Читать книгу Ethnic Conflicts in the Baltic States in Post-soviet Period - Сборник статей - Страница 9

The peculiarity of ethnic politics in a multiethnic Latvia since independence is a constant search for effective ways and means of incorporation of ethnic group’s titular nation. Formally proclaimed ideology of equality and social integration by Latvian ruling elite (the largest interest in which is detected sporadically in times of national and regional elections) completely discredited through assimilation processes by 2013. The failure of integration policies and the dominance of the processes of assimilation, as well as the rise of ethnic hierarchy in Latvia as a whole shared as power circles, quite heterogeneous expert community and the mass consciousness.

Ethno-political inequality and subordination in the distribution of power, privilege and resources resulted in modern ethnic stratification. Note that the borders and internal structure of ethno stratification in Latvia so far not completely finished and significantly concede the passed democratic transition by the end of the 90s. Ethno-stratification based on an ethnic hierarchy and inequality of different ethnic and social groups, and includes a variety of ways their reproduction (usually conservative) and legitimating. Ethnic stratification is given all the variety of ethnic and cultural spheres of national development and continuity, first of all denominated in a national culture, language and traditions. Obviously, the recognition and evaluation of the existing unequal forms of ethno-political relations presented in the government, the areas of employment, wealth, education, culture, etc. are the main causes of ethnic conflicts in Latvia.

In turn, evaluative aspect of ethnic stratification, as well as a demonstration of various forms of relationship to it by the ethnic and social groups is the subject of current research of ethno-sociology and other related humanities. However, despite the impressive amount of research carried out and accumulated knowledge in the field of ethnic politics in the Baltic region by local researchers (Apine I., Muiznieks N. Volkov V., Zepa, B., Gaponenko A. and et al.) and foreign experts, the actual theme of ethnic stratification is presented insufficiently. From here, picture of explanations of ethnic conflict and their types in Latvia often results in sociolinguistic and broad cultural consciousness and behavior and behavior of interacting ethnic groups.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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