the USSR Academy of Sciences and President of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences. 127
Ibid., p. 9. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 40 the unity of the country. He was “categorically” against a possibility to use other letters than Cyrillic for official communication in the republics.128 R. Z. Altynbaev, chairman of the Committee for Local Government, stressed that the draft amendment contradicts Art. 68. 2 of the Constitution, ,proclaiming the right of the republics to establish their own state languages. His arguments were as follows: 1. In his view the alphabet is an integral part of the language in question. He does not agree with those who claim that language law is part of the human rights area according to Art. 71 and 72 of the Federal Constitution since its enumeration of subjects of federal and of mixed competence is fairly detailed. In his view, the regulation of state languages of the republics falls within the competence of the republics. From another point of view, the compulsory use of Latin letters in Tatarstan means that Russian as the other state language in this republic is in fact prohibited. 2. He asserted that the use of this or another alphabet did not contribute to the erosion of the legal and economical space in Russia. 3. Prohibition to use other alphabets than the Cyrillic in official communication has not been in force before. Besides, even within the Russian language it is possible to use other letters than Cyrillic. He suggested a Conciliatory Commission to be created between the Duma and the Federation Council. The basis for the work of this Commission would be that the second sentence in the draft provision should end with the statement that scripts other than Cyrillic could be established not only by federal legislation but also by the legislation of the republics.129 G. D. Oleinik, first deputy chairman of the Committee for the North and for Smaller Indigenous Nationalities (narod), did not regard the amendment as violating the federal Constitution. V. F. Kulakov, chairman of the Committee for Monitoring the Administration of the Council, said that republics had to introduce the mandatory use of the Cyrillic alphabet within 12 months. He added that if the republics themselves could freely choose orthography, even Chinese might be introduced. He also said that allowing the use of other letters than Cyrillic would increase state expenditures. N. P. Tulaev from the Kaliningrad region (oblast’) said that the proposed amendment was necessary in order to prevent the erosion of the Russian language and was in conformity with the Federal Constitution since the regulation of languages falls within the “exclusive” competence of 128
Ibid., p. 11. Ibid., p. 11. 129
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 41 the Federation. It would be difficult to achieve common state goals without a common alphabet. The proposed amendment is in line with the constitutional powers of the Federation Council.130 Yu. A. Sharandin, chairman of the Committee for Constitutional Legislation, also supported the law and said that his Committee unanimously approved the proposed amendment. He added that the law does not prevent the use of other letters outside official communication; only the fact that state languages of the republics had to be regulated by federal law. He also mentioned Karelian and Tatar as examples of languages using the Latin script. The next speaker, Yu. I. Ponomarëv, a representative of the Karelian Legislative Assembly, said that he supported the opinion of Viktor Stepanov (mentioned above) and added that the amendment is not in conformity with the Art. 68 part 2 of the federal constitution. Each republic could establish its own state languages. Preparations for the adoption of a law, making Karelian the second state language, are now underway in Karelia. He also added that Part 3 of the mentioned provision guarantees that all nationalities (narod) in the Russian Federation have the right not only to maintain their mother tongue (rodnoi yazyk) but also to create conditions for its study and development. It would be difficult to establish a written Karelian language on the basis of Cyrillic letters since several sounds in Karelian do not appear in the Russian language. The next speaker was V. F. Khizhnyakov, the President’s representative in the Federation Council, who said that the amendment did not diminish the rights of the republics to regulate languages since the amendment ends with the phrase:“[…] other orthographic foundations for the alphabets of state languages in the Russian Federation may be established by federal laws.” Since the law concerns human rights it is a federal prerogative to regulate the use of languages. Next speaker was again V. T. Kadokhov, who said that Karelian was not the state language of Karelia, adding that the population structure of Karelia consists of 73% ethnic Russians, 10% Karelians, and 7% Belarusians, and 9% of other ethnic groups. In relation to Tatarstan he said that 48% of the population were Tatars, and 52% of the population had another nationality of which 43 % were (ethnic) Russians. He asked why the Russians should be forced to abandon their Slavonic (slavyanskii) culture and literacy (pismennost’). The final speaker, R. Z. Altynbaev replied that in Tatarstan there are two state languages, Russian and Tatar. In this sense Russians living in Tatarstan could of course use their own language. The parliamentary debate on 5 February 2003 on the 2005 Law on the State Language of the Russian Federation was rather lively. The first draft appeared already in 1996, in 2003 the Duma in a third reading adopted a law which was declined by the Federation Council. The result was that the draft law was sent to a Conciliatory Commission and the draft law was again presented to the 130
Ibid. p. 16. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 42 Federal Assembly in 2005. The main aim of the law was to regulate the mandatory use of the Russian language and to protect the coherence and purity of the Russian language. The Duma debates in 2003 concerned whether the Duma should continue to the third reading or whether the law should be sent back to the second reading.131 Zoya Vorontsova, Tamara Pletnëva and Boris Nadezhdin discussed the law. The third reading concentrated on the title of the law but Vorontsova and Nadezhdin also discussed editorial points including the suggested title of the law. The aim of the draft law was to defend the Russian language and to purify the language from foreign words according to the French model. This was noted by the deputy S. S. Mitrokhin, who had observed that words of foreign origin also appeared in the draft law. Nadezhdin noted that TV advertisements according to the draft law must be in the Russian language. Finally, the draft law was adopted in the third reading and sent over to the Federation Council. The Council discussed the law and declined to adopt the draft law in its meeting on 12 February 2003. The representative V. E. Shuderov, Head of the relevant Committee of the Federation Council, gave the report to the Council.132 Shuderov noted that the regulation of the Russian language is not sufficiently covered in Russian law. He noted that nearly all republics had language laws, protecting the titular languages of the republics, and that the new law on the Russian language should not prevent the use of other languages in the Russian Federation. But he criticised the law, asserting that the draft law was not a law on the official language of the Russian Federation but rather a law on the defence of the Russian language. Shuderov noted that the law on the Russian language contained many foreign words. He also noted that the draft demanded that the Russian language should be the mandatory language in the judicial procedures whereas the 1996 Federal Constitutional Law on the Judicial System of the Russian Federation allowed the use of other languages of the Republics in the Russian Federation. Since the Law on the State Language must not contradict federal constitutional legislation, the law had to be changed. Shuderov also complained that the law foresaw sanctions or penalties for possible violations, which were unusual in his opinion. He also added that most political actors enjoyed immunity. At the same time he expressed his opinion that several provisions in reality were only of declarative character. The second debate in the Duma 2005 followed after two years work in the Conciliatory Commission. The draft law was presented by the deputy E. G. Drapeko who said that the weak points in the earlier draft were eliminated. However, an important intervention was made by V. V. Zhirinovskii, leader of the nationalist Liberal-­‐Democratic Party. He said that Russia is one country (strana), one nation (narod) and one language and that they should stop promoting the idea of 131
Stenogramma zasedaniya 05 fevralya 2003 g. N (217 5). http://transcript.duma.gov.ru/node/1549/, accessed on 12 October 2011. 132
Stenogramma zasedaniya Soveta Federatsii 12 fevralya 2003 g. http://www.council.gov.ru/lawmaking/sf/report103/ind, retrieved on 12 October 2011. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 43 nationalities which could help to avoid a lot of problems. From his point of view the law was too weak.133 L. N. Shvets, a representative of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation retorted that elimination of nationalities in the Russian Federation would diminish the chances for Zhirinovskii’s party to win future Duma elections. In the discussion of the draft from the Conciliatory Commission in the Federation Council on 25 May 2005 l, V. E. Shuderov134 especially stressed the amendment of Art. 1 through point 7, which says that the mandatory use of the Russian language must not be interpreted in a way of “negating or diminishing the right of the use of the state languages of the republics”, whereby the possible contradiction with Part 2 of Art. 26 of the Russian Constitution would be eliminated. Shuderov added that one has to distinguish between a Russian language law and a law on the Russian language as a state language. To protect the Russian language another law is needed. 2.2.2 Recent legal initiatives in Karelia on languages and minorities There have been eight different language proposals in Karelia during the 1990s which all have been rejected. The proposals were all entitled “On the languages of the people (narod) of Karelia”.135 The two first proposals were made public on 23 March 1994. In these two proposals Russian was made the state language of Karelia, considering historical developments and the fact that Russian is the instrument for communication between the various nationalities. Given the fact that Finns, Karelians and Veps are the nations traditionally inhabiting the territory of Karelia136, their needs should be considered with respect to languages of other nations living in Karelia. The next proposal from 20 March 1996 in contrast to the two previous ones made Russian and Karelian state languages of Karelia. In consequence, both languages could be used by state and private institutions. 133
Stenogramma zasedaniya 20 maya 2005 g.,N 100(814) http://transcript.duma.gov.ru/node/1080/, accessed 12 December 2011. 134
Stenogramma 152 zasedaniya Soveta Federatsii 25 maya 2005, http://www.council.gov.ru/lawmaking/sf/report170/ind, accessed 2 February 2012. 135
Karely, p. 95-­‐123 136
Editor’s note. Strictly speaking, Finnish does not belong to the languages autochthonous in the area of the Republic of Karelia. However, the demarcation between Karelian and Finnish is problematic and has been contested, especially between the Northern (White Sea) Karelian dialects and Finnish, which are linguistically extremely close to each other. Moreover, during the 20th century many Finns have immigrated to the Karelian Republic from Finland or from other parts of the former Soviet Union, especially Ingria, and – as mentioned above – Finnish has at times been used as an official language in the Karelian Republic. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 44 In addition, the proposal from 3 September 1996 established both Russian and Karelian as state languages in Karelia. The next proposal from 10 January 1997 made Russian the sole state language, while another proposal from February 1997 again made both Russian and Karelian state languages in Karelia. The seventh proposal from April mentioned only Russian as the federal state language of Russia and therefore (implicitly) as state language of Karelia, and added further that Karelian, Finnish, and Veps languages could be used in official communication and in the sessions of the Legislative Assembly. The final proposal that attempted to make both Russian and Karelian state languages of Karelia was brought before the Karelian Legislative Assembly in January 1998. Formally, it was presented by Viktor Stepanov, Chairman of the Government of Karelia,137 but it was rejected. The Legal Department of the Legislative Assembly made a Conclusion (Zaklyuchenie) that the draft law is not in conformity with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The reason for this standpoint was that the draft law made Russian (together with Karelian) the state language of Karelia. Only the federal legislator could legislate on the state language of the federation according to the Legal Department.138 The Legislative Assembly also rejected the draft law on 29 January.139 Thus, unlike all other republics of the Russian Federation except Dagestan, Karelia has no language legislation. Previous attempts to introduce Karelian as a state language were mentioned in the debates of the Legislative Assembly.140 The representative V. V. Bogdanov from the Olonetskii district (rayon) which has a traditional South Karelian (Livvi-­‐Karelian) population, quoted the Constitution which designs Karelia as a state, and mentioned a number of reasons for the adoption of the law which would protect and develop the Karelian language.141 The first was the fragile position of the Karelian language in the educational system: according to him, there were only 2,205 students in 53 schools distributed in 12 districts. In pre-­‐school education only 1,485 children studied the Karelian language. The second reason was the situation in radio and television. Broadcasts from the Karelian Radio in national languages (Karelian, Veps and Finnish) comprised at that time only 29 hours a week. 137
He took part in the debate in the Federation Council (see above 2.1.2). Zaklyuchenie yuridicheskogo otdela Apparata Zakonodatel’nogo Sobraniya Respubliki Kareliya na proekt “O yazykakh v Respubliki Kareliya” in Karely… p. 256. This reasoning is strange since other republics have made Russian one of their state languages. 139
Postanovlenie Palaty Zakonodatel’nogo Sobraniya Respubliki Kareliya o proekte Zakona “O yazykakh v Respubliki Kareliya” in Karely, p. 276. 140
Stenogramma zasedaniya Palaty Zakonodatel’nogo Sobraniya Respubliki Kareliya O proekte Zakona “O yazykakh v Respubliki Kareliya” ot 29 yanvarya 1998 g. in Karely…, p. 256-­‐276. 141
In Karely, p. 256–258. 138
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 45 Television broadcasts in national languages amounted to four hours a month of which Karelian comprises one fourth. The third reason was the situation in Karelian cultural life. For example, the Karelian National Theatre faced great financial difficulties. The fourth reason was the fact that historically established old Karelian settlements had disappeared. The fifth reason was value judgement. According to Bogdanov, the knowledge of one’s mother tongue should be a sign of the level of culture and intelligence of a person. The sixth reason was the fact that small national villages and municipalities were dying out in Karelia.The seventh reason was the fact that only 40% of the planned budgetary support for the cultural renaissance for national minorities was actually paid out. He also questioned a number of potential counter-­‐arguments: 1. “Support for the Karelian language as a state language would destabilise political situation in the Federation.” It would be absurd to assert that the Karelian people (narod) would stand in opposition to the “great Russian nation”. 2. A few politicians and scholars have claimed that making Karelian a state language would be an “artificial enterprise”. This is not entirely correct, and it is not a question of private interests. A real development of Karelian culture is taking place. 3. Establishment of the Karelian language as a state language would not mean that knowledge of other minority languages would be an obstacle for entering into Karelian state service. 4. “It would be a premature venture to make Karelian a state language.” The opposite argument is true; it will soon be too late to make it a state language. Finally, Bogdanov asserted that the law-­‐maker had considered many opinions before the final version was adopted. The arguments in the debate against the draft law contained among others the following propositions.142 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Karelia is not a state. Karelian has several dialects. It would demand financial resources to make Karelian a state language. Negative position of the Legal Department of the Legislative Assembly. Why is the project called “On the Languages...”? What about other minority languages? It is practically not possible to establish two state languages in the state administration. 142
See Karely, p. 258-­‐276. Various arguments have been quoted from different speakers. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 46 2.3 Case law on languages and minorities In what follows, the case-­‐law in matters concerning language and minorities in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Karelian Supreme Court shall be outlined. 2.3.1 The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation The three main rulings of the Constitutional Court on matter of language and minorities shall be outlined below. 2.3.1.1 The Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation from 16 November 2004, concerning the Tatarstan Law on Languages of the people (narod) of Tatarstan and other Tatar legislative acts143 This important case dealt with the use of the Latin alphabet in legislative texts and with mandatory education in Tatar language. The Tatarstan Republic adopted a Law on 8 July 1992 (amended on 28 March 1996) which made the Russian and Tatar languages official languages of the Republic. All laws in Tatarstan must be adopted in both Russian and Tatar languages, with Latin as the orthographic basis for the legislation in Tatar language. According to the Tatarstan Law On State Languages of the Republic of Tatarstan and other languages in the Tatarstan Republic from 28 June 2004, Russian and Tatar languages should be taught on equal basis in general, primary and secondary professional educational institutions. A similar provision is found in the Tatar Law “On Education” from 19 October 1993 in the version from 29 May 2004. A citizen of Tatarstan claimed that through her mandatory education of the Tatar language her possibility to choose additional subjects and to deepen her knowledge of subjects in the general educational programme had been impeded. This situation made her, as concerns her right to general education, unequal in comparison with citizens living in other regions in the Russian Federation. Simultaneously, the State Council and the Supreme Court of Tatarstan challenged the rule according to which official legislative acts within the Russian Federation must be based on Cyrillic script (Art. 3 Part 6 of the Law on Languages of the Nationalities). According to this view, it is within the exclusive competence of the republics to form their own state language legislation including its orthographic basis, according to Art. 73. The first question concerns the competence of the Federation to legislate on the language policies of the republics. The rights of citizens, which are within the exclusive competence of the Federation (Art. 71.3), and common competence between the regions and the Federation, Art. 143
Sobranie zakonodatel‘stva RF 2004, item 47, Art. 4691. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 47 72.2) would also make the Federation responsible for this question. The issue of language is a question of rights of citizens. Thus, the Federation has the right to determine the language policy not only of the Federation but also that of the republics. The regulation of languages in one Republic also concerns the interests of the Federation and its citizens as a whole. The Federation has consequently the duty and power to establish main principles for the federal programme in the area of cultural and national development, including the foundations for the language policies of the republics. The second question concerns the issue of education and language. According to the Court’s decision,the Tatarstan Law on Education and other Tatar legislative acts in relevant provisions do not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation in so far that its interpretation and application should be in line with the Federal Constitution. Such interpretation and application presupposes that the study of the Tatar language must be conducted according to federal educational standards which must be in line with federal educational legislation and would not prevent a student to undergo final examination tests and the issue of a corresponding graduation documents. Thus, citizens cannot be forced to study the Tatar language if that would create a collision with federal educational programs which the republics have to follow and the principle of equality before the law. A citizen in Tatarstan must have the same possibilities as other citizens of the federation to follow the federal general educational programs. This Ruling of the Court also meant that ethnic Russians in Tatarstan had to learn the Tatar language within the framework of Federal educational standards. Formally, this rule is valid today but it has been strongly challenged and is hardly implemented. The third question concerns the use of the Latin alphabet in (Tatar) legislative acts. According to the Court, the issue of alphabet is an important element in the legal status of a language. The use of the alphabet is a sign of a historical experience and the interests of the state in its various phases of historical development. Consequently, the change (smena) must take into consideration historical and political facts, national and cultural traditions. The use of Cyrillic script in legislative and other official acts according to the amendment of the 1991 Law on Languages of the Nationalities is a sign of the fact that the alphabet presently used in the state languages of the Russian Federation is Cyrillic. The use of Cyrillic script would secure a harmonisation and the unity of the state language of the Federation with the state languages of the republics. A federal lawmaker cannot exclude the possibility to change the letters of the state languages of the republics, but such decision must not take place arbitrarily. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 48 Unilateral solution to this question by the republics without considering the demands of the Federal Constitution would not only weaken the federal unity and the power of the Federation in the language sphere but would also lead to a limitation of citizens’ constitutional rights. According to the Court, Art. 3. Part 6 of the Federal law on Languages of the Nationalities does not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Two other cases concerning ethnic minorities are of interest here: The first deals with the prohibition for political parties to build parties on the bases of religious and ethnic (national) grounds. 2.3.1.2 The Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 15 December 2004 concerning the prohibitions in Article 9 point 3 of the Federal Law from 11 July 2001 “On Political Parties”.144 Through the above-­‐mentioned provision parties founded on the basis of profession, race, national or religious affiliation are not allowed to be registered as parties. Also the names of the parties must not mention these specific distinguishing features according to the law. One of the parties of this case, the Orthodox Party of Russia, complained that this rule in the law on Parties contradicted the provisions in Art. 19 and 30 on (material) equality before the Law and freedom of association and does not conform with Art. 13. 5 which prohibited organisations on specific grounds which literally did not conform to the specific prohibited grounds in the Law “On Political Parties”. But the Court decided otherwise. Since Russia is a Party to the European Convention of Human Rights and Basic Liberties and other international instruments it had to acknowledge that political parties in other parts of Europe (not only in Western Europe) often in their names include the word Christian (e.g. in Germany). However, the Court ruled that these names are not only confessionally oriented but have a wider connotation, expressing European values. In the Russian context, in contrast, such labels as Orthodox or Moslem would have a more narrow interpretation and be associated not with general but with particular values. In addition, the Court asserts that the Russian society, including political parties and religious associations, has in its present phase not achieved “a sustainable experience of democratic existence”.145 144
18-­‐P/2004 po delu o proverke konstitutsionnosti punkta 3 statii 9 federal’nogo zakona “O politicheskikh partiyakh v svyazi s zaprosom Koptevsko s raionnogo suda goroda Moskvy, zhalobami obshcherossiiskoi obshchestvennoi polititicheskoi organizatsii ”Pravoslavnaya partiya Rossii” i grazhdan O. V. Artemova i D. A. Savina http://www.ksrf.ru/ru/Decision/Pages/default.aspx, accessed on 12 May 2013. 145
Ibid. p. 5 Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 49 In such conditions the Court states that the party system would “inevitably” lead to the emphasis on the particular rights of corresponding religious and national groups and could also lead to a deterioration of the political and social position of smaller minorities. In the Court’s view, the specific Russian situation does not allow to create parties on national and religious grounds. Finally, the Court asserts, under condition of increasing religious fundamentalism which also includes national elements, the prohibition of political parties on the contested grounds correspond to “the authentic meaning of Articles 13 and 14 in connection with Arts. 19. 1 and 2, 28 and 29 and is a proper implementation of the content of these provisions.” According to the Court, the legislator has the right to implement the Constitution corresponding to his choice of policies within the framework of the Constitution. 2.3.1.3 The Ruling of the Constitutional Court from 3 March 2004 concerning Art. 5 part 3 of the Federal Law ”On National-­‐Cultural Autonomy” in connection with the complaint from two citizens146 Two different local (mestnyi) organisations of the society “Wiedergeburt/Vozrozhdenie”, a society in support of German cultural autonomy in the Altai region (krai) wanted to establish an Altai regional German cultural association but their application for the registration of such a regional unit was denied by the Department of Justice of the Altai region on 15 January 1998. According to the Department, only one regional organisation within the system and according to the Law on Cultural Autonomy could be registered. Already in December four local organisations for German culture in the Altai region had formed a regional organisation for German cultural autonomy. That regional organisation was registered on 16 December 1997. On 13 April 1998 the Barnaul City Court refused to change the decision of the Department of Justice. However, the Civil Chamber of the Altai Regional Court had a different opinion and held that Art. 5.3 does not prohibit the creation of several regional organisations of cultural autonomy. This decision was again reversed by the Presidium of the Altai Regional Court which left the decision from the Department of Justice unchanged. Also the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation agreed with the first decision. Thus, the application from “Wiedergeburt/Vozrozhdenie” for regional registration was finally denied. The applicants challenged the law before the Federal Constitutional Court, claiming that their rights of association were limited without grounds. But the Court denied registration referring to Art. 5. This provision has the following wording (translation by the author): “Organisational foundations for national and cultural autonomy (heading) National and cultural autonomy may be local, regional and federal. Local national and cultural autonomies of citizens, identifying themselves as a specific ethnic group may establish regional 146
Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF 2004, No. 11, item 1033. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 50 national and cultural autonomies of citizens of the Russian Federation, identifying themselves as a specific ethnic group.” Thus, the law in these exact wordings does not mention that only one regional organisation may be established, which was also noticed by the Altai Regional Court. However, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation refused to give another meaning to this provision saying that the provision in this interpretation is in conformity with the Russian Constitution. The reason for this standpoint is not clearly formulated by the Court, but since the Law on National and Cultural Autonomy gives clear advantages to a (regional) association of Cultural Autonomy, the Court wanted to limit these advantages to one organisation. In my interpretation the Court considered this aspect in its interpretation of the disputed provision, making it possible to concentrate and centralise potential financial resources to one regional association. Other (German) regional associations might be established but they would not work within the framework of the Law on National and Cultural Autonomy. Judge A. L. Kolonov was of an another opinion, and asserted that the quantitative restriction to one regional association could not be justified from the perspective of the universality of constitutional rights, enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. To summarise the Court’s reasoning in these three cases and in the famous case of the abolition of the rights of Russian citizens to elect their governors,147 the Court follows a strong centralising policy in line with the general centralising policy of the Presidency. The consequence is that multilingualism and respect for minorities is not promoted by the Court but, on the contrary, has been restricted. 2.3.2 The Karelian Supreme Court The Karelian Supreme Court has dealt with a rather peculiar case. In December 2011 the Karelian language activist and leader of the Karelian Congress, Anatolii Grigoriev, sued the first deputy mayor of Petrozavodsk, Evgenii Zhuravlëv in a private law dispute, because the latter had called the Head (Glava) of Karelia, A. Nelidov “gubernator” (governor) in a television programme and then in the Legislative Assembly. This incorrect designation of the highest official of the republic 147
See above 1.8.1.2 and the Ruling from 21 December 2005 On the Case of verification of the constitutionality of some provisions of the Federal Law of 6 October 1999 No.184 -­‐ FZ “On general principles of organisation of legislative (representative) and executive organs of public power in the subjects of the Russian Federation, Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF 2006, No. 3, item 336. Anders Fogelklou, “Interpretation and Accommodation in the Russian Constitutional Court”, in F J M Feldbrugge, ed., Russia, Europe and the Rule of Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden Boston 2006, p. 42-­‐46. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 51 was, according to Grigoriev, “not only incorrect but also offensive”.148 Giving this incorrect title to the highest official of the Republic had allegedly violated Grigoriev’s honour. His reason for suing Zhuravlëv was that Grigoriev, as Chairman of the Karelian Congress (see section 3.1 below), had suggested that the leader of the republic should be called Glava (Head) during the process of changing the Karelian Constitution. The Constitutional Committee had accepted this proposal. Grigoriev demanded 10 million roubles as compensation for the moral damage, as reported in the internet paper Onega-­‐on-­‐line of 3 March 2012. Neither the respondent nor the Petrozavodsk Regional Court agreed with this. The Department (Kollegiya) for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of Karelia refused to change the decision of the Regional Court, asserting that the decision of the first instance was legal and well-­‐grounded. At the same time, Grigoriev challenged the result of the 4 December 2012 elections to the Karelian Legislative Assembly and the Federal Duma before the Supreme Court of Karelia. He claimed that no one of the candidates to the Duma or to the Legislative Assembly spoke Karelian or Finnish during the election campaign. Thereby “the historical and national peculiarities of the Republic of Karelia which have been determined by the Karelians living on the territory of Karelia were ignored”. 2.4 Practice of administrative bodies or other supervisory bodies Constitutional practice by authorities on federal, regional and local administration is often disputed and does not live up to constitutional standards. As an example, one could mention that no election in the Russian Federation can be called free and fair.149 Administrative practice related to actual language policy within federal, regional and local administration has not been found.150 The Karelian Government in most cases rejected the proposals of instituting Karelian as a state language of Karelia, justifying their conclusions with the reference to a strong increase of state expenditures which the state cannot afford.151 No complaints have been addressed to the Federal Commissioner on Human Rights on issues of languages relevant to the present discussion.152 No information from the Regional Ombudsman for Karelia has been available for this report. In general, the Russian citizens are concerned with 148
Sud otkazal lidery “Karelskogo kongressa” v udovletvorenie iska o zashchite chesti i dostoinstva, http://www.stolica.onego.ru/news/178494.html, accessed 5 May 2012. 149
Richard Sakwa, The Crisis of Russian Democracy, the Dual State, Factionalism and the Medvedev Succession, Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 2011, p. 3. 150
Cf. Puura et al. 2013, p. 53 151
Cf. Karely, p. 232–256. 152
Emma Gilligan, The Human Rights Ombudsman in Russia: The Evolution of Horizontal Accountability,” Human Rights Quarterly, Volume 32, Number 3, August 2010, p. 575-­‐60 Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 52 alleged violations of social rights such as pensions and housing problems and the abuse of power in the electoral process. The All-­‐Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK)153 made in 2004 all regional state-­‐owned TV and radio companies directly subordinate to the main national broadcasting company. The company reduced the amount of airtime dedicated to regional issues, which negatively affected the amount of broadcasting in the languages of national minorities in a number of regions, including Altai region, Mordovia and Karelia. Media is generally highly commercialised and the main state owned channels are under political control of the centre or the regions. This means that critical issues and questions of language policies are neglected, in contrast to the situation in the 1990’s when important public debates took place. 2.5 Practice of international monitoring bodies and courts with respect to language and minority issues There have been three cycles of monitoring of the Framework Convention for Protection of Minorities in the Russian Federation but the third cycle is still incomplete.154 Although the report by the Russian Government from April 2011 is open, the third Advisory Committee Opinion from 24 November 2011 is still not public. The first advisory opinion from 13 September 2002 noted several positive aspects but deplored the lack of funding and the restricted use of television channels for minority languages (No. 144). It was noted in the resolution from the Committee of Ministers of 10 July 2003 that the normative acts protecting the minorities are not followed by adequate funding and implementation mechanisms. The second Advisory Committee Opinion from 11 May 2006155 noted (No. 11 and 27) that the degree of cooperation with the Advisory Committee concerning the scope of application of the Framework Convention on National Minorities has been limited since the Russian Federation retained its former narrow interpretation of the Convention where new immigrant groups and non-­‐citizens were excluded. The Committee deplored that advocating the rights of a particular national minority within the framework of a political party is not allowed. The Committee warned that the extensive use of the 2005 Law on the State Language could lead to unnecessary restriction for the use of minority languages (No. 20). The optional nature of the question on 153
Vserossiiskaya gosudarstvennaya televizionnaya i radioveshchatelnaya kompaniya 154
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/minorities/3_FCNMdocs/Table_en.asp#Russian_Federation. 155
ACFC/OP/II(2006)004 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES. Second Opinion on the Russian Federation, adopted on 11 May 2006. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 53 ethnic origin in the census and in other activities was seen as positive (No. 35). The Committee saw exemption of mandatory use of ethnicity in passports as a positive development (No. 37). The Committee recommends more clear introduction of the optional possibility to have one’s ethnicity in official documents. The Committee noted with approval the foundation of a Karelian national and cultural autonomy in Tver (No. 89). The Committee in its recommendation said the following: “The Committee encourages the authorities to examine the possibility, in consultation with those concerned, of restoring the central position of national and cultural autonomies within federal legislation pertaining to national minorities” (No. 94). The Committee notes that according to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation only one national and cultural autonomy can be established for each ethnic group in a given region within the Federation. These developments could have a negative impact on the freedom of association of persons belonging to national minorities (No. 161). The Committee expressed its desire that more mechanisms for support would be available for multi-­‐ethnic associations, that national and cultural autonomies have high levels of representativeness and that groups other than national and cultural autonomies are also consulted in order to ensure pluralism among the state’s interlocutors (No. 164). The Committee was concerned about the effects of a decision made in February 2004 to make all state-­‐owned regional TV and radio companies subordinated directly to the main national broadcasting company (VGTRK; see above 2.4). This has had a negative impact on the amount of broadcasting in languages of national minorities in a number of regions, including Karelia (No. 183). On the other hand, the Committee noted with satisfaction that legislation concerning linguistic minorities had been adopted in Karelia (No. 192). The Committee noted that the right to have topographical signs in Latin script is retained “when necessary” and that preparations were made in the Republic of Karelia to introduce topographical signs in Latin script in two local languages, i.e. Veps and Karelian (No. 208). Nevertheless the Committee noted a contradiction according to which languages that do not have the status of state language can be written on topographical signs where applicable in Latin script, whereas state languages cannot be used in the same way (No. 209 b). The Committee concluded that the implementation of existing federal guarantees regarding minority protection had had certain setbacks (No. 302). According to No. 310, ”[…] there has been a reduction in the amount of financial state support allocated to minority language media. The new law on the State Language of the Russian Federation, if strictly implemented, could present obstacles to the use of minority languages in certain contexts” (No.310).156 “Detailed norms for implementing the right to receive instruction in or of minority languages provided for in federal legislation and in the laws of a number of subjects of the federation, have still not been developed.” (No. 311).157 156
Ibid. Ibid. 157
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 54 The Committee finally asserted that there were setbacks related to minority participation in public life; it deplored the abrogation of federal provisions allowing quotas for the participation of indigenous Nationalities in regional legislatures. According to the Committee the changes introduced to federal legislation on elections and referenda could create barriers for persons belonging to national minorities to participate in the public decision-­‐making process. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted the following Resolution on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by the Russian Federation.158 The Resolution invited and called the Russian Government to •
•
•
•
ensure that implementation of existing legislation regulating public associations and non-­‐
profit organisations is non-­‐discriminatory and does not create undue restrictions on the legitimate activities national minorities; ensure that initiatives aimed at protecting the Russian language do not present undue obstacles to the use of minority languages; further improve access of national minorities to the media; continue expansion of the provision of instruction in minority language in public education and increase efforts to ensure equal access to education for minorities. 2.6 Programmes and action plans on language and language diversity in practice The programmes must be seen in connection with the Law on Support, mentioned above (see section 2.1.2). In 2009, 80 programmes were carried out. The implementation of the programmes has shown great variations and follows two main directions. The first is to create and maintain a fundamental linguistic infrastructure, referred to as language ecology for the Karelian and Veps languages, and increase its visibility. In 2005, the Commission for spelling and terminology subordinate to the Head of Karelia finished its work to match Karelian and Veps names of settlements in Karelia. As a result, for the first time in the post-­‐war period, the list of names of settlements in Russian, Karelian and Veps languages (in territories of compact Karelian and Veps settlements) was published. Traffic signs were displayed in Veps in the Prionezhskyi region as well. Petroskoi, the Karelian name for Petrozavodsk could be seen as a sign at the railway station.159 158
Resolution CM/ResCMN (2007) 7 on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by the Russian Federation. 159
http://indigenouspeoplesissues.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6393:place-­‐names-­‐in-­‐
languages-­‐of-­‐indigenous-­‐peoples-­‐in-­‐the-­‐republic-­‐of-­‐karelia-­‐russia&catid=26&Itemid=59 The Leading Source for News, Articles, Reports, Videos and More on Indigenous Issues Around the World, accessed 4 May2011. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 55 Between 2005-­‐2009, 70 front signs and 65 road signs in Karelian and Veps were put in place in districts densely inhabited by Karelians and Veps.160 According to the official website of the Karelian government, ambition to elaborate written forms for the Karelian and Veps languages is still in force. In 2009 a large Russian-­‐Karelian Dictionary (Livvi/Olonets dialect) has been completed; a Russian-­‐Karelian Phrase Book (Karelian proper dialect of Karelian) and a manual Karelian for Beginners were issued.161 Efforts and works on drawing up a large Russian-­‐Karelian Dictionary (Karelian proper dialect of Karelian) and a Veps spelling dictionary have been continued.162 The other main direction is focused on a broad sense on various cultural activities which have been financed and organised in co-­‐operation with various cultural groups and regional authorities. Projects and activities in 2009 were provided by more than 60 social partners of the Ministry of the Republic of Karelia on Nationality Politics and Relations with Religious Associations. Even though it is impossible to provide a list of all of these activities within the present paper, some examples will still be given. Special attention has been given to the 90th anniversary of the Republic of Karelia.163 In 2009 six books were published with a circulation of 2900 copies, two СDs, collections of materials of the VI Congress of Karelians and conferences. A presentation of novelties of literature published was held at the ‘Let the Native Language Sound...’ literature and poetry soiree in December 2009.164 Execution of assigned budgetary means in the 2005 May Programme has not been ascertained.The recent programme from 11 December 2011 is quite new, therefore its implementation cannot be ascertained as well. Detailed implementation of the programme for Karelian language adopted by Order No. 100 of 28 May 2009, from the Ministry of Nationality Policy and Contact with Religious Associations and the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Culture is not known. 2.7 View of language and minority legislation in the wider public discourse and media The political situation in the Russian Federation is extremely complex and is characterised by increased tensions. A general hypothesis in relation to the public discourse on language policies and minorities is that the patriotic and nationalist tendency is increasing among the political elite and broader segments of society and does not move in a liberal direction. The young middle class 160
http://www.gov.karelia.ru/gov/News/2010/01/0113_15_e.html, accessed 12 May 2912. http://www.gov.karelia.ru/gov/News/2010/01/0113_15_e.html, accessed 12 May 291 162
http://www.gov.karelia.ru/gov/News/2010/01/0113_15_e.html, accessed 12 May 2912. 163
Ibid. 164
Ibid. 161
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 56 protesting against the lack of the rule of law in Russia gives less attention to the minorities. Putin’s regime sees Russia as a great power, having its own interpretation of democracy. Several observers claim that Russia is in the process of de-­‐democratisation and curtailment of civil society.165 One scholar believes that Russia goes in a nationalist or even fascist direction.166 President Putin is currently concerned about the rise of Russian nationalism. However, through greater accommodation to the Russian nationalist movement, protection of ethnic minorities, particularly in the North Caucasus, will probably be more difficult.167 As a recent example of official nationalist rhetoric, one may refer to the Russian Minister of Culture, Vladimir Medinsky. In a speech before the 6th World Congress of Finno-­‐Ugric Peoples, in Siófok in Hungary, September 2012, Medinsky emphasised the cultural autonomy of the Finno-­‐Ugric minorities in the Russian Federation but not their language rights. In the presence of the Finnish President, Sauli Niinistö,he also mentioned that Finland as a state had survived only thanks to Russian benevolence.168 Public misgivings, especially in Moscow and Saint Petersburg, about Putin’s regime are due to the abuse of power and corruption by the state apparatus on the federal, regional and local levels. However, political opposition has been met by a number of repressive laws. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe expressed concern over the content of five newly adopted federal laws: the electoral law, the law on assemblies, the law on extremism, the law on the federal security service (FSB) and the law on political parties.169 Organisations in civil society that receive support from abroad must now register themselves as “foreign agents”.170 This general tendency in the Russian Federation is also noticeable in Karelia and its language policies. A debate on the internet gives an interesting insight into the present discussion. One of the older activists in Karelia, Anatolii Grigoriev (see section 2.3 above and below 3.1) wrote on 18 May 2012 an article on the site Karelinform.ru in which he accused the federal and regional 165
A recent Swedish Government Report concludes with the following words: “… the development [in Russia] is deeply disquieting. The [political] opposition will get even more difficulties to work [within the system] and civil society will become even weaker” (my translation), Vägval i en globaliserad värld (Choice in a globalized world): Ds 2013:33, p. 138; Richard Sakwa, The Crisis of Russian Democracy, the Dual State, Factionalism and the Medvedev Succession, Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 2011. 166
Marcel M. Van Herpen, Putinism. The Slow Rise of a Radical Right Regime in Russia,Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. 167
Valeryi Dzutsev, Kremlin’s Nationalities Policy Likely Driven by Fear of Uncontrolled Russian Nationalism. Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 9 Issue: 110 June 11, 2012, http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=39471&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=7&c
Hash=4470546081eb08f0d52a3a50dd1db515, accessed 13 June 2012. 168
Jukka Mallinen, Alla är de mina ryssar, Hufvudstadsbladet, 5 October 2012. 169
http://assembly.coe.int. Doc. 13018 14 September 2012. 170
Vägval i en globaliserad värld: Ds 2013:33, p. 139. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 57 authorities of “Russification”.171 The article provoked 60 comments; only a few commenters agreed with him, while most of them disagreed. One individual was openly anti-­‐Semitic. A comment that conforms to this interpretation of the present situation in the Russian Federation in relation to the opinion of the opposition to the Putin regime asserts that Grigoriev may be formally right but more acute problems are corruption and what the commentator calls the “dagestanisation” of Karelia, i.e. the influx of immigrants from Northern Caucasus (Dagestan) and from former Soviet union republics.172 According to a sociologist from the Russian Academy of Sciences close to the present regime, Leontin Byzov, the Russian general public may be divided in three groups of roughly the same size.173 The first group he calls “left-­‐nationalistic”. This group demands social justice, strengthening of the state and establishment of “order in interethnic relations”. This expression would mean that the nationalistic values and interests of the Russian majority should prevail. The second group can be described as left-­‐liberal or social-­‐democratic with Western liberal ideas together with the idea of social justice and fight against corruption. This group could potentially support protection of linguistic minorities; this issue, however, would not be the first priority of the political agenda. The third group could be seen as close to the present regime. That group the author calls right-­‐liberal. This part of society also supports a strong state (derzhava) together with a controlled market economy and state capitalism. Public debate sometimes takes places between left-­‐wing or right-­‐
wing nationalists on one hand and the sympathisers of a strong state with its imperial and Soviet heritage on the other. In the latter view the state is not only related to the Russian nation but also to a multinational state. This view is close to that of President Putin.174 Supporters of a multinational state show imperialistic tendencies, which does not favour ideological support for the protection of small minorities. For instance, a well-­‐known extreme right wing, neo-­‐imperialist political analyst, Aleksandr Dugin, advanced an idea that the Karelian republic together with Finland should form “a unit within the Eurasian space with a maximum of cultural autonomy”.175 171
Andrei Grigoriev, Ravnopravie i samoopredelenie narodov (Equal rights and Self-­‐determination of Peoples), http://karelinform.ru/?id=30941#ixzz1vWBvqXkj, accessed 21 May2012. 172
The signature Humolla 18.05.2012 17:27 http://karelinform.ru/?id=30941#ixzz1vWBvqXkj, accessed 21 May 2012. 173
Leontin Byzov,Gde iskat’ ideologiyu bol’shinstva? Literaturnaya Gazeta, No. 16 (6366) (2012-­‐04-­‐18). 174
Igor Torbakov, ”The Parting of Ways: The Russian (imperial) state and Russian nationalism in historical perspective”. Lecture at UCRS on 21 February 2012. AlsoVladimir Malakhov points to this direction in his lecture, Multiculturalism à la russe: politics of identity in contemporary Russia in a Workshop on “Multiculturalism in Russia” 3-­‐4 May 2012, at UCRS. 175
See for example Dugin’s Osnovy geopolitiki: geopoliticheskoe budushchee Rossii (Foundations for geopolitics in future Russia), Ch. 5.2 (The Finnish question) Moscow, Arktogeia 1997, http://grachev62.narod.ru/dugin/chapt05.htm; Alan Ingram, "Alexander Dugin: Geopolitics and Neo-­‐Fascism in Post-­‐Soviet Russia", Political Geography, Vol. 20, No. 8 (2001), pp. 1029-­‐1051. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 58 2.8 Perceived effects of the examined legislation on the languages and language communities studied As described above, debates show (see section2.7) that the general public in Karelia and Russia is much more concerned with issues other than minority rights. According to ELDIA reports, ethnic Russians in Karelia have in general a positive attitude towards preservation of the Veps language but there is little evidence that the special status of the Veps language has any effect on the language situation176; the interest for minority language questions in media is rather low. The small Veps community seems to a large extent to have accepted their assimilation. This also applies partly to Karelian media. The same could probably be said of the attitude to the Karelian language. The censuses from 2002 and 2010 and materials from the ELDIA case-­‐studies point to the on-­‐going assimilation process of Karelians and Veps, but the fact that Karelia is a republic has at least delayed the assimilation process.177 Public opinion in Karelia is partly focused on the Finnish language which has significance for the growth of tourism and trade with Finland. 176
) Ulriikka Puura, Veps language: An Overview of a Language in Context. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 16, (2012) p. 4. The xenophobic tendencies among Russian youth in Karelia are primarily directed against the peoples from Caucasus and Central Asia. See Yegenii Klementyev, Svetlana Kovaleva,, Konstiantin Zamyatin, The Karelian language in Russia: An Overview of Language in Context Working Papers in European Language Diversity 12, (2012) p. 6. 177
See Yevgenii Klementyev, Svetlana Kovaleva, Konstiantin Zamyatin, The Karelian language in Russia: An Overview of Language in Context Working Papers in European Language Diversity 12 (2012), p. 5. Vserossiiskaya perepis’ naseleniya 2002 goda, www.perepis2002.ru/index.html?id=11, accessed 13 December 2011; http://www.perepis-­‐
2010.ru/results_of_the_census/results-­‐inform.php, accessed 11 October 2012. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 59 3 Legal actors 3.1 Minority and language groups involved in legal and policy debates. In Karelia, according to the official website of the Karelian Government, 54 national non-­‐
governmental organisations, including 15 working within the framework of the Law on National and Cultural Autonomy, have been established.178 These figures must be interpreted with some caution. Some organisations are very small and only a few of them are involved in the protection and development of the Karelian and Veps languages and cultures. As in other parts of the Russian Federation, the organisations researched are fairly small and rely very much on one or a few persons’ activities. The number of members is not disclosed on their official web sites. Since organisations often have been founded around certain activist, some important persons will be mentioned first. After that relevant organisations and their recent activities will be described.179 The leading figures in the movement for the mobilisation of Karelian and Veps languages towards the end of the 1980’s in Karelia are still active today.180 An important activist already from the beginning in the efforts to revitalise the Veps language has been Zinaida Strogal’shchikova, born 1948. Already in 1988 with Nina Zaitseva and Irma Mullonen, among others, she wrote an article aimed at revitalising the Veps language. These persons and Evgenii Klementiev are associated with the Institute of Linguistics, History and Literature (ILLH) in the Karelian Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Petrozavodsk. Founded in 1930, the institute is an important instrument for the concrete protection and development of the Veps and Karelian languages and cultures in the Russian Federation. As late as in April 2011 Strogal’shchikova had the title of Chairwoman of the Veps Culture Society, the leading organisation for promoting Veps language and culture.181 Nina Zaitseva is currently heading the Section of linguistics, working in the above mentioned Institute of Linguistics, History and Literature. Irma Mullonen is working as its director and is Head of the scientific-­‐educational centre of studies in humanities. In June 2011 she took part in a meeting with Andrei Nelidov, (former) Head of Karelia, who held a regular session of the Council of representatives of Karelians, Veps and Finns of the Republic. Evgenii Klementiev is a Senior Research Associate of the institute. 178
Natsional’nye organizatsii gotovyatsya k prazdniku, gov.karelia.ru/News/2010/03/0309_07.html accessed 12 June 2012.
179
Personal networks form a Russian form of social capital which could be a corollary to formal non-­‐governmetal organisations, cf. Anders Uhlin, Post-­‐Soviet Civil Society, Democratization in Russia and Baltic States, Routledge, London, 2006, p. 58. 180
See above (section 1.6). 181
Finno-­‐Ugric Peoples’ Committee to hold session in Karelia.www.amberbridge.org/newstext?id=5559. accessed 14 May 2012 Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 60 These four senior researchers have a very impressive list of publications; some of their works have also been used in the ELDIA project. Klementiev co-­‐edited the collection of materials in Karely; Klementiev and Strogal’shchikova edited together with A. Kozhanov the collection of materials in Vepsy.182 Both these publications give an important insight in important sources for study of the renewed interests in the Veps and Karelian languages in the Russian Federation.183 Andrei Grigoriev (mentioned above in section 2.7) belongs to this old generation as well. As a leading activist he is now chairing the Karelian Congress. Grigoriev has been a member of the Karelian Legislative Assembly.184 Being very active in Karelian language politics he had a meeting with the new leader of Karelia, Aleksandr Khudilainen (Hudilainen), on 31 May 2012.185 Grigoriev is a member of the ruling Party, Edinaya Rossiya. In December 2011 he wrote to Putin, then Prime Minister and Party Chairman, complaining that the leadership of the Karelian branch of the Party had neglected the protection and use of the Karelian language.186 Another important figure is Viktor Bogdanov (also mentioned above in section 2.2) who has been Chairman of the Authorised Council of Karelians and Vice Chairman of the Council of representatives of Karelians, Veps and Finns of the Republic of Karelia. Another involved person is from Saint Petersburg, the linguist, Candidate of Philology, docent Igor Brodskii, who leads the research of Uralic languages, folklore and literature at the Institute of Northern nationalities at the Herzen Pedagogical University in Saint Petersburg. He is one of the leaders of the Saint Petersburg Veps Society187. The engagement of younger people is less clear. It seems that only a few activists of the younger generation have entered the scene until now. Natalia Antonova (born in 1977) is the head of the organisation Nuori Karjala (Young Karelia) since November 2006. Since Karelians are much more numerous than the Veps188 and Karelian is also spoken in Finland, and since formally Karelians are designated as the titular nation of Karelia, the activities of Karelian minority groups have a slightly different character than those of the Veps groups. The latter are concerned with the protection of the Veps language and culture which are facing nearly total assimilation. 182
See Karely andVepsy. 183Representatives of Karelians, Vepsians and Finns of Karelia discuss important issues concerning preservation of national identity of the republic, http://gov.karelia.ru/News/2011/06/0616_04_e.html, accessed 14 May 2012. See Karely, p. 147, 173. 185
http://finugor.ru/node/23739, accessed 3 June 2012. 186
http://vesti.karelia.ru/news/main/6219/, accessed 3 June 2012. 187
http://finugor.ru/node/22484, retrieved on 12 June 2012. 188
Unfortunately, the published figures from the 2010 census so far only cover nationalities with more than 50.000 persons. 184
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 61 The Council of the authorized representatives of the Karelian Convention is an organisation supporting Karelian culture and language but there are few sources describing its activities.189 It was first mentioned in 2006 and is still active today.190 It is not clear, however, when the organisation was founded. It is an organisation which seems to have a coordinating function. Recently it appointed delegates to the VI World Congress of the Finno-­‐Ugric Peoples.191 Delegates were chosen from the Karjalan Rahvahan Liitto (the Union of Karelians), Nuori Karjala (Young Karelia), Karelian Congress, Olonets Karelians. The Karelian delegation also included representatives of the Tver Karelians.192 The Congress of Karelians, as the Karelian Congress was then called, is an organisation which currently supports Karelian culture and language not only in Karelia. It had a meeting in Olonets in June 1991 attended not only by Karelians from Karelia but also from other parts of the Russian Federation and Finland. The Congress rejected the proposal from Anatolii Grigoriev who then suggested that Karelia should form an autonomous part of Finland.193 It is not possible to describe all the various activities of the Congress but some events need to be mentioned. In 2006 the Congress questioned the minority policy of Karelia and demanded that the State Committee for Nationalities should be given a higher status. In 2007 the leader of the Congress, Anatolii Grigoriev, expressed the opinion that Karelia should again promote a policy of supporting and educating public officials from minorities.194 In February 2008 Grigoriev observed that for the first time since 1920 no member of the regional government belonged to the minority groups. In April 2008 Grigoriev together with the leader of Nuori Karjala (Young Karelia) Natalia Antonova and Zinaida Strogal’shchikova protested against reduction of regional radio emissions in Russian language. In December 2008 the Congress said that it would use the judicial system to defend that the Head of Karelia should not be called “gubernator” (see above 2.3.2).195 Nuori Karjala (Young Karelia) is the republic's youth public organisation created in 1993 by a group of young activists, according to the official Karelian web site.196 The main tasks of Nuori Karjala are 189
http://www.gov.karelia.ru/News/2006/05/0502_12.html, accessed 6 June 2012. http://gov.karelia.ru/News/2012/03/0330_07.html, accessed 6 June 2012. 191
http://finugor.ru/node/23455, accessed 4 June 2012. 192
Editor’s note. In the area around the city of Tver in the Russian Federation, northwest of Moscow, a large enclave of Karelians – the largest traditional concentration of Karelians outside the present-­‐day Republic of Karelia – has lived since the 17th century. 193
Oleg Alexandrov, The Role of the Republic of Karelia in Russia’s Foreign and Security Policy, Working Paper No 5 (2001) fertig.qxd,www.css.ethz.ch/.../Working_Paper_No_5.pdf , accessed 12 May 2012. 194
http://www.регнум.рф/look/cae0f0e5ebfcf1eaeee3ee20eaeeede3f0e5f1f1e0/#ixzz1zMerR5Pg, accessed 13 June 195
Ibid. 196
http://www.gov.karelia.ru/News/2008/12/1217_12_e.htm, accessed 12 June 2012. 190
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 62 preservation of culture and languages of the indigenous Finnic nationalities in Karelia, i.e. Karelians, Veps and Finns. The activities of the organisation are focused on ethno-­‐cultural and ethno-­‐educational projects.197 In September 2012 the music festival “Musical Incubator” took place in Petrozavodsk, with participants from the Tver and Perm regions as well. Various musical groups, among them, the pop group Ola San from Karelia gave performances and common projects were to be developed. The festival was meant to mark the beginning of a four-­‐year cooperation project between young artists from Finno-­‐Ugric areas called the “Masterskaya budushchego Finno-­‐Ugorskikh molodëzh” (Finno-­‐
Ugric Youth Future Workshop). The project has got support from various sources, including the Finland-­‐Russia Society and the Karelian Ministry of Culture, and Nuori Karjala was one of the organisers.198 The non-­‐governmental Veps Cultural Society should promote interest in the Veps language and culture. This important organisation was established in 1987 and was formally registered as an association in 1989,199 focusing mainly on issues related to the study, preservation and development of the Veps language. The ambition of the Society was to change the language policy of Karelia and the Russian Federation.200 The Veps Cultural Society has delivered books and materials for language courses in schools and elsewhere. The Society has contributed to Petrozavodsk radio broadcasting in Veps language, and to the foundation of the newspaper Kodima in 1994 and its continuing publication.201 The Society’s extensive activities are well documented.202 The efforts of the Society led to the establishment of the Veps Volost’, according to the principle of limited ethnic federalism or autonomy (see above 1.8.1.2 and 3). Thus, a Veps national unit in Karelia was established by the decision of the Karelian Supreme Council on 20 January 1994 through merger of three small municipalities. A predecessor to this unit existed between 1927 to 1956 as Sheltozerskii national rayon but was before 1927 called “Volost’”. There is an important Veps museum there now. However, the Volost‘ itself has been dissolved (see above 1.8.1.3). 197
http://www.nuorikarjala.onego.ru/nk_action.php, accessed 13 June 2012. http://www.nuorikarjala.onego.ru/index_new.php?id=326, accessed 13 June 2012. 199
Iz protokola yubileinogo obshchego sobraniya KROO “Obshchestvo Vepsskoi kultury, posvyashchennogo 10-­‐letiyu ego deyatel’nost’ in Vepsy, p. 240-­‐289. 200
http://www.barentsindigenous.org/the-­‐veps-­‐culture-­‐society.116564.en.html, accessed 5 May 201
See Obrashchenie Obshchestva Vepsskoi kulturyv Verkhovnyi Sovet Respubliki Kareliya, Sovet Ministrov Respubliki Kareliya ob uchrezhdenii gazety “Kodima”. (Address of the Society to the Supreme Council of the Republic of Karelia, the Council of Ministers of Karelia on the foundation of the journal Kodima) in Vepsy, p. 279. 202
Vepsy, p. 273 -­‐319. 198
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 63 The Society and especially its Chairperson, Strogal’shchikova, has been very active in relation to the 2002 census which excluded the question, raised in earlier censuses, “What is your mother tongue (rodnoi yazyk)?” Another, smaller organisation is Vepsän Sebr (Veps Society) founded in 1990 but registered in its present name in 1997. It is a volunteer public non-­‐governmental and non-­‐profit public organization founded for purposes of representation of the Finno-­‐Ugric Veps minority, living in North-­‐western Russia. It seems that this society is not active today.203 It is unclear whether the St. Petersburg Veps society founded in 2000 is the same organisation as the Veps Society but it is very probable. It also calls itself Vepsän Sebr. The main goals of the Society are to preserve, study and promote Veps language and culture and assist Veps students in their linguistic Studies. It says on its website that it is working in close co-­‐operation with the Veps Cultural Society, mentioned above.204 Igor Brodskii (see above) of the Saint Petersburg Veps Society has, however, expressed critical views of the Veps Cultural Society in December 2011.205 The St. Petersburg Veps Society published a Veps-­‐Russian small dictionary in 2008.206 It supports the Veps language in cooperation with the Alekhovshchov village (selo) in the Lodeinopolsk municipality in the Leningrad oblast’ (region).207 From this account above one would conclude that the Veps Cultural Society and the Karelian Congress have been politically the most active organisations. Other organisations such as Nuori Karjala may devote more time to festivals and folklore. Notwithstanding the result and effects of actions, all these activities and aims of the Veps Cultural Society and the Karelian Congress have had limited impact in the sense that they have not prevented an on-­‐going assimilation process and a diminishing knowledge of Karelian and Veps languages. The website of Nuori Karjala, for example, is written in Russian and Finnish.208 The main role of the Veps Society and the Karelian Congress seems to be the maintenance of a form of cultural-­‐historical identity for persons of Karelian or Veps origin or ancestors. Few persons identify themselves today primarily as Karelians or Veps, but may still appreciate their historical 203
http://www.veps.org/Etusivu/etusivu.html, accessed 11 June 2012. http://kodima.50megs.com/indexeng.htm, accessed 12 May 2012. 205
He questioned the motives of the Petrozavodsk group (mentioned above) for their engagement in the protection and development of the Karelian and Veps languages.This accusation may not be true at all but could reflect rivalries among the organisations. Linguist: Vepskii yazyk i kul’tura “po-­‐petrozavodskii” udobno vlasti no vedut k ischeznoveniyu yazyka(Linguist: Veps language and culture “in the Petrozavodsk way” are useful for the power structure but lead to the disappearance of the language), finugor.ru/node/22484, accessed 12 June 2012. 206
Venä-­‐Vepsläine Pagizkirj = Русско-­‐вепсский разговорник предназначается в первую очередь для изучающих. www.multilang.su/files/.../Русско-­‐вепсский%20разговорник%20.do...Igor Brodskii, VENÄ-­‐VEPSLÄINE PAGIŽKIRJ / РУССКО-­‐ВЕПССКИЙ РАЗГОВОРНИК, retrieved on 13 June 2012. 207
http://xn7sbabalklxabe0bhqjo3asu4eq1f2g.xnp1ai/veps_prio/Information%20Society%20Veppsian/ accessed 13 June 2012. 208
Editor’s note. At the moment, practically all material available on the website nuorikarjala.ru seems to be available in Russian only, although in principle the user interface also offers English, Finnish and Karelian as language options. 204
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 64 origins and try to find contact with their roots. Although the emphasis is on the promotion of Karelian and Veps languages, the impact on the language situation in Karelia has been limited. 3.2 Other Actors Politically most important legal actors in the first decade of the twenty-­‐first century in the area of federal language policy must have been President Vladimir Putin and his associates, including the present Premier Minister, Dimitrii Medvedev, former President of the Russian Federation 2000-­‐
2012 and Putin’s former chief of staff. In October 2003, Medvedev replaced Alexandr Voloshin as Presidential Chief of Staff. In November 2005, Medvedev moved from the presidential administration to the government when Putin appointed him as the First Deputy Prime Minister. A number of officials from several ministries, especially from the Ministry of Regional Development must be seen as formally responsible for the 2002 changes of the 1991 Law on Languages of the Nationalities in which the Cyrillic script was made mandatory for official texts, written in the various regional state languages and the 2005 Law on the State Languages (see above 1.9). The names of concrete persons engaged in the elaboration of these legal instruments within the framework of the Presidential administration and within the Russian Government are not known. Also the Federal Constitutional Court, and especially its Chairman, Valerii Zorkin, must be seen as important figures in language and minority politics. By not vetoing legislation constraining the development of minority cultures and languages, the majority of the members of the Court have affected language and minority legislation (see above 2.3.1). Putin’s centralising measures, constraining democracy on the federal, regional and local level during 2000 through 2008 did not face any strong opposition in society and in public opinion. As could be discerned from the parliamentary debates, the opposition against the adoption of the 2005 Law on the State Language and the 2002 changes in the 1991 Law on Languages of the Nationalities was weak. V. N. Stepanov, the Karelian politician, former representative of Karelians in the Federation Council and Former Head of the Karelian Government can be seen a political figure cautiously promoting the Karelian language and Karelian minority rights (see above 2.2).209 On the federal level, professor Valerii Tishkov, Director of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (see section 1.8.2), has had a great scientific impact. One could name him as one of the leading figures advancing the theory of Russian as 209
See the interview with Stepanov in Karely, p. 183 and his argument in the Federation Council above (2.1.2). He demanded concessions for Karelia to sign the Federal Treaty 1992 and said that it was a provocation to assert that Karelia should secede from Russia. Ann Sheehy, Karelian Parliamentary Chairman objects to misinformation, RFL/ No. 5012 March, 1992, http://www.friendspartners.org/friends/news/omri/1992/03/920312.html(opt,mozilla,unix, english, new., accessed 13 May 2012. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 65 multi-­‐ethnic and multilingual nation with Russian as the leading ethnic group and language. His integrationist view could be seen in contrast to more assimilationist ideas, which are becoming stronger today (see section 2.7). Tishkov is also a member of the Council of Nationalities at the Presidency of the Russian Federation (see below section 3.3). 3.3 Channels of participation in language related matters The Federation Council of the Federal Assembly and the Karelian Legislative Assembly are representative institutions which could support the protection of the Karelian and Veps languages but do not do so in reality. State Council (see section 1.8.1.2) as a coordinating organ should give voice to the various nationalities in the Russian Federation but minority and language issues are only one of their several tasks. On June 7, 2012 President Vladimir Putin issued a decree creating the Presidential Council for Relations between Nationalities. The Council’s statute stipulates its role as a consultative governmental body to help implement government nationalities policy without any direct administrative power. Its decisions could however be implemented through presidential decrees.210 The Council is not specifically oriented towards language issues and more focused on general minority problems in the more narrow meaning of “old” minorities and especially to the ethnic minorities in Northern Caucasus. Its foundation was motivated by a concern over Russian nationalism.211 Questions of “new” minorities are handled by other organs or commissions especially within the Ministry for regional development. Putin is Chairman of the Council; the First Deputy Head of the presidential administration, Vyacheslav Volodin, and Deputy Prime Minister, Dmitrii Kozak, are Putin’s deputies. The Council has 50 members, including the leaders of various ethnic organisations. Not only minority ethnic groups are represented but also leaders of organisations from the majority nationality, such as Rodina, an influential Russian nationalist organisation. 212 Officially, the Council of representatives of Karelians, Veps and Finns of the Republic of Karelia is presently the most important channel for participation (see section 1.8.3). However,its decisions have no legal force. The Council can only adopt recommendations. Earlier it had to be convened four times a year but this was not always the case.213 According to the new Charter (Polozhenie) of the Council from 14 February 2011 it must now have not less than two sessions each year.214 The 210
http://state.kremlin.ru/council/28/statute, accessed 9 June 2012. http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=39471&cHash=2c56706e92b59734
7cb5e360e141a403, accessed 5 June 2012. 212
Ibid. 213
http://www.gov.karelia.ru/News/2006/05/0502_12.html, accessed 5 May 2012. 214
http://gov.karelia.ru/gov/Power/Committee/National/index.html, accessed 15 June 2012. 211
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 66 three national Karelian municipal formations, the Kalevala, Olonets, and Pryazha regions are also potential channels of participation. 3.4 Use of channels of participation According to the official Karelian website, the Council supported on 11 August 2010 the amendments of the Karelian Constitution which meant that the office of Prime Minister in Karelia will be abolished.215 The Head of the Republic is entitled to exercise simultaneously the duties of the Prime Minister. At the meeting with Andrei Nelidov, the Head of Karelia at that time, the participants, including Anatolii Grigoriev and Zinaida Strogal’shchikova, expressed their support “as a whole” for these changes, having noted that they allow to reduce the bureaucratisation of the authority, to raise its efficiency and to cut down budget expenditure.216 The meeting took place before the suggested changes were approved by the Karelian Legislative Assembly on 16 August 2010. The amendment from another perspective makes Karelia more similar to an ordinary region (oblast’) which only has a governor. According to the principle of ethnic federalism republics such as Tatarstan have a president and a prime minister. A recent meeting of the Council of the representatives of Karelians, Veps and Finns of the Republic of Karelia will be analysed in order to show an example of present practice. During the meeting in March 2012 the Council discussed the realisation of the programme “Harmonisation of national and confessional relations, creation of civil concord in Karelia 2007-­‐2011 (Karelia – a territory of harmony (soglasie)” and approved of its results.217 Non-­‐governmental organisations and organisations within the framework of the Law on Cultural Autonomy should realise seminars and round-­‐table discussions, implementing thereby the long term programme (Karyala – nash dom ‘Karjala is our home’; see section 1.9.2). The meeting discussed seven different documents where the emphasis was on the “Harmonisation” programme. The Law On Support (see section 1.9.2) was mentioned in this context only twice. The Council thus approved the measures taken to realise the Harmonisation programme and to recommend the State Committee of the Republic of Karelia for Nationality Politics, Relations with Public and Religious Associations to implement the first phase of the new long-­‐term programme. In its plan for 2012 the Council should discuss early education of children in Veps, Karelian and 215
http://www.gov.karelia.ru/News/2010/08/0811_15_e.html, accessed 15 June 2012. http://www.gov.karelia.ru/News/2010/08/0811_15_e.html, accessed 15 June 2012. 217
Reshenie Konsultativnogo soveta po voprosam vzaimodeistviya s natsional’nymi obshchestvennymi ob”edineniyami v tom chisle natsional’no-­‐kulturnymi avtonomiyami ot 16 marta 2012 goda, http://gov.karelia.ru/gov/Power/Committee/National/120420.html, accessed 23 June 2012. 216
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 67 Finnish and the preparation for education of officials in these languages.218 In October 2012 the Council discussed the 2010 census, the demographical situation in Karelia, the result of the publishing company “Periodika”219, and the experiences from the VI World Congress of Finno-­‐
Ugric Peoples. Finally, in December 2012 the results of the long term programme Karyala – nash dom for 2012, the preparation for the VII Congress of Karelians from Karelia and the plan for the year 2013 were discussed. Taking into account the activities and intentions of the Council, one could conclude that it devotes its energy to important questions of minority language rights. The emphasis is, however, on the realisation of the two harmonisation programmes which are not only focused on the Veps and Karelian language, but have considerably wider aims. The purposes of these programs are to prevent public discontent, to enhance public peace and the mutual understanding between different minorities, especially from Northern Caucasus and the Russian majority. It is too early to discuss the activities of the newly established Federal Council for Relations between Nationalities at the Presidency of the Russian Federation, but it is likely that the questions relevantfor this report will not be prioritised since attention will be primarily directed to the problems in Northern Caucasus. 3.5 Institutions responsible for minority and language policies The Federal Ministry for Nationalities Policy was abolished in 2001 and was replaced by the Ministry for Regional Development which should take care of language and minority issues on the federal level. The change of name is not only symbolic but shows that economic development and not the protection of minorities has been prioritised on the federal political agenda. Recently established Council of Nationalities can be seen as some kind of accommodation to the on-­‐going debate in Russia on minorities and nationalities. On its website, the Ministry shows its various priorities and legal basis.220 The Department for nationalities is one of is 17 various Departments in the Ministry and is led by Deputy Minister Maksim Travnikov. The Ministry of the Republic of Karelia for Nationality Politics, Relations with Public and Religious Associations and Mass Media is the latest official name for the responsible ministry which simultaneously is a State Committee.221 According to the official website of the Ministry and State Committee it has twenty-­‐one employees and consists of three main 218
Plan raboty Soveta predstavitelei karelov, vepsov i finnov v Respubliki Kareliya, http://www.gov.karelia.ru/Power/Committee/National/sov_plan12.html, accessed June 2012. 219
In July 2012, this publishing company printed a book in Russian and Veps languages, Vepsän manmujud / Kraki zemli Vepsskoi, http://www.gov.karelia.ru/gov/News/2012/07/0731_07.html, accessed 12 July 2012. 220
http://www.minregion.ru/ministerstvo/, retrieved on 15 June 2012. 221
By a decree (ukaz) from the Head of Karelia No. 51 from the 16 June 2012, O strukture organov ispolnitel’noi vlasti v Respubliki Kareliya accessed 23 June 2012. -­‐ Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 68 departments of which one deals with the support to the indigenous (korennoi) population, i.e. Finnish, Karelian and Veps minorities.222 The other department is oriented towards the support and communication of organisations of the civil society and the third deals with administrative, economic and legal questions.The Federal and Karelian Ministries of Education and Culture are also important actors in the areas of language and minority policies. It is not possible to describe the activities of these ministries in relation to the Karelian and Veps languages, but as we have seen, the Karelian Ministry of Culture has subsidised activities of minority organisations. The Karelian Ministry of Education must be seen as responsible for the fact that Art. 6 of the Karelian Law on Education was abolished. This provision contained the language of instruction.223 3.6 The role of the kin-­‐state The Veps live only in the Russian Federation, but part of the Karelians also live in Finland. Historically, Karelia has been a contested border area between Russia on the one hand and Finland (Sweden) on the other. In the beginning of the 20th century, the area of today’s Republic of Karelia belonged for the most part to the Olonets and Arkhangelsk provinces of Russia and partly to the then autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland within the Russian empire and was subject to a strong Russification policy from various governors.224 After the Second World War, Finland had to cede the Karelian Isthmus and the areas northeast of the lake Ladoga to the Soviet Union (the latter, so-­‐
called Border Karelian areas were the home of Karelian speakers whose descendants now live scattered in Finland).225 The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 gave rise to some irredentist voices in Finland, but no territorial claims from Finland are heard today. Presently, the extensive cooperation agreements between Finland and the Russian Federation and Karelia point to good neighbourly relations. In the area of language politics the cooperation is conducted within the framework of Finno-­‐Ugric congresses and similar scholarly exchanges. From 222
http://gov.karelia.ru/gov/Power/Committee/National/index.html#03, retrieved on 12 July 2012. Sobranie zakonodatel’stva Respubliki Kareliya, 2005 No. 4, item 308. 224
Marina Vitukhnovskaia, Rossiiskaia Kareliya i karely v imperskoi politiki Rossii 1905–1917. Saint Petersburg 2006. 225
Editor’s note. It should be borne in mind that the westernmost part of historical Karelia has belonged to Sweden/Finland ever since the first borders between Sweden and Russia (Novgorod) were drawn. Most inhabitants of these westernmost regions – for instance, on the Karelian Isthmus and in the city of Viipuri/Viborg/Vyborg, or in the southeastern parts of today’s Finland – traditionally did not belong primarily to the Russian cultural sphere or the Orthodox church; since the Finnish national awakening, they have defined themselves as ethnic Finns, and linguistically, their dialects are not considered Karelian but part of the Finnish language. Most laymen in Finland and Russia are very vaguely or not at all aware of this problematic, sometimes contested and partly fuzzy ethnolinguistic distinction between the “Finnish Karelians” of historical Finland and the “Eastern Karelians” (speakers of the Karelian language), most of whom have traditionally lived on the Russian side of the historical border, under the influence of Russian culture and the Orthodox church. 223
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 69 a Russian state perspective, the Finnish language is more problematic than the Karelian. As we have seen, the Law on Support also includes the promotion of the Finnish language. From one point of view in the Russian debate, the use of Finnish language will again revive the historical memory of anti-­‐Russian Finnish nationalism (including the war-­‐time dreams of a “Greater Finland”) and the occupation of large parts of today’s Karelian Republic by Finnish forces during World War II. From another point of view, however, the use and education of the Finnish language will promote tourism and international relations. That the relation to Finland is somewhat delicate could be observed when it comes to the selection of Karelian delegates to the VI World Congress of the Finno-­‐Ugric Peoples in September 2012. Karelians from Finland addressed Russian Karelians with the request to give them five places in the delegation (the quota for Karelians makes 20 places). Natalia Pellinen from the Institute of Linguistics, History and Literature (ILLH) (see section 3.1.) asserted that only five thousand original Karelians live in Finland.226 As a result, one Finnish Karelian representative participated in the Congress.227 226
“Karelians of Finland will not get to the World Finno-­‐Ugric congress in the united Karelian delegation”, http://finugor.ru/en/node/22951, accessed 21 June 2012. – Editor’s note. The number “five thousand” refers to a study conducted in Finland, according to which it has been estimated that roughly five thousand people in Finland still actively speak the Karelian language. (As Karelian has not been acknowledged as a minority language in Finland before 2010, there have been no official speaker statistics either.) Again, it must be noted that this is an issue of definition: whether “Karelians” are defined in the strictest possible sense as “speakers of the Karelian language”, or in the widest possible sense of the word, including the “Finnish” or “Western” Karelians (ethnic Finns with an additional “Karelian” regional identity), in which case their numbers in Finland could be counted in hundreds of thousands. 227
V delegatsiyu karelov na Kongresse finno-­‐ugrov voshli novye litsa iz karel i Suomi,http://finugor.ru/node/23294, accessed 21 June 2012. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 70 4 Concluding remarks 4.1 Regulation of the languages and language communities in the legal and institutional system When summarising the role of law for the protection of the Karelian and Veps languages in the Russian Federation, an ambiguous picture appears. There are several laws and programmes for the protection and development of the studied languages but it has not prevented an on-­‐going assimilation process. On the other hand, the goals of the analysed legal framework and programmes are rather modest. They are not primarily aimed at the prevention of the assimilation process, but rather to motivate and give a sense of historical and cultural identity to a not clearly defined number of persons of Karelian and Veps origin.The approach is not rights-­‐based but policy oriented, which has the consequence that the actual implementation is lagging behind.228 A large part of this ambiguity is caused by the legal framework itself and not by external circumstances. In that sense the role of law regulating the Karelian and the Veps languages is rather limited both as a structural fact due to the complex legal structure and in relation to the given modest aims which only provide for programmes but do not offer legal guarantees. In this context it is essential to differentiate between law consisting of precise commands and prohibitions based on various legislative acts and law as asystem of legal opportunities which ultimately is determined by the constitutional and legal structure.229 In the case of Karelian and Veps languages there is a wide range of legal discretion and opportunities. Since several legal acts are declarative and need implementation mechanisms, it is important that the powers given especially to the regional authorities are used by the relevant legal actors. The discretion given to the public authorities responsible for the maintenance of these languages has resulted in the rather limited legal impact on the development of the Karelian and Veps languages in the Russian Federation. According to Art. 68.2 of the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation the republics could, according to the principle of ethnic federalism, adopt their own state language(s). The languages of small indigenous nations should be protected according to Art. 69 of the Constitution. By a decision of the Russian Government in 2006 the Veps should be included among the small 228
Konstantin Zamyatin, Russia’s Minority Languages Education and European Language Charter: Language Teaching in the Finno-­‐Ugric Republics, paper at the conference Changing Linguistic Landscapes, Mariehamn 27 September 2012. 229
See, for example, Joseph Raz, The Concept of a Legal System: An Introduction to the Theory of the Legal System, Oxford University Press, 1980. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 71 indigenous nationalities.230 The Republic of Karelia has, constitutionally, the legal potential to make Karelian a state or official language, alongside with the Russian language, as has been done in other republics of the Federation. The Karelian lawmaker has not done so. This legal fact has several causes and/or reasons: fairly small number of citizens in Karelia identifying themselves as Karelians; difficulties in the creation of a unified Karelian language; perceived lack of financial resources; and a centralising and increasing Russian nationalistic tendency in the Federation. As a result of this legal structure, there is no legislative instrument prescribing mandatory use of the Karelian and Veps languages generally in the Russian Federation, or in certain regions. In individual cases, use of Karelian and Veps languages may formally be made mandatory, for example, in criminal and civil processes within the Federation or within a certain area. The Law on State Support for the Karelian, Veps and Finnish languages in the Republic of Karelia (the Law on Support) shall, as a substitute for making Karelian a state or official language, guarantee the protection and development of these languages. The Veps language is also promoted through the Federal law on the guarantees of the rights of indigenous small nationalities within the Russian Federation,231 the Law on Support, and the new Comprehensive programme of 12 December 2011, whereas the Karelian language is primarily promoted by the Law on Support, the order of 28 May 2009 from the Karelian Ministries of Nationality Policy and Contact with Religious Associations, of Education and of Culture and the Comprehensive Programme from 12 December 2011. The Russian legal system in the area of Karelian and Veps language law consists, besides the above mentioned legislative acts, of some earlier normative federal legal acts which are not formally abrogated but which could be seen as partly obsolete or, more modestly, be regarded as outdated, a non-­‐legal term. The radical 1991 Law on Languages of the Nationalities, proclaiming equality between the languages of the various nationalities in the Russian Federation, must ultimately be seen as not relevant to the present situation but as partly obsolete or rather be regarded as a goal-­‐oriented law without sanctions and without precise aims. Legal impact on the state of the studied languages primarily in Karelia is determined by the effects of the programs implementing the 2004 Law on Support. The effects of the Law on Support are difficult to assess at this stage. The programs have not prevented an on-­‐going assimilation process but they may motivate the Karelians and Veps to remember their origin, creating an ethnic cultural identity which in the long run could lead to an increased interest in the mother tongue. But it is too early to assess such 230
See Perechen korennykh narodov Severa, Sibiri i Dal’negoVostoka, utverzhdennyi razporyazheniem Pravitel’stva RF 17 aprelya 2006 g. N.536-­‐r., GARANT EXPERT 2010, http//www.graph.garant.ru8080/SESSION/PILOT/main.htm, accessed 11 December 2011. 231
Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 1999 No. 18., item 12208 (with changes and amendments). Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 72 effect. The lack of mandatory education or limited possibilities to optional education in Karelian and Veps language is an obstacle for such effect. 4.2 Attitudes towards the legal and institutional regulation of the languages and language communities There are no precise data on attitudes towards the language laws or programmes in Karelia. Nevertheless, the cultural differences between ethnic Russians, Karelians and Veps are not perceived to be fundamental. Karelian and Veps as small language communities do not pose any threat to the dominant Russian language and culture. Clashes between minorities in Karelia do not concern the relation between the indigenous population and the Russian majority. Language activists occasionally protest against the on-­‐going assimilation process but have shown restraint in the form of their protests. They work within the framework of the political system and not outside of it. Generally, these activists belong to an elderly generation; for younger persons with a Karelian and Veps connection or origin the assimilation process does not appear as threatening. 4.2.1 The position of language diversity in the legal and political system Language diversity is one of the challenges for the political system of the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation, as a multinational state with a considerably large Russian majority (82% according to the 2010 census), has to handle a wide range of minority and language situations. In large language communities such as, for example, in Tatarstan or Chechnya, the Russian language is taught alongside the minority language. However, it seems that in these areas the population speaking Russian as their first language is not obliged to learn, for example, the Tatar language in Tatarstan. This situation does not support a development of functioning language diversity as understood in the ELDIA research project. In Karelia and in certain areas in the Leningrad or Vologda regions with a small Veps or Karelian population the situation is different. The majority of the population speaks Russian. The federal authorities have given only limited support to the languages studied. International commitments play a role although Russia has so far not ratified the ECRML but it has ratified the EFCNM. There is a basic understanding among the intellectual establishment that the rich linguistic-­‐cultural heritage in the Federation deserves federal support. Russia is constitutionally a multi-­‐national state. Such support should and could also include the Karelian and Veps languages. Karelian political authorities have been given a legal opportunity to express commitment to the national and cultural heritage and to the idea of cultural autonomy in spite of the assimilation processes. In this effort the authorities can cooperate with organisations such as the Veps Cultural Society, the Karelian Congress and the Institute of Linguistics, History and Literature (ILLH) in the Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 73 Karelian Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Such cultural affirmation does not pose a threat to the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. 4.3 The overall quality of the legal system in language matters Assessing the quality of the Russian regulation for the use of the Karelian and Veps languages demands a certain grading standard. Such a standard is dependent on the goals of the relevant legislation and corresponding practices. With rather modest aims of continuing support of linguistic and cultural activities, such as radio emissions, seminars, festivals or literature, the Karelian legislation and its corresponding programmes may be regarded as positive. Also the technique that individual national municipal units may sign a contract with the relevant authorities seems acceptable. But in order to prevent or reverse a (total) assimilation process, the Karelian Law On Education should be changed and more incentives and opportunities should be given to educational programmes in the Karelian and the Veps languages in pre-­‐school facilities and in primary and secondary schools in Karelia. Presently, the Finnish language is popular among some students. In the overall context of the Russian Federation the rather modest steps taken have to be considered as offering some positive opportunities. However, the legal framework is not satisfactory in terms of its endorsement of the languages studied in the ELDIA project and of language diversity and concrete support. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 74 5 Bibliography Monographs and articles Alexandrov, Oleg B.. The role of the Republic of Karelia in Russia's foreign and security policy. ETH, Center for Security Studies and Conflict Research 2001. http://dx.doi.org/10.3929/ethz-­‐a-­‐
004154121 Birin V.N., Klementiev, E.I., Kozhanov. A.A. Karely: Modeli yazykovoi mobilisatsii, Sbornik materialov i dokumentov, Petrozavodsk: KNTsRAN, 2005, quoted as Karely. Butler, William, Russian Law, 3rd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009. Carothers, Thomas, “The End of the Transition Paradigm”, Journal of Democracy Vol. 13, No. 1, January 2002, p. 5-­‐21. De Varennes, Fernand. Language, Minorities and Human Rights. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff 1996. Dugin, Alexander, Osnovy geopolitiki: geopoliticheskoe budushchee Rossii (Foundations for geopolitics in future Russia), Ch. 5.2 (The Finnish question) Moscow, Arktogeia 1997, http://grachev62.narod.ru/dugin/chapt05.htm. Dunbar, Robert, “Minority Language Rights in International Law”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol 50 January 2001, p. 90-­‐120. Favarel-­‐Garrigues, Gilles, "Policing economic crime in Russia (from 1965 to 1995)", paper at a Seminar 16 October 2012 at UCRS. Fogelklou, Anders, “Interpretation and Accommodation in the Russian Constitutional Court”, in F J M Feldbrugge, ed., Russia, Europe and the Rule of Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden Boston 2006, p. 29–46. Fogelklou, Anders, “Reflections on Legal Nihilism and the Dual State”, Utblick och inblick : vänbok till Claes Sandgren, Tom Madell, Per Bergling, Örjan Edström & Jan Rosé, (eds), Uppsala: Iustus 2011, p. 181-­‐190. Gilligan, Emma, “The Human Rights Ombudsman in Russia: The Evolution of Horizontal Accountability,” Human Rights Quarterly, Volume 32, Number 3, August 2010, p. 575-­‐600. Hendley, Kathryn, “Varieties of Legal Dualism: Making Sense of the Role of Law in Contemporary Russia”, Forthcoming in Wisconsin International Law Journal. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 75 Hendley, Kathryn, “Who Are the Legal Nihilists in Russia?”, Forthcoming in Post-­‐Soviet Affairs. Hendley, Kathryn, ”Telephone Law” and the ”Rule of Law”: The Russian Case, Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, p. 241-­‐262, 2009. Ingram, Alan, "Alexander Dugin: Geopolitics and Neo-­‐Fascism in Post-­‐Soviet Russia", Political Geography, Vol. 20, No. 8 (2001), p. 1029-­‐1051. Karely, see Birin & al. Khabrieva, T, “Doktrinal'noe i kompetentnoe tolkovanie Konstitucii“ B: Izvestiyakh vyshyh, uchebnyckh zavedenij / Pravovedenie ; (1998) 1, p. 22–34. Klementiev, E.I., Karely. Istoriko-­‐etnograficheskii ocherk, Petrozavodsk: Periodika 2008. Klementiev, E.I., “Iz respubliki v raion: yazykovoi aspect (na materialakhOlonetsskogo rayona Respubliki Kareliya” In Ètnokul’turnye aspekty sotsial’noi strategii Rossii. Materialy Tret’ego Severnogo sotsial’no-­‐èkologicheskogo kongressa ”Sotsial’nye perspektivy i ekologicheskaya bezopasnost’”. 18–20 aprelya 2007 goda, Syktyvkar, KRAGSiU, 2008, p. 67–76, quoted as (Klementiev 2008). Klementiev, E.I., Kozhanov. A.A., Strogal’shchikova, Z.I., Vepsy: Modeli ètnicheskoi mobilizatsii, Sbornik materialov i dokumentov, Petrozavodsk: KNTsRAN, 2005, quoted as Vepsy. Klementiev, Evgenii, ”Realisatsiya prava na sochrenie rodnogo yazyka v Respublike Kareliya. Sostayanie, problemy, perspektivy”, Kazanskii Federalist 2006 Nr. 4 (20) p. 9–16, quoted as (Klementiev 2006). Klementiev, Yevgeniy, Kovaleva, Svetlana, Zamyatin, Konstantin, The Karelian language in Russia An overview of a Language in Context. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 12. Mainz &c: ELDIA, 2012. http://phaidra.univie.ac.at/o:105164 Kochan, Lionel & Keep, John L. H., The Making of Modern Russia: From Kiev Rus' to the Collapse of the Soviet Union, London: Penguin Books: 1997. Kommentarii k konstitutsii Rossiiskoi Federatsii, Karpovich, V.D., gen. ed., Moscow 2002. Konstitutsionnoe pravo sub”ektov Rossiiskoi Federatsii, Kryazhkov, V.A., gen. ed., Moscow 2002. Kommentarii k konstitutsii Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 3rd ed., Lazarev. L.V, ed. Moscow 2009. Kutafin, O.E., Rossiiskaya avtonomiya, Moscow 2007. Lenin, V.I., Collected Works, vol. 36, Moscow: Prospekt Publisher. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 76 Nahaylo, Bohdan & Swoboda, Victor, Soviet Disunion : a History of the Nationalities Problem in the USSR, London : Hamilton, 1990. Nauchnyi kommunizm, Moscow: Politizdat 1973. Pomeranz, William, The Russian Constitutional Court’s Interpretation of Federalism: Building Center-­‐Regional Relations 4 (4) Parker School Journal of East European Law (1997), 401-­‐
443. Predislovie, (Foreword) In Birin V.N., Klementiev, E.I.,Kozhanov. A.A. Karely: Modeli yazykovoi mobilizatsii, Sbornik materialov I dokumentov, Petrozavodsk: KNTsRAN, 2005, p. 9–14. Predislovie, (Foreword) In Klementiev, E.I., Kozhanov, A.A., Strogal’shchikova, Z.I., Vepsy: Modeli ètnicheskoi mobilizatsii, Sbornik materialov i dokumentov, Petrozavodsk: KNTsRAN, 2005, p. 11–30. Puura, Ulriikka & Heini Karjalainen, Nina Zajceva, Riho Grünthal: The Veps Language in Russia. ELDIA Case-­‐Specific Report. Studies in European Language Diversity 25. Mainz &c: ELDIA, 2013. http://phaidra.univie.ac.at/o:315545 Raz, Joseph,The Concept of a Legal System: An Introduction to the Theory of the Legal System, Oxford University Press, 1980. Roemer, Lemaitre, “The Rollback of Democracy in Russia after Beslan”, Review of Central and East European Law 31 (2006) p. 369–411. Ruling Russia: Law, Crime, and Justice in a Changing Society, Wiliam A. Pridemore, ed., Lanham, [Md.] : Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. Rumyantsev, O.E., gen. ed., Iz istorii sozdaniya konstitutsii Rossiiskoi Federatsii: Konstitutsionnaya kommissiya, stenogrammy, materialy, dokumenty v 6 tomakh (1990–1993). Moscow: Kluwer 2008. Sakwa, Richard, The Crisis of Russian Democracy, the Dual State, Factionalism and the Medvedev Succession, Cambridge: Cambridge U P 2011. Shuibhne, Niamh Nic, EC Law and Minority Language, Citizenship and Fundamental Rights, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002. Strachovsky, Leonid, “Constitutional Aspects of the Imperial Russian Government toward National Minorities”, the Journal of Modern History, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1941, 467–492. Strogal’shchikova, Zinaida I., Vepsy. Istoriko-­‐ètnograficheskii ocherk, Petrozavodsk: Periodika 2008. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 77 Sungurov, Aleksandr, Institut ombudsmana, Èvolyutsiya, traditsii i sovremennaya praktika, St. Petersburg, Norma, 2005. Tishkov, Valery, The Russian People and National Identity "Russia in Global Affairs". № 3, July -­‐ September 2008, http://eng.globalaffairsru/person/p_678, accessed 11 May 2011. Torbakov, Igor, “The Parting of Ways: The Russian (imperial) state and Russian nationalism in historical perspective”. Paper at a Seminar at Uppsala Centre for Russian and Eurasian Studies (UCRS), delivered on 21 February 2012. Tynyanova, Olga, “Incomplete Centralization”, Russia in Global Affairs. № 3, July -­‐ September 2008, http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/person/p.1863. Uhlin, Anders, Post-­‐Soviet Civil Society, Democratization in Russia and Baltic States, Routledge, London, 2006. Varlamova, N, “Konstitutsionnaya model’ rossiiskogo federalizma”, Konstitutsionnoe pravo: vostochnoevropeiskoe obozrenie, No. 4, 1999, p. 113–121. Van Herpen, Marcel M., Putinism, The Slow Rise of a Radical Right Regime in Russia, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Vepsy, see Klementiev & al. 2005. Weller, Marc (red.), The rights of minorities in Europe: a commentary on the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005 Vitukhnovskaya, Marina, Rossiiskaya Kareliya i kareli v imperskoi politiki Rossii 1905 – 1917, St. Petersburg 2006. Media reports Afanasieva, A.S uchеtom proshlogo, Leninskaya Pravda 22 May, In Karely: Modeli yazykovoi mobilisatsii. Sbornik materialov i dokumentov, Petrozavodsk: KNTs RAN, 2005, p. 24–26. Barber, Lionel Buckley Neil and Belton, Catherine, Laying down the law: Medvedev vows war on Russia’s ‘legal nihilism, http://www.ft.com /cms/s/0/4b93ecde-­‐f9c3-­‐11dc-­‐9b7c-­‐
000077b07658.html#axzz2T5kTNkHx,. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 78 Byzov, Leontin,”Gde iskat’ ideologiyu bol’shinstva?”, Literaturnaya Gazeta, No. 16 (6366) (2012-­‐
04-­‐18). Dzutsev, Valery, Kremlin’s Nationalities Policy Likely Driven by Fear of Uncontrolled Russian Nationalism. Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 9 Issue: 110 June 11, 2012, http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=39471&tx_
ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=7&cHash=4470546081eb08f0d52a3a50dd1db515 Grigoriev, Anatolii, ”Ob ofitsial’nykh yazykakh Respubliki Kareliya”, Karjalan Sanomat, 19 October 1996 in Karely, p. 147-­‐148. Kakoi yazyk shchitat‘ svoim? Mercator News May 2005, http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/index-­‐
gb.htm,. “Linguist: Vepsskii yazyk i kul’tura “po-­‐petrozavodskii” udobno vlasti no vedut k ischeznoveniyu yazyka“ (Linguist: Veps language and culture “in the Petrozavodsk way” is useful for the power structure but leads to the disappearance of the language), finugor.ru/node/22484. Mallinen, Jukka, Alla är de mina ryssar, Hufvudstadsbladet, Helsinki 5 October 2012 Obrashchenie Obshchestva Vepsskoi kultury v Verkhovnyi Sovet Respubliki Kareliya, Sovet Ministrov Respubliki Kareliya ob uchrezhdenii gazety “Kodima”. (Address of the Society to the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of the Karelia, the Council of Ministers of Karelia on the foundation of the journal Kodima) in Vepsy, p. 279. Realizovat’ printsip ravnopraviya, Interview on 1 March 1997 with the then Chairman of the Government of the Republic of Karelia, V.N. Stepanov, 1 March 1997. In Karely: Modeli yazykovoi mobilizatsii. Sbornik materialov i dokumentov, Petrozavodsk: KNTsRAN, 2005, p. 183–184. Russia returns to direct election of governors, May 2, 2012, Russia Beyond the Headlines, http://rbth.ru/articles/2012/05/02/russia_has_the_direct_gubernatorial_elections_return
ed_15558.html Sheehy, Ann Karelian Parliamentary Chairman objects to misinformation, RFL/ No. 50, 12 March, 1992, http://www.friendspartners.org/friends/news/omri/1992/03/920312.html(opt,mozilla,un
ix,english, new. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 79 Sud otkazal lidery “Karelskogo kongressa” v udovletvorenie iska o zashchite chesti i dostoinstva. http://www.stolica.onego.ru/news/178494.html V delegatsiyu karelov na Kongresse finno-­‐ugrov voshli novye litsa iz karel i Suomi, http://finugor.ru/node/23294, . Reports, investigations, and government propositions Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. Doc. 10548, 12 May 2005 The situation of the Mari minority in the Russian Federation. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT P6_CRE-­‐PROV(2005)05-­‐12 FULL Compte rendu session Strasbourg 12 mai 2005 16.2 -­‐ Violations of human rights and democracy in the Republic of Mari El in the Russian Federation. Vserossiiskaya perepis’ naseleniya 2002 goda. www.perepis2002.ru/index.html?id=11. State reports Russian Federation FCPNM 2000, 2005, 2010. Tishkov, V.A., Stepanov, V.V., Funkt, D.A., Artemenko, O.I.. Status and Support for Linguistic Diversity in the Russian Federation, Expert report 2009 from the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, Centre for National Issues related to Education, Federal Institute for the Development of Education, quoted as (Tishkov et al). Final result of the 2010census of the population of the Russian Federation (in Russian). www.perepis-­‐2010.ru/.../results-­‐inform.p... ACFC/OP/II(2006)004 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES. Second Opinion on the Russian Federation, adopted on 11 May 2006. Resolution CM/ResCMN(2007)7 on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by the Russian Federation. Vägval i en globaliserad värld (Choice in a Globalised World): Ds 2013: 33 Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 80 Laws and ordinances Russian Federation (RF) Constitution of the Russian Federation from 12 December 1993. Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation from18 December 2001 г. No. 174-­‐FЗ. FederalLaw “Оn the State Language of the Russian Federation”, Sobranie zakonodatel’tsvaRF, 2005No23., item 2199. Federal Law from 6 October 2003 “On the General Principles of the Organization of the Local Authorities in the Russian Federation” Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF 2003, No. 40, item 3822. Federal Law of July 11, 2001 No. 95-­‐FZ "On political parties", (as amended and supplemented). Federal Law of July 20, 2000 No. 104-­‐FZ “On general principles of the organisation of communities of small indigenous minorities of the North, Siberia and far east of the Russian Federation" (as amended and supplemented). Federal Law from 1 August 5, 2000 No. 113-­‐FZ "On the order of Formation of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation" (as amended and supplemented). Federal Law of October 6, 1999 No. 184-­‐FZ “On general principles of the organization of Legislative (representative) and Executive bodies of State power of Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation" (as amended and supplemented). Federal Law “On the guarantees of the rights of indigenous small nationalities within the Russian Federation” from 30 April 1999. F, 1999 No. 18, item 12208 (with changes and amendments. Federal Law from 17 June 1996 No. 74-­‐FZ “On National -­‐ Cultural Autonomy”, Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 1996 No. 25, item 2965 (with changes and amendments). Federal law of July 15, 1995 N 101-­‐FZ "On International Treaties of the Russian Federation" (as amended and supplemented). Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 81 Federal Law“On the Languages of the Nationalities of the Russian Federation”, Vedomosti S”ezd narodnykh deputatov RFSFS i Verkhovnogo Soveta RSFSR 1991 No. 50, item 1740; Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 1998 No. 31, item 3804 Law of the Russian Federation from July 10, 1992 No. 3266-­‐1 "On Education". Law “Foundations for the Legislation on Culture in the Russian Federation” from 9 October 1992, Vedomosti RF 1992 No. 46, item 2615. Decree from the Russian Government on 4 February 2009 No. 132-­‐g. “Concept of sustainable development of indigenous small nationalities of the North, Siberia and Far East. Decree from Government of RF on 17 April 2006. No.536-­‐g. “Enumeration of indigenous small nationalities of the North, Siberia and Far East, GARANT EXPERT 2010,. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation “On the confirmation of the Concept ofofficial ethnic (natsional’noi) policy of the Russian Federation”, Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 1996, No. 25, item 3010. Republic of Karelia (RK) Constitution of the Republic of Karelia, Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RK, 2001 No. 2, item 106. “Maintenance of the unity of nationalities and ethnic groups in Karelia for the years 2012-­‐2016 “Karyala-­‐our home””. Decision of the Government of Karelia 12 December 2011 No. 349-­‐P. Edict from 28 May 2009 No. 443/100/208 from the Karelian Ministries of Education, Nationality Politics, Relations with Public and Religious Associations and Mass Media, and Culture and relations with the General Public “On the confirmation of the Plan and the Enumeration of Complex Measures for “Development of the Karelian Language in the Republic of Karelia for the years 2009-­‐ 2020”. Law “On Education” from 29.04.2005 № 874-­‐ЗРК. Sobranie zakonodatel’stva Respubliki Karelia, 2005 No. 4 Law “On the State Support of the Karelian, Veps and Finnish languages in the Republic of Karelia” from 19 March 2004 2004 g. N 759-­‐ZRК. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 82 Law “On town and village municipal units in the Republic of Karelia”, No. 813-­‐ZRК 2004. Organisations and websites http://www.garant.ru/doc/law/ http://www.barentsindigenous.org/the-­‐veps-­‐culture-­‐society.116564.en.htm http://www.gov.karelia.ru/News/ http://www.minregion.ru/ministerstvo/ http://www.nuorikarjala.onego.ru http://xn7sbabalklxabe0bhqjo3asu4eq1f2g.xnp1ai/veps_prio/Information%20Society%20Veppsian
/ http://finugor.ru/en/node/22951, http://gov.karelia.ru/Legislation/lawbase.html?lid=2372 Parliamentary protocols Stenogramma 152 zasedaniya Soveta Federatsii 25 http://www.council.gov.ru/lawmaking/sf/report170/ind, 2012. maya 2005. Stenogramma zasedaniya 20 maya 2005 г., N 100(814) http://transcript.duma.gov.ru/node/1080/ Stenogramma 103 zasedaniya Soveta Federatsii 12 http://www.council.gov.ru/lawmaking/sf/report103/ind, fevralya 2003 g. Stenogramma zasedaniya 05 fevralya 2003 g. N(217 5). http://transcript.duma.gov.ru/node/1549/ Stenogramma zasedaniya 15 noyabrya http://transcript.duma.gov.ru/node/1600/. 2002 Stenogramma 98 zasedaniya Soveta Federatsii 27 http://www.council.gov.ru/lawmaking/sf/report156/ind g. N noyabrya 201(649) 2002 g. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 83 Stenogramma zasedaniya Palaty Zakonodatel’nogo Sobraniya Respubliki Kareliya O proekte Zakona “O yazykakh v Respubliki Kareliya” ot 29 janvarya 1998 g., In Karely…, p. 256-­‐276. Stenogrammy 16 10 1992. Iz istorii sozdaniya konstitutsii Rossiiskoi Federatsii Konstitutsionnaya kommissiya, stenogrammy, materialy, dokumenty v 6 tomakh (1990–1993). Tom 3/2 1992 p. 233. Jurisprudence The Federal Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation Ruling (Postanovlenie) of 21 December 2005 On the Case of verification of the constitutionality ofsome provisions of the Federal Law of 6 October 1999 No. 184 -­‐ FZ “On general principles of organisation of legislative (representative) and executive organs of public power in the subjects of the Russian Federation” Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF 2006, No. 3, item 336. Ruling (Postanovlenie) from 1 February 2005 on the verification of the constitutionality of part 2 of Article 3 and Part 6 of Article 47 of the Federal Law “On Political Parties”, Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF 2005, No. 6, item 491. Ruling (Postanovlenie) on 3 March 2004 concerning the verification of the constitutionality of Art. 5 Part 3 of the Federal Law ”On National-­‐Cultural Autonomy” in connection with the complaint from two citizens, Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF 2004, No. 11, item 1033. Ruling (Postanovlenie) on 16 November 2004 “On the verification of the constitutionality of the Tatarstan Law “On the languages of the nationalities of Tatarstan” and other Tatar and Federal legislative acts”, Sobranie zakonadatel’stva RF 2004, No. 47, item 4691. Ruling (Postanovlenie) from 15 December 2004 on the verification of the Constitutionality of part 3 of Article 9 of the Federal Law “On Political Parties”, Sobranie zakonadatel’stva RF 2004, No. 51, item 5260. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Ruling (Postanovlenie) from 31 October 1995“On some questions of the application of the Constitution of the Russian Federation by the courts exercising justice, Ruling No. 8 of the Russian Supreme Court, Byulletèn VS RF 1996, No. 1. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 84 Decisions of administrative and supervisory organs Reshenie Konsultativnogo soveta po voprosam vzaimodeistviya s natsional’nymi obshchestvennymi ob”edineniyami v tom chisle natsional’no-­‐kul’turnymi avtonomiyami ot 16 marta 2012 goda. Plan raboty Soveta predstavitelei karelov, vepsov i finnov v Respubliki Kareliya, http://www.gov.karelia.ru/Power/Committee/National/sov_plan12.html Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21 Legal and Institutional Fram ew ork Analysis:Karelian, V eps and Seto in Russia 85 Abbreviations ASSR Autonomous Socialist Soviet Repuclic. ECRM European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages FCPNM Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities RSFSR Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic RF Russian Federation UCRS Uppsala Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies Working Papers in European Language Diversity 21