Читать книгу Ethnic Conflicts in the Baltic States in Post-soviet Period - Сборник статей - Страница 6

National identity can be explained as a set of internalized political and cultural norms and types of behavior that are transformed through political socialization from one generation to another within the appointed ethnic group. Structurally national identity consists of two communities: political identity and ethnic and cultural identity.

We represent the first general data measuring the political identity of the residents of Latvia. Political identity is generally regarded as the official membership in a political community (or state-territorial entities). According to the selected methodology, political identity is revealed in the process of inclusion in the political community and the internalization of state forming national symbols. In the process of identification with national symbols is formed a collective identity and a sense of continuity. National symbols, hardly affected by the correction time and historical modifications have big ethno mobilizing role in the integration process of nation building.

Each of the areas of political identification has a specific set of variables, which were selected after a preliminary examination and reflect the empirical values. Moreover, the research attention was focused more on the personal identification using a set of formalized relations with the political community and political symbolism. Based on previous studies of ethno-political processes in Latvia at the Institute of European Studies, as a “working” variables identification with the political community of the respondents were offered: general attachment to Latvia, Latvian independence, support, satisfaction with democracy in Latvia and in relation to the institution of citizenship. Alternative identities refer towards Russia and the European Union in related fields.

In turn, the forming of personal identity by relating to the ethno-political symbols and values makes it possible to present more clearly the boundaries and content of ethnic cohesion and integrity. To such ethno-cultural and political symbolic markers forming the collective image of the ethnic majority and ethnic minority community, are: national state symbols – national state symbols – the flag and anthem, national holidays – Independence Day (November 18), Day of Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia (May 4), Ligo (June 23), the national monuments – the Freedom Monument in Riga, Monument to the Liberator Soldier in Riga, Latgale’s Mara in Rezekne, national graveyards – Fraternal, Pokrov and Garrison. As an alternative ethno – cultural and political symbols, which reflect the social spectrum of ethnic and cultural identities, into a research instruments were included Russian political symbolism, ethnic and cultural form – the Kremlin in Moscow on Victory Day (May 9), Labor Day (May 1).

In addition to indicators of ethno-cultural and political importance of research model of political identification includes indicators of personal satisfaction and motivation to stay in Latvia: the desire to be born and live in Latvia. Similar indicators were addressed to the territorial mobility in relation to Russia.

The consistency of positive images and identifications of members of the titular nationality and ethnic minorities in selected variables, hypothetical forms an ideal model of a successful and integrated political identity in Latvia.

An overview of the political identity of the inhabitants of Latvia is presented in Table 1. The data show that more than 80 % of the population identify themselves with Latvia, which, in fact, a strong argument in favor of political integration between the ethnic majority and the ethnic minorities. However, the factors of citizenship status and ethnicity sensitivity adjust overall picture of the formal correlation with national identity. Russian and other ethnic minorities significantly lower than Latvians to identify with formal membership with the Latvian state. Moreover, the ethnic Russian almost equally self-identify as with Latvia, as well as with Russia, which, however, is not a contradiction, but only fixes the situation “imposed” identities, both because of the historical co-existence and mobility in an era of rapidly rendering national and state boundaries. The problem rather lies in how the identity of the ethnic majority, subordinated ethnic minorities, generates, or, conversely, negates the ethnic conflict in the framework of the national total.

The factors that are fundamentally different ethnic majority and ethnic minorities, is an expression of support for the independence of Latvia and the satisfaction of democracy in Latvia. As the data in the table 1, only 13.9 % of Latvian Russians support of Latvia’s independence, believing that “For me, the independence of Latvia has always been one of the most important things.” 18.6 % of respondents are satisfied with Russian democracy in Latvia. Slightly higher rates of support of independence and satisfaction with democracy in Latvia the rest ethnic minorities.

Table 1. Political identity in Latvia by nationalities (%)*

Question: People also feel attached to their country…

Question: To what extent do you support…?

Questions: To what extent you like or do not like…

Question: Where do you wish to born/to live?

* This table contains only positive responses (“very attached” and “more attached”, “totally agree” and agree “).

Among ethnic minorities is extremely low territorial identity with Latvia. The proportion of those expressed a desire to be born and live in Latvia is in the range of 30 %, the “territorial linkage” which is the age and family level. Among the representatives of the Latvian nationality, personal satisfaction and motivation to stay in Latvia does not exceed 70 %, and the migration motivation to live in the countries of Western Europe, the USA and Canada exceed similar interest among members of ethnic minorities.

The data of personal identification with national symbols performs an important role in the successful political integration and national homogenization. In fact, it is the personification of the national symbols of social groups creates a “nation-state”, having signs of stability and sustainability. As can be seen from Table 1, there are striking differences in the level of identity with the national symbols among the respondents. On these discrepancies in the distribution of identification besides ethnicity play a civilian, age and educational factors.

If the response to a question about his personal attachment to the characters such as the national anthem, the flag of Latvia and the Latvian Freedom Monument among Latvians a third higher than the same position among the minorities, in respect of other identifying factors forming the picture is even more dramatic.

Data is our research allows speaking that the most important national symbols, such as national monuments, holidays and cemeteries are grouped and acting as a form of ethnic reproduction a strictly separated groups of the ethnic majority and the ethnic minorities. Orientation Latvian Russian and other ethnic minorities on Russian and Soviet national symbols, strengthens their multi-layered political identity and security strategy from the institutional hegemony of the ethnic majority. The principal differences between the titular nation and ethnic minorities in the political process of symbolic identification fix “negative identity” as a result of the integration of pseudo ethnic politics. The separation, unresolved ethnic conflicts, and acquired the status of peripheral social formations of ethnic minorities – such are the results of ethnic politics and political socialization of the population of Latvia.

In the study, our hypothesis about the political model of Latvia confirmed the existence of a bi-communal divided society: Latvians are focused on the restoration and support of the nation-state and ethnic minorities (mainly Russians) are more focused on achieving political equality and democratic representation.