Linguistic Divisions and the Language Charter: the Case of Moldova
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Linguistic Divisions and the Language Charter - The Case of Moldova Federica Prina ECMI WORKING PAPER #64 March 2013 ECMI- Working Paper The European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI) is a non-partisan institution founded in 1996 by the Governments of the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the German State of Schleswig-Holstein. ECMI was established in Flensburg, at the heart of the Danish-German border region, in order to draw from the encouraging example of peaceful coexistence between minorities and majorities achieved here. ECMI‟s aim is to promote interdisciplinary research on issues related to minorities and majorities in a European perspective and to contribute to the improvement of interethnic relations in those parts of Western and Eastern Europe where ethnopolitical tension and conflict prevail. ECMI Working Papers are written either by the staff of ECMI or by outside authors commissioned by the Centre. As ECMI does not propagate opinions of its own, the views expressed in any of its publications are the sole responsibility of the author concerned. ECMI Working Paper European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI) Director: Dr. Tove H. Malloy © ECMI 2013 2 | P a g e ECMI- Working Paper Linguistic Divisions and the Language Charter - The Case of Moldova Moldova is deeply divided along language lines. The principal polarization is found in the gulf between the speakers of Russian and of the state language, Romanian/Moldovan. To the first category belong not only Russians, but also national minorities such as Ukrainians, Gagauzians and Bulgarians, who tend to employ Russian more than the state language. The two main linguistic groups inhabit two largely separate societal spheres, with different media and educational institutions. Meanwhile, Moldova’s ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (hereinafter the Language Charter)1 is still pending. While Moldova swiftly signed and ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM),2 it limited itself to signing the Language Charter in 2002 - and still had to ratify ten years later. This working paper analyzes the reasons behind Moldova’s linguistic divide, which seemingly translates into a resistance to the ratification of the Language Charter.3 Federica Prina, March 2013 ECMI Working Paper # 64 I. MOLDOVA: A DIVIDED SOCIETY (22% of the population) overwhelmingly use According to the 2004 census, the last for which Russian as main language of communication. data is available, in Moldova (minus The remainder uses Ukrainian, Gagauz and Transnistria) 75.81% of the population self- Bulgarian, although they are likely to use identified as Moldovan, 8.35% as Ukrainian, Russian as language of inter-ethnic 5.95% as Russian, 4.36% as Gagauz, 2.17 % as communication, as will be seen below. This Romanian, 1.94% as Bulgarian, and 1.32% as creates two largely separate linguistic spheres. representatives of other ethnic groups.4 The Behind the linguistic divide are two principal Moldovan government reported in 2009 that factors: first, an uncertain Moldovan national 75.2% of the population uses as main language identity,6 which inter alia causes the state Romanian/Moldovan, 16% Russian, 3.8% language to lack the prestige and full acceptance Ukrainian, 3.1% Gazauz and 1.1% Bulgarian.5 as the sole official language of Moldova; and the These figures tell us that those who use the state fact that Russian, the dominant language during language as main language of communication the Soviet period, enjoys a residual prestige, (75.2% of the population) largely coincide with which however does not mean that its speakers the percentage of the population that self- do not feel menaced by their language‟s loss of identify as either Moldovan or Romanian its official status in 1989. (77.97%). It also follows that national minorities 3 | P a g e ECMI- Working Paper The dilemma of Moldovan identity is Moldovans rejected „the key feature that had best exemplified by a lack of consensus even as long distinguished them from Romanians‟.19 to the name of the state language – referred to either as „Romanian‟ or „Moldovan‟. This Ethnic mobilization was accompanied largely reflects Moldova‟s position between by calls for reunification with Romania, which Romania and Russia, which have both laid led to fears among the Russian-speakers east of claims on the territory of Moldova.7 Thus, the river Dniestr/Nistru (Transnistria). Following Moldova has been subjected to waves of fighting in 1991-92, in which the Transnistrians Russification/Sovietization and Romanization.8 were supported by Russian forces, Transnistria Among the Soviet measures adopted in the declared independence. In addition to polarizing 20 Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic (MSSR, the population, the declaration of independence 1940-1990) was the forging of a Moldovan created a de facto separate state, which identity as separate from the Romanian one.9 negotiations have been unable to resolve, The Soviet official discourse treated „Moldovan‟ resulting in a conflict that remains „frozen‟. as a separate language from Romanian.10 While in Moldova (minus Transnistria) the state Although the issue of a possible separate language, as recognised in the Constitution, is Moldovan language is still contested,11 it has Moldovan, east of the river the Russian language 21 been argued that „Moldovan‟ is merely a form of predominates. diglossia, and that the Moldovan language is virtually indistinguishable from Romanian.12 The This historical background has led to only discernible difference during the Soviet two main outcomes: the politicization of period was the alphabet – Cyrillic in the case of language; and the crystallization of two „Moldovan‟, Latin for Romanian.13 Thus, effectively exclusive forms of language-based Moldova does not have a unique linguistic identities. identity that can differentiate it from other (nation-) states. II. LANGUAGE POLITICS The events since 1989, and the Language issues have been taken up by subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union,14 have Moldovan politicians. Strong ethnic intensified the split, and even led to a part the mobilization in the late 80s and early 90s saw country, Transnistria, breaking away from moves towards the Romanization of Moldova, Moldova. The liberalization of glasnost and championed by the Popular Front. With changes perestroika enabled the formation of the of government, linguistic priorities have shifted Democratic Movement of Moldova in the 1980s, but continued to be in the background of which developed into the nationalist Popular political battles. Four phases can be Front of Moldova (hereinafter Popular Front) in distinguished: 1) ethnic mobilization, with a 1989. Ethnic mobilization, including mass reaction to Sovietization and the Russian demonstrations organized by the Popular Front, language, and with the ultimate objective of led to the adoption by the Moldovan Supreme reunification with Romania (1989-1994); 2) a Soviet of new legislation, which proclaimed more moderate pro-Romanian line and the „Moldovan‟,15 written in the Latin script,16 the setting aside of plans of reunification, following state language: the Law on the Status of the the 1994 elections, when the Popular Front State Language17 and the Law on the became a minority;22 3) the Communist Functioning of the Languages Spoken in the government (2001-2009), and the stabilization Territory of the Republic of Moldova of the volatile party scene in the decade (hereinafter the „Language Law‟18). It was a sign following the Soviet Union‟s collapse23; 4) the of emancipation from the Russian language: by post-Communist phase (2009 to present), rejecting the Cyrillic alphabet, King contends, characterized by political instability and a deadlock in the appointment of a president 4 | P a g e ECMI- Working Paper (between September 2009 and March 2012). presidential elections.31 On 31 August 2012, on Ethnic minority parties have been unable to national Language Day, Dorin Chirtoacă, mayor enter parliament24 - thus, minority interests have or Chisinau and Liberal Party MP (in the ruling been primarily represented by the mainstream coalition), stated that it was only „a matter of parties. Given the (linguistic) Russification of time‟ before „Romanian‟ would be used in the the main minority groups, ethnic entrepreneurs Constitution.32 Yet, in September 2012 Marian could capitalize on the political objective of the Lupu33 surprised the rest of the ruling Alliance introduction of Russian as a second state for European Integration when he stated that he language;25 this appealed not only to ethnic had „changed his mind‟ and that Moldovans Russians but other minorities as well, given their spoke „Moldovan‟, not „Romanian‟, as he had frequent lack of fluency in Romanian/Moldovan. asserted in the past.34 Perhaps surprisingly, the Thus, the mainstream parties appropriated the results of a 2012 public opinion poll by the ethnic entrepreneurs‟ political slogans, while at Institute for Public Policy reveal that 65% of the the same time these parties offered a springboard respondents believe that the name of the state for representatives to minorities to rise to language should be „Moldovan‟, and only 22.7% prominence.26 Romanian.35 Under the Communist Party leadership III. SOVIET LEGACIES (2001-2009) there were attempts by former Part of the explanation for the linguistic divide Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin and in contemporary Moldovan society can be traced Communist MPs to legislate so as to make back to Soviet policies, and particularly the Russian an official language alongside institutionalization of ethnicity. The concept of Moldovan, as well as to reintroduce Russian as a 27 „nationality‟ occupied a special place in Soviet compulsory subject in all schools. The societal (and territorial) arrangements. It opposition strongly resisted these attempts. originated from an acute need for diversity Following the change of government in 2009 management, given the multitude of ethnic and there has been a greater emphasis on the linguistic groups, with varying forms of loyalties promotion of the state language, referred to and belongings, present in the Soviet Union.