By SVITLANA KONONCHUK,
Head, Political Programs, Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research Introduction
Today, the nature and directions of Ukraine’s public policy are heatedly debated. Topicality of these issues is determined by the following factors.
First, the 2004 presidential campaign demonstrated that despite the absence of interethnic confrontation, it was too early for Ukraine to rest on its laurels. A number of unsolved problems in this field determined relative effectiveness of political technologies used by one of the presidential candidates and his team-mates, who attempted to provoke artificial confrontation between western and south-eastern Ukrainian regions.
Ukraine managed to avoid the worst scenario due to the absence of acute interethnic conflicts.
Though, existing problems and social sentiments made many people followers of disseminated political myths and provocative calls.
Ukrainian researcher Volodymyr Yevtukh fairly points out the absence of public policy of discrimination based on ethnic grounds1. Meanwhile, he notes that there are manifestations of discrimination towards some ethnic groups in different areas ranging from legislation to personal rights and freedoms2, which is caused by the unsatisfactory level of Ukraine’s socio-economic development, insufficient protection of socio-humanitarian interests of some ethnic groups, inadequacy of the Ukrainian ethnic law, absence of effective mechanisms for the exercise of the fundamental rights of national minorities appropriate to their growing ethnic consciousness, inadequate perception of a multi-ethnic nature of the Ukrainian society by its members, lack of tolerance and biased attitude to other ethnic identities3.
One cannot but agree that a policy of purposeful discrimination towards ethnic groups is absent in Ukraine at the national level. Meanwhile, in view of the above factors, it would be expedient to discuss not only manifestations of discrimination but also certain discriminatory trends present in public policy. So, the question arises: who is being discriminated and by whom? The state, which does not properly safeguard minority rights, can be regarded as a discriminator. The matter in question is the absence of effective mechanisms for the exercise of the rights of ethnic groups and minorities in the socio-humanitarian area.
As for the legal field, the content of constitutional guarantees complies with democratic standards but, unfortunately, they often run counter to socio-political realities. For example, in Article 5 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the term “people” is used in political sense and means “the bearers of sovereignty and the only source of power in the country.” In Articles 10 and 11 differentiating
1 Yevtukh V., Experience of Solving Ethnic Problems: Conceptual Principles and Practical Measures // Topical Issues and Fields of Ukrainian Ethnic Policy: Ways of Modernization and Application of International Experience. К.:UCIPR, 2004, P. 32.
2 Yevtukh V., Experience of Solving Ethnic Problems: Conceptual Principles and Practical Measures // Topical Issues and Fields of Ukrainian Ethnic Policy: Ways of Modernization and Application of International Experience. К.:UCIPR, 2004, P. 34.
3 Yevtukh V., Experience of Solving Ethnic Problems: Conceptual Principles and Practical Measures // Topical Issues and Fields of Ukrainian Ethnic Policy: Ways of Modernization and Application of International Experience. К.:UCIPR, 2004, P. 34.
between the “Ukrainian nation”, “indigenous peoples” and “national minorities”, all three terms are used in ethnic sense. Articles 10, 11 and 24 of the Basic Law and the June 25, 1992 law “On National Minorities” guarantee equal civil rights and the right of all Ukrainian citizens to free development. The Ukrainian ethnic or core nation is de facto believed the major subject of state-building, whereas, according to Volodymyr Yevtukh, the official definition for the “core nation” is absent in the Ukrainian legislation4.
The situation is complicated by the fact that according to data of the 2001 National Census, Ukrainian is mother tongue for 67.5% of the Ukrainian citizens, including 85% of ethnic Ukrainians, 4% of Russians and 11% of members of other national minorities. 29.6% of the population, inclusive of 15% of Ukrainians, 96% of Russians and 31% of members of other national minorities, believe Russian their native language. Hence, with regard to importance of language for ethno-cultural self-identification, ethnic consciousness of the considerable share of the Ukrainian population is open to question.
Problems in the field of Ukraine’s ethnic policy can be mostly explained by insufficient efforts of the government to influence formation of the Ukrainian political nation. Therefore, it is mistaken to state that Ukraine’s society is disintegrated. Rather, it is not fully consolidated on the basis of self-determination with the Ukrainian political nation.
Most of the above problems are not unique on the background of the world history and practice, though their solution depends, to a large extent, on the Ukrainian political and socio-economic context.
In liberal theory, there is a concept that politics shall sacrifice national priorities for the sake of the fundamental human rights and freedoms. At the same time, some theorists like Charles Taylor deem the ethno-cultural factor cannot be totally excluded from political processes5. He criticized what Michael Sandel called the “procedural republic”, under which the focus should be totally on individual rights and democratic and legal procedures, rather than on the historical-cultural reference points, or the ideas of the good life, by which citizens define their own identities.
According to Taylor, this concept is of abstract nature because first, the condition of a viable political identity is that “people must actually be able to relate to it and to find them reflected in it”
and, second, it is in fact very difficult to devise a procedure, which is seen as neutral by everyone.
“The mistake here is to believe that there can be some decision whose neutrality is guaranteed by its emerging from some principle or procedure. This breeds the illusion that there is no need to negotiate the place of these symbols, and hence to confront the actual substantive differences of religious allegiance in the public square. But no procedure can dispense from the need to share identity space6.” In developed democracies, multiculturalism policy serves to meet these challenges.
This study is based on the multiculturalism concept suggested by Professor at McGill University in Montreal Charles Taylor7. The Canadian scientist defines multiculturalism as “the politics of recognition”, recognition of ethno-cultural differences, which does not entail marginalization or discrimination of ethnic groups by the state. He wrote, “We don’t have to force ourselves into an
4 Yevtukh V., Experience of Solving Ethnic Problems: Conceptual Principles and Practical Measures // Topical Issues and Fields of Ukrainian Ethnic Policy: Ways of Modernization and Application of International Experience. К.:UCIPR, 2004, P. 33.
5 Taylor C., Democratic Exclusion (and Its Remedies?) // Multiculturalism and Transformation of Post-Soviet Societies / Edit. V. Malakhov and V. Tyshkov. М.: Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2002.
6 Taylor C., Democratic Exclusion (and Its Remedies?) // Multiculturalism and Transformation of Post-Soviet Societies / Edit. V. Malakhov and V. Tyshkov. М.: Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2002.
7 Taylor C., Multiculturalism and “The Politics of Recognition” . К., 2004.
artificial homogeneity in order to live together in peace. We can recognize different “national”
(Volk) identities; even give them political expression, because each in this act of recognition acknowledges that it is not universal, that it has to co-exist with others which are equally legitimate.8”
According to the multiculturalism concept, individuals should freely use their own ethnic cultures.
They do not have to adopt traditions, customs and values of either their own or the dominant ethnic group. They should not suffer from discrimination on ethnic grounds and must be protected from violence on the part of their ethnic group caused by refusal to follow their traditions and customs.
In practice, multiculturalism means recognition of ethno-cultural pluralism as the key value, guarantees of equal access of all ethnic groups to all civil rights and freedoms, creation and promotion of conditions for free development of ethnic cultures and elimination of obstacles to integration of ethnic groups and national minorities into a multi-ethnic society.
How can states be more inclusive? According to the UNDP Human Development Report 2004
“Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World”, creating an environment, in which multiple identities flourish begins with encouraging cultural liberty and equality between groups in cultural, political and socio-economic opportunities.
Some believe that multicultural policies undermine building of a cohesive nation with a homogeneous cultural identity, the dominant political project of the 20th century. Most states influenced by this thinking were deeply committed to fostering a single, homogeneous national identity with a shared sense of history, values and beliefs. Recognition of ethno-cultural diversity, especially of organized, politically active and culturally differentiated groups and minorities, was viewed as a serious threat to state unity, destabilizing to political and social unity achieved after historic struggles.
Authors of the Report distinguish nation-building strategies privileging singular identities through various interventions:
• Adoption of official-language laws, which define the dominant group’s language as the only official national language to be used in the bureaucracy, courts, public services, the army, higher education and other official institutions;
• Construction of a nationalized system of compulsory education promoting standardized curricula and teaching the dominant group’s language, literature and history and defining them as the “national” language, literature and history;
• Diffusion of the dominant group’s language and culture through national cultural institutions, including state-run media and public museums;
• Adoption of state symbols celebrating the dominant group’s history, heroes and culture, reflected in such things as the choice of national holidays or the naming of streets, buildings and geographic characteristics9.
Therefore, it is safe to state that these approaches feature realities of Ukrainian ethnic policy. Such policy apparently runs counter to the strategy of shaping the Ukrainian political nation, impedes democratic state-building and does not comply with modern democratic standards.
8 Taylor C., Democratic Exclusion (and Its Remedies?) // Multiculturalism and Transformation of Post-Soviet Societies / Edit. V. Malakhov and V. Tyshkov. М.: Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2002.
9 Human Development Report 2004. Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World. М.: “The Whole World”, 2004, P. 56.
The problem gains special importance in view of Ukraine’s intention to join the European Union.
Ukrainian ethnic policy shall comply with that of EU member States, most of which adopted and actively pursue multiculturalism (e.g. Belgium, Sweden and Hungary).
Estonia and Latvia, which had certain problems with protection of the rights of national minorities (e.g. the language right of Russians), were the exceptions to this rule. However, their EU entry was determined by a number of subjective reasons, Ukraine should not hope for.
In this study, Ukraine is seen as a post-colonial multi-ethnic country.
By their ethnic composition, societies can be conventionally classed as follows:
• Immigrant societies (the USA, Canada);
• Mono-ethnic societies (Germany, Poland);
• Multi-ethnic societies (Spain, Belgium);
• Multi-ethnic post-imperial societies (the Russian Federation, Ukraine, where the share of 130 national minorities in the total number of the population is 22.2%, save Ukrainians).
The major problem of the last group of societies, to which Ukraine belongs, is to achieve parity between the need to revive Ukrainian culture and develop cultures of other ethnic groups and national minorities.
The difference between Ukraine and Russia is that under the USSR, the Russian people acted as an assimilator, whereas the Ukrainian nation was assimilated. It shall be noted that Ukrainians, especially the urban population, who de facto had been considered as the Russian sub-ethnic group since the time of the Russian Empire, were the most russified among all other ethnicities of the former Soviet Union. It was more difficult to assimilate the Turkic, Caucasian or Baltic ethnoses.
On the other hand, Ukraine managed to successfully resolve the issue of citizenship, which makes it radically different from the Baltic States. All persons populating the country at the moment of its independence became Ukrainian citizens.
So, the goal of this study is to consider models of multiculturalism policy applied in the EU states, Canada, the USA and Australia, analyze their advantages, failings and compliance with Ukraine’s ethno-political realities and develop conceptual principles of multiculturalism, which would facilitate settlement of ethnic problems in our country.
Problem Statement
Needless to say, Ukraine was historically formed as a multi-ethnic state, where Ukrainians represent the largest ethnic community of 37,500,000 persons. The number of Russians – the largest national minority – amounts to 8,300,000 persons. Other minorities include Crimean Tatars, Beloruses, Moldavians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians, Poles, etc. Communities of immigrants from the Soviet republics, China, South East Asia and Middle East countries have been recently formed in Ukraine. Ethnic composition of some city-millionaires and the Odesa, Donetsk and Transcarpathian regions is rather diverse.
As it has already been mentioned, Ukraine’s ethnic composition was formed historically, which was mostly determined by migration processes in the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires and the former USSR. These processes were also affected by such tragic events as the Feminine of the 1930s, the WWII, the Volyn developments, post-war deportation of Crimean Tatars, other Crimean ethnicities and Ukrainian Poles. At the same time, traditional ethnic composition of the population is preserved. Only the number of Jews and Poles decreased compared to 1959, whereas a positive trend towards other minorities was observed (see Table 1). Nevertheless, Ukraine belongs neither to
bi-national like Belgium nor to multiethnic like India states because ethnic Ukrainians compose the absolute majority of the population.
Earlier on, Ukraine was defined as a “multiethnic post-imperial society”, where the adjective
“multiethnic” means the large number of ethnicities, whose share in the population is nevertheless three times smaller than that of Ukrainians. In its turn, the adjective “post-imperial” means that the overwhelming majority of challenges faced by our society are caused by negative consequences of ethnic policy inherited from the Soviet Union, such as rusification, which entails the need to revitalize language and culture of the Ukrainian people and other ethnicities.
Hence, declaration of Ukraine’s independence in 1991 gave an impetus to cultural revival of the Ukrainian ethnic nation. The mission of the state is to prevent a conflict of interests between the above process and the right of other ethnic groups to self-determination and promotion of their cultures. For this reason, it is too early to speak about Ukrainian post-national multiculturalism, as the process of shaping the Ukrainian nation is under way.
Before considering basic models of multiculturalism policy, it is necessary to mention that Ukraine requires development of its own strategy on the basis of Ukrainian historical heritage and principles of public humanitarian policy set forth in the Copenhagen Criteria for the EU accession – they key goal of this policy.
As for opportunities and prospects of implementation of a definite multiculturalism strategy of Ukraine, it is necessary to distinguish, at least, its six aspects:
• Policy towards the Russian community as the largest national minority;
• Policy towards Crimean Tatars and other indigenous peoples (Karaims and Krymchaks);
• Policy towards national minorities concentrated in specific geographic areas (Bulgarians, Poles, Hungarians and Romanians);
• Policy towards Ukrainian Roma;
• Policy towards other national minorities (Jews, Greeks, Volga Tatars);
• Policy towards immigrant communities.
Each policy needs a distinct strategy.
Proceeding from the afore-mentioned, I would like to address principles and strategies of multiculturalism policy.
Key Features of Multiculturalism in Different Countries
Canada became the first country in the world to adopt a multiculturalism policy. Canada is a typical example of a multi-ethnic immigrant society. Its population was formed as a result of immigration processes. None of 100 Canadian ethnic groups represents the majority of the population.
In 1971, multiculturalism was adopted as an official policy in Canada, that is, a policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework. The same year, the Minister for Multiculturalism was appointed. In 1985, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Multiculturalism was established. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act was passed by Parliament and proclaimed in 1988.
Basic principles of the Canadian Concept of Multiculturalism include:
1) Foster recognition and appreciation of diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote reflection and evolving expressions of those cultures;
2) Promote full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in elimination of any barrier to such participation;
3) Promote diverse cultures of Canadian society through legislative initiatives and federal programs;
4) Recognize and promote cultural pluralism and bilingualism of Canada;
5) Encourage cooperation of the Federal, municipal and provincial governments in promoting cultural diversity10.
In a recent report of the UNESCO World Commission on Culture and Development, Canada’s approach to multiculturalism was cited as a model for other countries. Australia and New Zealand adopted the Canadian model of multiculturalism as a basis.
European countries use different models of multiculturalism11.
Belgium has become a multi-national and political federation since 1993. The country is divided into three linguistic communities: the Flemish community (thus bringing together the Dutch-speakers, who live in Flanders and in Brussels), the French community (assembling the French-speakers, who live in Wallonia and in Brussels), a tiny German-speaking community in the East and multilingual, multicultural and multi-ethnic Brussels. Each of these communities has its own parliament and executive authorities and is entrusted with constitutionally assigned powers. Belgian legislative bodies, the House of Representatives and Senate, are divided into two linguistic groups:
Flemish and French, to which German-speakers belong.
Flanders comprises about 55% of the Belgian population, Brussels – 10 % and Wallonia – the remaining 35%. Since 1984, the German community has its own legislative assembly and executive, which have authority in cultural, language and educational affairs. Presently, there are two official languages in the country: French (spoken in the southern and central regions) and Dutch (spoken in the northern part). The majority of citizens are bi-national: Belgians and Flemish or Belgians and Walloons, which evidences a high level of loyalty to political identity in Belgium.
A British model of multiculturalism accentuates ethnic self-determination of immigrants.
Immigration is the most evident consequence of British colonialism. After the WWII, people born outside the country in British Colonies could become UK nationals. The 1948 British Nationality Act gave all members of the Commonwealth the right to enter the United Kingdom and enjoy the full range of social, economic and political rights associated with citizenship. Though national minorities did not enjoy broad rights, they were recognized as members of a multi-ethnic society based on the principles of mutual tolerance.
Nowadays, the share of English population makes up 76% of the population of Great Britain, the Scottish – 9%, the Welsh – 5% and the Irish – 4%. The Welsh Language Act of 1967 increased the status of the Welsh language in the courts and gave ministers the power of prescribe bilingual versions of official forms. Despite that English is the official language of Great Britain, in the Channel Islands and Wales, two officials languages are used: English and French and English and Welsh respectively. The British government tries to work out a special status for Northern Ireland.
10 Kruhlak O., Multiculturalism in Canada: What Was Intended and What Has It Become? // Topical Issues and Fields of Ukrainian Ethnic Policy: Ways of Modernization and Application of International Experience. К.: UCIPR, 2004
11 Review of multiculturalism policies in European countries is prepared on the basis of the following works:
Kotelnykov V., Multiculturalism for Europe: Challenging Immigration //
http://www.antropotok.archipelag.ru/text/a263.htm and Koshkarov N., International Experience of Meeting Ethno-Cultural Challenges // http://www.orenburg.ru/culture/credo/01_2003/3.html
Finland and Sweden represent a liberal model of cultural autonomy. Finns and Swedes form 93.6%
and 5.6% (or 300,000 persons) of Finland’s population respectively. Finnish legislation guarantees the right of citizens to the use of their native language in private and in public without discrimination. Municipalities in Finland can be unilingual (the number of people speaking the minority language, either Finnish or Swedish, is 6% or less of the total inhabitants of the municipality) or bilingual (if at least 8% or 3,000 people speak the local minority language, whether Swedish or Finnish). Helsinki, Turku and Vaasa are bilingual cities.
The 1919 Constitution and the 1922 Act enshrined Swedish and Finnish as the two national languages of Finland. Swedish speakers were given cultural autonomy. Education in Swedish is crucial for the Swedish language and culture to survive in Finland. There are about 300 Swedish comprehensive schools in Finland, which offer tuition in Swedish. 30 periodicals (300,000 issues/day) are published in Swedish. TV and radio programs are broadcasted in Swedish. Two Swedish-language universities (including the Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration) and several bilingual universities (including the University of Helsinki, Helsinki University of Technology and the Theatre Academy) provide higher education.
Sweden adopted multiculturalism in 1975 as an official political strategy based on the three principles: equality between immigrants and Swedes; freedom of choice of cultural development for immigrants; and partnership between indigenous Swedish peoples and various ethnic groups.
Representation of minority interests marked the beginning of implementation of multiculturalism.
In 1976, the Swedish government gave foreign citizens the right to vote at local elections and launched consultations with members of ethnic groups.
Language and educational policies became the key directions of Swedish multiculturalism. The National Multiculturalism Concept allows for bilingual education: in Swedish and in the language of a country of origin.
There are nearly 50 immigrant organizations in Sweden. In 1980s, the law against ethnic discrimination of immigrants in working and social life was passed.
However, some European countries have changed their attitude to multiculturalism just recently.
France and Germany are the most indicative examples of such states. France has been following principles of procedural democracy for long placing universal democratic values over cultural ones.
The Constitution of France does not recognize national minorities. Its Preamble recalls the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789. Hence, the French Constitution stresses the existence of a political nation declared as the basic value of the country’s democratic system.
Most migrants came to France from Italy, Spain and Portugal. But in 1950s, ethnic composition of emigrants started to radically change: the majority of immigrants were from Algeria, Tunis, Morocco and Turkey. So, the Islam issue posed the major problem of immigrants. Unlike European migrants, new immigrants practicing Islam could not and did not want to assimilate.
Unemployment rate in the immigrant environment amounted to 30%, which also presented a serious problem.
Having understood ineffectiveness of assimilation strategy and being guided by a thesis that cultural differences of national minorities can be perceived only in the framework of the dominant culture, the French government made efforts to launch some elements of multiculturalism in the mid-80s.