Читать книгу Ethnic Conflicts in the Baltic States in Post-soviet Period - Сборник статей - Страница 20

Many events in the history of Latvia have controversial interpretations in two main communities. The main events causing heated discussions are mainly related to 1940: voluntary or forced integration of Latvia into the USSR, deportations of people to Siberia, role of SS legionnaires and national guerrillas after the end of the World War II and the effect of the entire 50-year period of Latvia being a part of the USSR on the country and the lives of its people in general. The perception of Russia and its influence on the interpretation of the Latvian history is also equivocal.

Historical memory is a very important force uniting any society. It creates belonging to a certain group, for which that historical memory is common. At the same time, different interpretation of historic events helps distinguish one group form others. Therefore, the parties willing to win support of a particular group of voters are interested in emphasising those issues to get necessary votes in the elections. Unlike the parties looking at the entire spectrum of voters, for which such emphasis, on the contrary, would not be beneficial. That is why different interpretation of the history and brining historical matters to attention can be an important factor for the formation of a certain voting behaviour.

The analysis of the results of the survey conducted by the SKDS Market and Public Opinion Research Centre allows noticing that the opinions of the Latvian-speaking and the Russian-speaking people in Latvia are rather different in those matters. For example, there are substantial differences in the evaluation of the statement that “Majority of people in Latvia supported the integration of Latvia into the USSR in 1940” between the said population groups. The respondents with predominantly Latvian language of communication in their families mainly disagree with that statement with the “completely disagree” and “partially disagree” responses adding up to 51 %, while the respondents communication in Russian in their families have the opposite opinion. Most of the latter either fully agree or partially agree with that statement with the sum of two responses of 41 % (see Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Attitude to the integration of Latvia into the USSR.[19]

The data show that in Latvia there are significant differences in their attitude to the integration of Latvia into the USSR between the Latvian-speaking and the Russian-speaking communities. Majority of the people who speak Latvian in their families believe that most of the population of Latvia in 1940 did not support the integration of Latvia into the USSR, while the people who speak Russian at home have the opposite view. However, it should be noted that quite a lot of respondents in both groups were unable to answer the question, which indicated lack of any clear interpretation of the event in both studied groups.

At the same time, looking at the attitude to the repressions during the years of the Soviet power, another opinion becomes apparent. Evaluating the statement “Part of those who were repressed during the Soviet years, in fact deserved it”, all people, both Latvian – and Russian-speaking, had almost unanimous opinion and did not agree with the statement: 78 % of those speaking Latvian in their families completely or partially disagree; the number was slightly less among the Russian-speakers at 63 %, but still a majority (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Attitude to the repressions in the USSR.

The data show that there are no substantial differences in this matter between the studied groups of the society. Both Latvian-speaking and Russian-speaking people had a negative attitude to the past repressions, as people had suffered equally irrespective of their ethnical background. At the same time, the share of those who either agree with that statement or undecided is larger among the Russian-speaking group. These data can be an indication that discussions about the repressions a less common among the Russian-speakers than in the Latvian-speaking society where yearly remembrance events take place with the participation of the most prominent country officials.

Looking at the perception of the entire period of Latvia being a part of the USSR and its effect on the life of the country as a whole, there are apparent differences in the opinions between the two groups. Looking at the attitude to the statement “In fact, being a part of the USSR was good for Latvia”, it is apparent that the share of all respondents who fully or partially agree with this statement is 54 %. Analysing that fact, we can state that the majority of people in Latvia positively value Latvia’s being part of the USSR. However, among the Latvian-speaking people the responses to that statement are almost equally split: the share of those who agree is 43 % and those who disagree is 41 %, while among the Russian-speaking respondents the share of those who agree constitutes an absolute majority with 71 % (see Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Life of Latvia as a part of the Soviet Union.

Analysing these data allows seeing that the Russian-speakers are the ones with a more positive view of Latvia being a part of the USSR believing that it was good for Latvia, than the Latvian-speaking public. This indicates a possible Soviet-times nostalgia among some of the Russian-speaking people and that, possibly, live has been better for them in the USSR times than now. Analysing the responses of the people who mainly use Latvian at home, most likely their agreement with the statement is explained by their disappointment in the current course of the country, its politics and economics. However, this does not mean that a great part of the Latvian-speaking public desire the resurrection of the Soviet order. Yes, they were disappointed in the political course taken and probable they were better off in the times of Soviet Latvia, when they had a sense of stability, protection and social guarantees, but their responses to the next statement demonstrated that they would not want to go back there.

The next statement for the respondents’ evaluation was about their personal attitude to the collapse of the Soviet Union: “I positively value the fact of collapse of the USSR”, where the responses demonstrated a clear difference between the opinions of the Latvian-speaking and Russian-speaking people with the former seeing it mainly positively (the sum of “fully agree” and “partially agree” is 59 %) and the latter, in contrast, having a more negative view (49 %), see Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. Perception of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The analysis of the data shows that the Russian-speaking people in Latvia are the ones who have more regrets about the collapse of the Soviet Union than the Latvian-speaking public. This may have several explanations. On the one hand, there are more people among the Russian-speakers who have been better off in the Soviet times, so they wish those times returned. Another explanation of this phenomenon may be constant criticism of that regime with the emphasis on its negative sides by the ruling elite and in the Latvian media. At the same time, in Russian-language media in Latvia and mass media in Russia, such criticism is far less frequent and both positive and negative sides are shown. This can also explain a large share of the Russian-speaking people who agree with the statement or cannot give an answer.

Analysing the influence of the mass media, we have asked the respondents to give their view of the interpretation of history of Latvia in mass media in Russia: “There are a lot of lies being told about history of Latvia in mass media in Russia”, where we can also see different responses in the two studied groups (see Fig. 6).

Fig. 6. Influence of mass media in Russia on history of Latvia.

65 % of the Latvian-speaking respondents believe that history of Latvia is being misrepresented in mass media in Russia. This can be explained by the general attitude to that country formed as a result of the relevance of the said historical issues. The Russian-speaking respondents demonstrate the opposite trend, which shows a different interpretation of certain historic events and other historical memory in that group.

The survey data have clearly shown the opposite views of the two studied groups on almost all key historical matters. Different values may significantly affect voting behaviour in the studied groups, so the author thinks that it is necessary to have a look at it in more detail in the next chapter.