LANGUAGE POLICY IN THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS IN THE 1990s
By
Syarhey Zaprudski
First published in the book
"Belarus – the third sector people, culture, language", East European Democratic Centre. Warsaw-Minsk, 2002
The
Republic of Belarus, established in July 1990, partly inherited the language
policy pursued by the BSSR in the last year of its existence. To a great extent
this policy was determined by “The Law of the BSSR on the Languages in the
Byelorussian SSR adopted in January 1990. Article 2 of this law declared the
Belarusian language the only official language in Belarus and qualified Russian
as the language of international relations among the peoples of the USSR”
However, this law did not regulate the use of languages in unofficial
communication.
Various articles of the law were going to be gradually introduced during the
next three to ten years. The adoption of the law on languages should be
considered both as the result of external factors and a significant victory of
the Belarusian Popular Front (BPF).
The first Belarusian Language Grammar was composed and printed in Vilna (Vilnius), back then the capital of Grand Duchy of Lithuania - in 1596 by Lauryn Zyzani. The second version of Belarusian Grammar - "Grammatiki Slovenskiia" ("Slavic Grammar") - was published in Vilna by Meleci Smatrycki in 1618. Grammar by Smatrycki underwent multiple reprints in the coming years. Such the fifth and sixth reprints were done in Moscow in 1648 and 1721. It was re-edited by Paula Nenadovich in Rymniki in 1755 and became the basis of Serbian literary language. Hristan Dupchanin has reworked it for Bulgarian language. This Grammar also became the basis of the first Ukrainian grammar of Ivan Mogil'nicki. |
The law on languages, adopted in 1990 after the Belarusian language had suffered
a long period of decline between the 1930s and 1980s, should be seen as a
legislative means aimed at defending a weaker language. At the same time, the
law stipulated a much broader use of the Belarusian language, which was supposed
to change from a minority to majority language in the future.
Language legislation and related practical measures that were not secret but
brought before the public were a novelty for state institutions of post-Soviet
Belarus No special bodies existed that could design and pursue a language
policy, therefore, in the initial stage of implementation, the executive branch
had to rely on the intellectual resources of a non-governmental organization,
which had experience in this field, the Belarusian Language Society (BLS)
founded in June 1989.
Thus, in May 1990, BLS together with the Ministry of Education of the BSSR held
a scientific and practical Conference entitled “The Official Status of the
Belarusian Language: Problems and Ways to Implement the Law “ In September
1990, the Council of Ministers adopted “The State Programme for the
Development of the Belarusian Language and Other National Languages in the BSSR”
that stipulated a number of measures for implementing the law over the course of
the 1990s. Both in the BSSR and the USSR, the discussion regarding language
problems in Belarus was under the control of the party. With the break-up of the
Soviet Union, the declaration of independence of the Republic of Belarus and the
suspension of the CPSU and CPB, possibilities of free speech increased greatly,
The USSR - the regional superpower - was now gone from the World map. An
independent Belarusian state emerged and protests arose among the
Russian-oriented population, which to a large extent comprised the Belarusian
elite. Just yesterday they identified themselves exclusively with the USSR and
had no need for contact with the Belarusian language or culture. Finding
themselves in this completely new situation, these people argued that the
existing legislation is poorly grounded and attempted to discredit both the new
linguistic trends and the social and political groups behind them. With Belarus
adopting a multiparty system, language issues became an essential element of
political discourse. Democratically oriented figures fiercely competed for the
right to speak on behalf of “the true” democrats and the political
environment in Belarus saw many ephemeral pro-democratic associations seeking
their own niches.
For example, following the establishment of the United Democratic Party of
Belarus (UDPB) in November 1990 (the first party in Belarus), one year later the
Movement for Democratic Reform (MDF) was founded, the program of which differed
from that of UDPB only in respect to cultural issues. Inevitably, MDF used the
new cultural policy as the arena for demonstrating its political views. The
movement loudly criticized the 1990 language legislation for being undemocratic
and accused BPF, the major democratic force in Belarus at the time, of
Bolshevism, russophobia, isolationism and of “arousing nationalist
instincts.” In March 1992. MDF spoke in favor of granting the official Status
to both Belarusian and Russian “due to the linguistic situation that has
developed and to give the citizens free choice in regard to the language of
education” (Narodnaya Gazeta, 7 March 1992). With reference to the existing
linguistic situation, MDF suggested that the perspective language policy be
replaced with a retrospective one corresponding to the previous state of
affairs. Proclaiming the antidemocratic and anti-liberal character of the 1990
law on languages and claiming that it “violates an individual ‘s right of
self-determination” (Femida , no. 21, 24-30 May 1993), MDF members and the
Publishing house “Endan” compiled and published a draft law “On Languages
in the Republic of Belarus” that provided both Belarusian and Russian with
official status.
This activity of the “liberalist” parties forced the United Democratic Party
of Belarus to clarify its attitude towards language legislation. In November
1994, UDBP’s central council ordered its political commission to prepare a
statement regarding the right to freely choose the language of education and the
need to enforce it. The program of the United Civic Party (UCP, a 1995 merger
between UDPB and the Civic Party) stated that the citizens must have “the
right to choose which language their children are raised and taught in.“
Granting parents the unconditional right to choose the language in which their
children are taught, would probably have resulted in the parents choosing the
language that in their eyes had real social advantages, Therefore, in this case
the weaker and less prestigious Belarusian language would have become a victim
of the emerging democracy in Belarus, should such an approach have been adopted.
The left was also active in the first half of the 1990s. Although in the late
1980s the Communist Party of Belarus (CPB) was forced to support (through the
BSSR Supreme Soviet) the law that made Belarusian the only official language, in
the 1990s, following some internal changes, it reverted to its original
position. In the early 1990s newspapers supporting left-wing parties launched a
campaign of discrediting existing language legislation and its practices.
Two-language state model was a non-compromise demand in the programs of the
Movement for Democracy, Social Progress and Justice (MDSPJ), founded in November
1991, and the Popular Movement of Belarus founded in December1992. In September
1993, left-wing movements held a congress of the people of Belarus that adopted
a resolution demanding to “remove violence and discrimination from language
policy, adopt official bilingualism (Belarusian and Russian), legitimize the
right of parents to choose the language of education for their children.“
The media started a heated debate on whether the adopted language policy was
justified and correctly implemented. The discussion showed that for Belarusian
to be more widely used, more purposeful and focused efforts should be made in
comparison with those employed by state authorities at the time. For example,
the introduction of Belarusian in higher education and science encountered
specific difficulties due to a shortage of teaching aids and scientific
literature in Belarusian. The discussion also revealed that there were people in
Belarus who categorically did not accept the existence of an independent
Belarusian language nor approved of any practical steps taken towards its
development. It was primarily those people who saw the Belarusian language as
inferior that became the foundation for establishing the pro-Russian party
“The Slavic Union — White Rus’“ in August 1992. In its program, which
the party adopted in December 1993, the Belarusian language was classified as
merely a “regional“ language and a dialect of the Russian language. The
Belarusian parliament regularly discussed Belarusian and other languages in the
first half of the 1990s. It is worth noting that the 12th Supreme
Soviet (that convened in May 1990 and which was dominated by Communists with 86%
of the seats) was not particularly interested in becoming actively involved in
the use of Belarusian on a broader basis. Nevertheless, due to the declaration
of Belarus sovereignty gradual de-monopolisation of the party’s power and the
Suspension of communist parties in the USSR and BSSR (CPSU and CPB,
respectively), communist MPs were forced to succumb to the efforts of the few
national democrats. Consequently, laws on culture and education were passed in
June and October 1991 that either directly referred to the law of languages (in
the former case) or even slightly supported it (in the latter).
However, as the situation in countries neighboring Belarus changed (former
communists won elections in Lithuania, growing resistance to Yeltsin’s reform
appeared in Russia). BPF lost its influence in the parliament, CPB was
resurrected in the summer of 1992 and the Supreme Soviet lifted its ban on the
party in February 1993, the situation inside the country also began to change.
In the first half of 1992, the former nomenclature set up the “Belarus“
faction in the Supreme Soviet and began to oppose both democratic and
independence-oriented initiatives, primarily on the grounds of the weak position
of the national democrats in language issues. For instance, when Supreme Soviet
Chairman Stanislaw Shushkevich refused to sign a Belarusian-Russian collective
security treaty in May 1992, the “Belarus“ faction immediately
“blackmailed“ him by holding a referendum about the official Status of the
Russian language. The proposal to make Russian the other official language in
Belarus, first voiced by deputies of veterans’ organizations, became an
increasingly more frequent issue in the Supreme Soviet. Language issues were
also debated in parliament in 1993 while preparing a new constitution. The
parliamentary working group attempted to preserve the previous Version of the
article on language; however, neither that version, nor any amended one, was
passed in May 1993. During the parliament’s fall session, the version
stipulating Belarusian as the only official language received even less support
than in the spring. As all hope for passing the language attitude was virtually
lost, the parliamentary constitutional commission attempted to leave it out
altogether. However, this was strongly opposed by the commission for culture and
historical heritage.
The practical implementation of the law on language encountered great
difficulties, as the new language policy was being pursued simultaneously with
economic reform that lowered living standards and was not always welcomed by the
people. Some people, including the ideologically orthodox workers, associated
(probably unconsciously) the ideologically “adverse“ reconstruction of
economic life with the new language policy aimed at creating advantages for the
Belarusian language. This inspired their exceptionally aggressive attitude to
the new trends in the linguistic situation in Belarus. At the time the
educational system was the most receptive to implementing the law on languages,
and during 1990-1994 the situation in secondary schools radically changed to the
benefit of the Belarusian language. Teachers of Belarusian enjoyed a 10% salary
bonus. Higher educational establishments also began to experiment with teaching
in Belarusian, and some pedagogical institutions taught solely in Belarusian.
Meanwhile, loud protests from the people to revise the language law, the vague
and unstable political situation during the first years of independence, the
lack of will from the government to implement linguistic reform (and as a result
mistrust of the people in regard to the state’s intentions in this respect) as
well as the general atmosphere of transition characteristic for early 1990s,
resulted in the development of a strong state and legal nihilism and hampered
the implementation of the 1990 law on language. With no faith in the
newly-acquired independence and having no idea which way the political wind will
blow, many state functionaries found it better not to take any noticeable steps
to implement the law on languages, as this would allow them to stay in the
mainstream should for some reason state independence be lost and the Soviet
political system restored. Top-level officials remained indifferent in regard to
the need to implement the language law; most of them used only Russian in public
speeches anyway.
Another factor that made it complicated to implement the language law in Belarus
was the fact that the 1990 law did not really set legal principles but presented
“a manifesto of national and linguistic self-identification,“ as Ms. N.
Myachkowskaya stated. In particular, the law did not provide any guidelines
should it be violated. Due to its concern regarding the poor implementation of
the law, the Minsk City Council petitioned the Supreme Soviet at the beginning
of 1993 requesting the right to administrative punishment for not observing the
language law; the permission to do so was not granted. Despite the fact that the
law contained a special article that obliged officials to “speak both
Belarusian and Russian languages,“ it did not contain any specific principles
to enforce this article in practice. In fact, state functionaries were never
assessed in regard to their command of the Belarusian language. After the law
had been adopted in 1990, no institutions were established in Belarus to deal
specifically with language issues.
In
March 1993, the 3rd Congress of the Belarusian Language Society
suggested that the Supreme Soviet set up a commission to pursue an integral
language policy in the Republic of Belarus. This suggestion was, however,
ignored. Nevertheless, the new constitution adopted in March 1994 contained an
article that affirmed the official status of the Belarusian language; however,
the same article maintained the right of the free use of the Russian language as
a language of international communication. The text was copied almost in full
from the 1990 law, however, in the 1990 law, Russian did not have the status of
a communication medium between different ethnic groups inside Belarus. The
affirmation of Russian as the language of international communication
unintentionally devalued Belarusian as the only official language. Under those
circumstances, it seemed natural to ask whether Belarusian could truly become
the only official language in a situation where it was not considered as a means
of communication between different ethnic groups.
Whereas the use of the Russian language as a means of inter-ethnic
communications undermined Belarusian rather in a symbolic manner, a more serious
problem appeared in Article 50 of the Constitution that guaranteed “the
freedom to choose the language of raising and educating children.“ This
attitude was also a response to the continuing debate on this issue. Later,
alluded to this article parents categorically claimed their unconditional right
to choose the language of instruction for their children.
In January 1995, the constitutional court generally supported such
requests from parents. In its statement directed to the president and Supreme
Soviet, the court criticized Article 24 of the law on languages that allegedly
obliged secondary schools to use “exclusively the Belarusian language.“
However, the constitutional court praised other articles of the constitution
that guaranteed “the freedom to choose the language of raising and educating
children“ (Zvyazda, February 2, 1995).
In July 1994, supporters of official bilingualism gained strong support from the
first President of Belarus, Alyaksandar Lukashenka. Even while an MP, Lukashenka
suggested granting the Russian language “a status equal to the official
status.“ His program prepared for the presidential elections contained a
paragraph on “providing a real opportunity for every citizen of the Republic
of Belarus to think and speak the language he was raised in.“ After his
election as president, Lukashenka addressed language issues for the first time
when speaking at the Belarusian Pedagogical University on 1 September 1994. The
President defended teachers of the social sciences and the Russian language who,
as he said, had nearly become pariahs in some higher educational establishments.
Alyaksandar Lukashenka expressed his criticism of the educational policy (aimed
at increasing the use of Belarusian) pursued during the previous years and said
that the language of teaching should not be determined in an administrative way.
Lukashenka’s speech at the Pedagogical University was a signal to begin a
campaign of support for the Russian language. Just five days following the
president’s speech, an “Appeal of an Initiative Group“ was distributed in
the Vitsebsk Pedagogical Institute, whose authors, including teachers, demanded
that students and teachers themselves choose the language of instruction,
“supporting the intentions of the President of the Republic to begin healing
the social situation.“ In September and October 1994 parents in some schools
went on strike against the “forced“ teaching in Belarusian and, strangely
enough, these events were covered by some of the most popular state-owned
newspapers.
An interesting episode in the struggle for granting the Russian language
official status occurred in the fall of 1994 when a group of members from the
pro-Communist Popular Movement attempted to initiate a referendum on various
issues, including the language issue, The request submitted by this group was
considered by six parliamentary commissions and the Ministry of Justice. All of
the seven institutions turned the request down for “more or less the same
reasons.“ as the newspapers wrote. In their refusals, the institutions
referred to Article 3 of the law on referenda that forbade holding referenda on
issues “violating the inalienable right of the people of the Republic of
Belarus to the state-guaranteed existence of Belarusian national culture and
language.“
In October 1994, the central commission for elections and referenda explained to
the applicants that the question as to whether the Russian language should be
given official status “is directly forbidden by the Republic’s
legislation.“
In the fall of 1994 a committee “For the Free Choice of Language in
Education“ was founded in Minsk, under the aegis of the Slavic Union. On 29
November, the committee led a demonstration of approximately 20 parents,
demanding education in Russian, to the building of the Minsk City Council.
Footage of this rally, spiced with comments, was shown on state television.
Meanwhile,
the manner in which the law on languages was being implemented and the on-going
campaign for revising language legislation caused numerous protests from various
organizations and parties, such as BLS and BPF, A non-governmental committee for
the defense of the Belarusian language was founded at the end of 1994. Moreover,
an alternative campaign was underway for Belarusian State University to
completely transition to the exclusive use of Belarusian by 1 September 1995. In
January 1995, activists of the committee picketed the buildings of the
university, Ministry of Education, Constitutional Court and UN post. Later that
month, the committee adopted a statement that called on the citizens to inform
the Prosecutor’s Office about all attempts at violating the official status of
the Belarusian language by government employees. On 16 February 1995, the
committee published its complaint to the Prosecutor General regarding President
Lukashenka.
The
President, however, intended to hold a referendum about the official status of
the Russian language. He first shared this idea with representatives of
veterans’ organizations on February 2, and soon confirmed his intention on
February 20. On March 18 , newspapers published a letter addressed to President
Lukashenka, signed by 60 MPs (mainly delegates of veterans’ organizations) in
which they asked him to initiate a referendum concerning language issues. Three
days later Lukashenka spoke in detail about the approaching referendum to the
Supreme Soviet, although he did not present the precise questions. At the time,
many seemed to believe that a referendum was rather unlikely, in view of the
1994 refusal. This was the opinion of Valery Tsikhinya, chairman of the
Constitutional court, expressed during a press Conference on March 22. He
justified his point of view with Article 3 of the law on referenda. On March 31,
the general assembly of the Humanities Department of the Academy of Science
adopted an appeal not to include a language related question in the referendum.
Nevertheless,
Lukashenka filed his proposal of initiating a referendum comprising four
questions to the Supreme Soviet. However, the proposal was turned down on March
11, after the parliamentary commissions had debated the proposal and objected to
three questions, including the one on languages. The President responded by
threatening the Supreme Soviet with holding the referendum without its consent,
which resulted in more than twenty MPs beginning a hunger strike in the
parliamentary session hall. However, on the night of March 12 they were thrown
out of the Supreme Soviet building by military detachment acting on orders of
president Lukashenka. This extraordinary event resulted in the demoralized deputies violating procedure and adopting a resolution to hold the referendum on
March 13. On March 26, the parliamentary commission for culture and historical
heritage filed a request to the constitutional court to consider the legitimacy
of the Supreme Soviet’s resolution but the court refused to hear this case.
The referendum was held on May 14, 1995. The first of the four questions was as follows: “Do you agree with granting the Russian language equal status with Belarusian?“ According to official data, voter frequency was 64.8%. Of those voting, 88.3% (53.9% of all eligible voters) voted “yes“ with respect to this question. Numerous violations committed during the preparation and holding the referendum soon came to light
First,
Article 3 of the law on referenda was violated (the law mentioned above that
forbids holding of referenda on such issues).
Second,
Article 148 of the Constitution did not permit any changes or amendments to the
constitution during the final six months of the parliament’s term of Office.
Third,
members of the referendum commission were appointed in violation of Articles 18
and 20 of the Law on Referenda.
Essentially,
limitations were imposed on the campaign against the proposals of the
referendum. As a result, the referendum had to be carried out under the strict
control of the executive power. The state-owned media, especially the electronic
media, mainly presented the views of the referendum’s initiator. Before the
referendum, the Belarusian Language Society twice asked the management of the
State TV and Radio Company to allow Society representatives to go on the air.
One of the deputy chairpersons of the Society recorded an interview for
Programme 2 of Belarusian Radio. The interview was never aired and no
explanation was given. Meanwhile, the State TV kept showing activists from the
Slavic Union and the committee “For the Free Choice of Language in
Education.“
The 1995
referendum coincided with the parliamentary election campaign. The OSCE
delegation that observed the referendum and the elections concluded that neither
complied with international standards of free and fair voting. In particular,
the delegation noted the government’s control over the media (which resulted
in the media broadcasting “edited“ or false information), interference of
the executive branch in the electoral process, discrimination against political
parties, etc. The US State Department issued a special statement expressing its
regret about the way and the atmosphere in which the leaders of Belarus
conducted the 1995 referendum and elections.
Belarusian
society, suffering economic hardships at the time of the referendum, failed to
see (and to a large extent did not want to see) the threat posed to the
Belarusian language hidden behind the “innocent“ formulation of the question
regarding the “equality“ of the two languages. It turned out that
Lukashenka’s initiative suited the wishes of a large part of society, which
wanted a return to the good old communist times with cheap sausage in shops and
no language problems whatsoever With the help of this referendum, the President
of Belarus wanted (as he mentioned to members of Homel city council) to gain
public support for his personal conviction that “the Belarusian language is
simple and that it is impossible to say anything profound using it.“
The
results of the 1995 referendum shocked those supporting the broader use of the
Belarusian language It was only six weeks later that the secretariat of BLS
adopted an appeal to the citizens of Belarus, questioning the results of the
referendum as the expression of the nation’s will. The authors of the appeal
referred to the uncounted votes of “the people from the new generation — our
children and adolescents, who have tasted their native language in kindergartens
and schools,“ to the will of “many generations of our ancestors“ and
“millions of victims of Stalinism and fascism.“ Moreover, the appeal
admitted that “we have now been squelched.“
Reacting
to the results of the referendum, and hoping to get the situation at least
slightly under control, the Supreme Soviet’s commission for education, culture
and preservation of historical heritage adopted two resolutions in June 1995.
The first recommended ministries and other state institutions to implement
various provisions in order to encourage state officials, leaders of
organisations and enter prise executives to gain command of both the Belarusian
and Russian language. The resolution stressed the need to learn the language,
which the officials did not know, to a degree sufficient for them to conduct
official duties. The other resolution recommended the Ministry of Education and
Science to introduce an obligatory entrance examination involving both
Belarusian and Russian in all higher and secondary special educational
establishments. The latter recommendation actually only added Russian to the
entrance exams lists as Belarusian had already been on these lists. Due to the
fact that the term of Office of the 12th Supreme Soviet was coming to an end,
and the referendum worked against a wider use of Belarusian, the two resolutions
had no legal or practical importance whatsoever. Aimed at lowering the status of
the Belarusian language, the 1995 referendum was certainly not held to make
state officials study and use Belarusian. On the other hand, the recommendation
to make all university entrants pass two extra linguistic exams, no matter what
they chose to study, sounded like a good idea but had no chance of support.
The
statement issued by the 5th International Congress of the Belarusian
Pen Centre regarding the May 1995 referendum (held in August), stated: “In
practice, the introduction of Russian as the second official language will
affirm today’s real disparity of the Belarusian language and will assist in
eliminating it, which means a continuation of the policy of Russification and denationalization
of the Belarusian people previously pursued by the Russian
empire and then the USSR.“ The congress adopted the resolution “On
Freedom and Responsibility of the Media“ that read in part “in Belarus,
freedom of speech and press applies only to some citizens, mainly those close to
power structures, whereas responsibility for the spoken, published or circulated
word is imposed onto others, who mainly belong to the Opposition minority‚ or
the‚Belarusian-speaking part of the population.“ Congress documents
mentioned that the referendum, the regime’s occupation and subordination of
the media to state power had paved the way for introducing “reservations for
Belarusian-speaking Belarusians.“ The referendum itself was referred to as a
manifestation of “muscle democracy“ or “democracy substituted by
pseudo-democracy“ (Nasha Slova, November 1, 1995).
Previously
advocates of the broader use of Belarusian referred to “the people’s
will,“ allegedly witnessed by the population census, whereas after the
referendum they were shown the will of “another people,“ or rather,
“another will,“ according to which the situation of the Belarusian language
would be acceptable only formally, on paper. Therefore, the issue of the
Belarusian language having a “real existence“ was no longer an urgent
matter. The importance of this lesson for the Belarusian intelligentsia, which
is traditionally very strongly influenced by popular convictions, should not be
underestimated.
The
13th Supreme Soviet elected in May and December 1995 was not
particularly interested in language issues. On the one hand there were very few
MPs who, in the unfavorable situation of 1995-96, would raise the issue of
developing the Belarusian language and resolve it in a positive way, as no BPF
representatives were elected to this parliament. On the other hand, after the
idea of Belarusification had been crushed by the referendum, this defeat could
be used in practice by eliminating some of the acts that promoted the use of the
Belarusian language. This was not difficult to do.
The
results of the referendum were published on May 26. On May 30 and 31, even
before the results were approved by the parliament, the Ministry of Education
ordered the Russian language and literature to be added to the list of entrance
exams of higher and special secondary educational establishments. The ministry
explained that the entrants did not have to pass exams on both languages but
could choose one of them.
In
June 1995, the Ministry of Education published its guidelines in regard to
enrolling children in the first grade and kindergartens.
This was now to be done according to the wishes of their parents. The
administrative offices of schools and kindergartens were instructed to hold
parental meetings, during which parents were to submit applications in which
they specified the desired language of their children’s education. It was
correctly foreseen in the ministry’s document that such unlimited choice could
result in schools becoming bi-lingual, but this was assessed as “a
transitional period.“ The principle of choosing the language was not limited
to kindergartens and first grades, it also applied to the second, third and
fourth grades.
The
new language-in-education policy soon yielded results. Aware of the new trend, a
large majority of parents in the city began to choose Russian as the language of
instruction for their children. In 1995, 62% of first grade pupils studied in
Russian, compared to 25% during the previous year. As a consequence, the
percentage of those studying in Belarusian fell from 75% to 38%. The following
year (in 1996), this trend continued and the relation was 68% Russian and 32%
Belarusian. The number of pupils in the 2nd-4th grades, and sometimes even
older, taught in Belarusian was also decreasing, but not as rapidly as in the
case of the lower grades. Parents of children who attended Belarusian-language
classes in the 2nd and higher grades sensed the change and began to demand those
classes be changed to Russian, often ignoring the linguistic habits their
children had developed and the terminology they used. Those demands were met.
The
1995 changes in the language structure of schools were accompanied by conflicts
among the parents of schoolchildren as well as between parents and school
authorities In the new situation, advocates of Belarusian-language schools in
the city often found it difficult to collect enough applications to open a
Belarusian-language class even in the larger schools. As a result, they either
had to abandon education in Belarusian or look for a Belarusian-language school
outside their neighborhood. As for the 2nd and higher grades previously taught
in Belarusian, parents frequently found themselves in conflict over the language
of their children’s education, While some demanded a change into Russian,
others resolutely stood for maintaining the status quo. The choice of the
language was in fact in the hands of the school administrations, which forced
one of the sides to abandon their demands. Since the general trend of the summer
and fall of 1995 implied education in Russian, those conflicts were resolved to
the benefit of Russian. When pro-Belarusian parents became only a minority,
these conflicts became latent and to a large extent were hidden from the public.
In such cases, on perfectly “lawful“ grounds and in accordance with the
routes of democracy, it was suggested that the Belarusian-speaking children
leave the class or school that had only recently had a Belarusian-language
status. Sometimes pupils had to change schools several times as each new school
they attended would adopt Russian according to the will of the parents. A parent
filed suit against Hrodna administration in 1997 complaining about a school that
refused to educate his daughter in the Belarusian language after she had
completed the 5th grade. He lost the case. In general, the social
situation after the referendum was unfavorable for the Belarusian language and
many complaints about violating linguistic rights and freedoms of Belarusian
speakers were not considered, let alone resulted in legal action. Some schools
themselves initiated changes into Russian and sent notices to the parents
demanding that they submit applications for this change of language.
The rapid decline in the number of Belarusian-language schools and
classes in the fall of 1995, accompanied by strong administrative pressure,
resulted in the Executive Committee of the United Civic Party of Belarus issuing
a statement in September 1995. The document protested against forcing the
Russian language into school education, and pointed out that some officials
interpret referendum results in a biased way. The party demanded that the rights
of parents to teach their children in either Russian or Belarusian be not
hampered.
Meanwhile,
the 13th Supreme Soviet had not approved the results of the
referendum, On the one hand, the rapid advance of Russian and the withdrawal of
Belarusian were so blatant that they needed no legal grounds. On the other hand,
individual leaders of the parliament spoke about the future of linguistic
regulations in a way differing from the view of President Lukashenka. For
example, spokesman Syamyon Sharetski did not think that the unconditional
victory of pro-Russian forces in the referendum should have been affirmed
automatically without consideration. The parliament’s revision of the 1990 law
on languages was delayed until June 1998, three years after the referendum, when
the House of Representatives (the lower chamber of the parliament introduced by
Lukashenka after the revolt in 1996) amended the 1990 law. The structure of the
1998 law was an almost exact copy of the 1990 law, however, the amended version
had no preamble. (The preamble to the 1990 law presented an evaluation of the
critical situation of the Belarusian language and stated the need to protect
it.) The main characteristic of the revised law was that nearly half of its
articles linked the Belarusian and Russian languages with the conjunction
“or“ (Articles 3. 9, 12-18. 21, 25, 28-30, 32), with “and (or)“ being
used almost as frequently (Articles 7, 8, 10, 11, 19, 20, 22-24. 26, 27, 31).
For example, Article 14 maintains that legal proceedings in the Republic of
Belarus are to be conducted in „either the Belarusian or Russian language“;
and according to Article 20, the Armed Forces use „the Belarusian and (or) the
Russian language.“ Despite the official status of both languages declared by
Article 2, the excessive use of the conjunction „or“ in the text paves the
way to using either of them without the mandatory use of the other. The 1998 law
consciously pursues a „policy of no policy,“ which enhances the disparity
between the two languages and forces out the weaker language, Belarusian.
In
the fall of 1996 another referendum was initiated by Lukashenka that gave him
the support of voters in regard to a draft constitution, which greatly increased
presidential power and involved Belarusian and Russian as the two official
languages. The conflict between Alyaksandar Lukashenka and democrats in Belarus
became even more intense. The 1996 revolt presented an opportunity to reanimate
activity aimed at a Belarusian-Russian union, the Statutes of which were adopted
in 1997. Article 38 of the Statutes designated Russian the working language of
the union’s institutions. Between 1996 and 1999, democratic forces in Belarus
held several mass rallies against Belarus’ incorporation into Russia with
Belarusian being the prevailing language of these demonstrations. In the late
1990s, the Belarusian administration was not interested in the development of
the Belarusian language and the needs of Belarusian speakers. The use of the
Belarusian language was continually being pushed aside. The House of
Representatives (the legislative body in the Lukashenka-appointed parliament)
prepared official documents
only in Russian. Some
local administrations have been adopting legislation that banned the use of
Belarusian. At the same time Belarusian speakers among the political opposition
were being repressed. Some of the participants in mass political rallies were
detained for speaking Belarusian. During court proceedings some people were
forbidden to speak Belarusian or were charged for the Services of interpreters.
As
the conflict between President Lukashenka and the democratic forces escalated,
along with the reduction in the official use of Belarusian and the
“disfranchisement“ of politically active Belarusian speakers, the Belarusian
language began to be associated as an instrument for resisting presidential
power. People who spoke Belarusian were almost automatically perceived as the
opposition (unless they were the most socially backward part of the rural
population that speaks Belarusian not because they stand for it but because they
do not speak any other language). Having become a way of expressing opposition,
the Belarusian language began to be used increasingly more frequently by
democratic parties. When addressing the 50th Session of the UN Sub-commission
for the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in the summer
of 1998, Mr. A. Sannikaw, coordinator of the political Opposition movement
Charter-97 mentioned the elimination of Belarusian culture, history and
language, as well as practices of “conscious mockery and suppression of the
language“ in Belarus. In February 1999, the Congress of Democratic Forces
of Belarus adopted a special resolution entitled “The Discrimination of the
Belarusian language in the Republic of Belarus”, concluding that the
Belarusian people’s rights for the free development of their native language
and culture are being “grossly violated“.
Currently,
the Belarusian language faces many challenges. It is insufficiently supported by
the Belarusian state, the unfavorable situation of which continues to
deteriorate. Issues regarding the development of the Belarusian language are
traditionally neglected by the communist parties. As for democratic parties, the
majority of them have only recently begun to notice that the language is an
important element of the Belarusian people’s identity.
This
realization was unintentionally inspired by the 1995-2000 state policy, aimed at
forcing Belarusian out of normal, everyday use and into the realm of a marginal
”opposition-related“ phenomenon. The repressive state policy towards the
Belarusian language can be expected to be revised in the near or distant future,
regardless of any major political changes occurring in Belarus.
This file is a part of the Virtual Guide to
Belarus - a collaborative project of Belarusian
scientists and professionals abroad. VG brings you the most extensive
compilations of the information about Belarus on the Web.
Please send your
comments to the authors of VG to Belarus
History
| Statehood | Culture
| Law and Politics | Cities
| Nature and Geography
|
©1994-04 VG to Belarus
Disclaimer