Cultural Autonomy of National Minorities in Estonia: The Erosion of a Promise

Abstract

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

The “Quadratic Nexus” Revisited: Nation-Building in Estonia Through the Prism of National Cultural Autonomy

“…In this regard, the current article sheds new light on the hitherto neglected minority political field within the quadratic nexus and, in particular, on perspectives amongst Estonia's Russians. Adopting this approach gives grounds to question Lagerspetz's (2014) present-day advocacy of NCA as a means of accommodating Russian claims in Estonia, for it shows that, even in the very different political circumstances of early 1991, most local Russian actors were unwilling to trade pre-existing entitlements for a model that confirmed "minority" status and framed minority issues in terms of culture rather than participation and voice. The appeal of NCA has been even more limited since 1991, in a situation where Russian political actors have been "left … to their own devices," caught between a "highly centralized majoritarian democrac[y]" (Csergő and Regelmann 2017b, 215) and a putative "kin state" (Russia) that also seeks to control and instrumentalize them for its own geostrategic ends (Kallas 2016).…”

“…2 The fact that none of these Russian NCA applications were approved by the government highlights a continued securitization of minority issues-in particular, the fear of external influence from Russia. Mikko Lagerspetz (2014) has criticized this approach, suggesting that NCA could serve as a way of accommodating continued claims for expanded Russian minority rights, especially in education. Lagerspetz (2014, 465) argues that in 1993 Estonia adopted an NCA law "closely reminiscent" of its 1925 predecessor.…”

“…Both have since lobbied for further development of the NCA law, but by 2012 these efforts had run their course, amidst government concerns that a more substantive framework might prompt further calls to establish a Russian NCA. 22 Lagerspetz (2014) calls this view misguided, arguing that a Russian NCA would enhance state security by improving dialogue and helping to address continued contestations around historical memory and education reform. As argued in the present article, however, Lagerspetz's claim of a "promise eroded" on NCA-while perhaps applicable in the case of Finns and Swedes-appears less credible when it comes to the Russian-speaking population.…”

Introduction: Dispersed Minorities and Non-Territorial Autonomy

“…192 -193), most observers have been quite critical, seeing it as merely a loose arrangement for 'consulting' elites rather than engaging with minorities (Prina, 2012, p. 90), as 'highly imperfect' and'half-hearted' (Bowring, 2005, p. 203), and as 'ultimately useless' (Osipov, 2010, p. 53). Estonia introduced a cultural autonomy law in 1993 that resembled that of 1925, but as implemented it was much less effective; its provisions have been criticised as merely 'cosmetic' (Lagerspetz, 2014), as not functioning 'in any meaningful way' (Smith, 2013, p. 124), and as being 'symbolic rather than instrumental' (Poleshshuk, 2013, p. 160). Similar forms of cultural autonomy were introduced in Hungary (Dobos, 2007(Dobos, , 2013, Serbia (Beretka, 2013), andSlovenia (De Villiers, 2012;Sardelić, 2013).…”

Estonia: A Model for Inter-War Europe?

“…The nature and substance of these laws (not least Estonia's revised law on cultural autonomy, adopted in 1993) remain the object of much debate, as do the essential merits and applicability of non-territorial autonomy compared to other minority rights approaches (Bauböck, 2001;Nimni, 2005;Smith & Cordell, 2008;Smith, 2013aSmith, , 2013bLagerspetz, 2014). Estonia's cultural autonomy law of 1925 has been cited as a precedent and example of good practice in various Central and Eastern European states that have adopted or debated variants of non-territorial autonomy over the past 25 years (see Smith & Hiden, 2012, pp.…”