Ethnic Conflicts in the Baltic States in Post-soviet Period. Сборник статей

those who either agree with that statement or undecided is larger among the Russian-speaking group. These data can be an indication that discussions about the repressions a less common among the Russian-speakers than in the Latvian-speaking society where yearly remembrance events take place with the participation of the most prominent country officials.

      Looking at the perception of the entire period of Latvia being a part of the USSR and its effect on the life of the country as a whole, there are apparent differences in the opinions between the two groups. Looking at the attitude to the statement “In fact, being a part of the USSR was good for Latvia”, it is apparent that the share of all respondents who fully or partially agree with this statement is 54 %. Analysing that fact, we can state that the majority of people in Latvia positively value Latvia’s being part of the USSR. However, among the Latvian-speaking people the responses to that statement are almost equally split: the share of those who agree is 43 % and those who disagree is 41 %, while among the Russian-speaking respondents the share of those who agree constitutes an absolute majority with 71 % (see Fig. 4).

      Fig. 4. Life of Latvia as a part of the Soviet Union.

      Analysing these data allows seeing that the Russian-speakers are the ones with a more positive view of Latvia being a part of the USSR believing that it was good for Latvia, than the Latvian-speaking public. This indicates a possible Soviet-times nostalgia among some of the Russian-speaking people and that, possibly, live has been better for them in the USSR times than now. Analysing the responses of the people who mainly use Latvian at home, most likely their agreement with the statement is explained by their disappointment in the current course of the country, its politics and economics. However, this does not mean that a great part of the Latvian-speaking public desire the resurrection of the Soviet order. Yes, they were disappointed in the political course taken and probable they were better off in the times of Soviet Latvia, when they had a sense of stability, protection and social guarantees, but their responses to the next statement demonstrated that they would not want to go back there.

      The next statement for the respondents’ evaluation was about their personal attitude to the collapse of the Soviet Union: “I positively value the fact of collapse of the USSR”, where the responses demonstrated a clear difference between the opinions of the Latvian-speaking and Russian-speaking people with the former seeing it mainly positively (the sum of “fully agree” and “partially agree” is 59 %) and the latter, in contrast, having a more negative view (49 %), see Fig. 5.

      Fig. 5. Perception of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

      The analysis of the data shows that the Russian-speaking people in Latvia are the ones who have more regrets about the collapse of the Soviet Union than the Latvian-speaking public. This may have several explanations. On the one hand, there are more people among the Russian-speakers who have been better off in the Soviet times, so they wish those times returned. Another explanation of this phenomenon may be constant criticism of that regime with the emphasis on its negative sides by the ruling elite and in the Latvian media. At the same time, in Russian-language media in Latvia and mass media in Russia, such criticism is far less frequent and both positive and negative sides are shown. This can also explain a large share of the Russian-speaking people who agree with the statement or cannot give an answer.

      Analysing the influence of the mass media, we have asked the respondents to give their view of the interpretation of history of Latvia in mass media in Russia: “There are a lot of lies being told about history of Latvia in mass media in Russia”, where we can also see different responses in the two studied groups (see Fig. 6).

      Fig. 6. Influence of mass media in Russia on history of Latvia.

      65 % of the Latvian-speaking respondents believe that history of Latvia is being misrepresented in mass media in Russia. This can be explained by the general attitude to that country formed as a result of the relevance of the said historical issues. The Russian-speaking respondents demonstrate the opposite trend, which shows a different interpretation of certain historic events and other historical memory in that group.

      The survey data have clearly shown the opposite views of the two studied groups on almost all key historical matters. Different values may significantly affect voting behaviour in the studied groups, so the author thinks that it is necessary to have a look at it in more detail in the next chapter.

      Voting behaviour of people in Latvia

      Voting behaviour is a complex of actions of people related to exercising their rights at local and national elections and referendums.

      Pursuant to the Latvian law, only citizens of Latvia aged 18 or more at the time of the elections can participate in the elections. Citizens of other EU counties living in Latvia permanently can also participate in the local elections and elections to the European Parliament. However, according to the population census, there are only 5885 such people,[20] which is about 0.3 % of all citizens of Latvia, and this figure is within acceptable statistical error and does not effect the outcome of the elections.

      According to the census, citizens of Latvia account for 83.5 %, and 14.2 % are non-citizens of Latvia, which is a separate group of Latvian residents without voting rights and cannot be considered Latvian voters.

      Non-citizens of Latvia are mainly Russian-speakers, while 99.9 % of ethnic Latvians are citizens. That is why the distribution by language among the citizens of Latvia is substantially different from that in the country as a whole. Of all the citizens who have specified their language of communication, 72.4 % use Latvian and only 26.9 % Russian language.[21] However, despite that, the results of the elections show what parties are supported by the Russian-speaking and Latvian-speaking citizens (see Fig. 7).

      Fig. 7. Partied elected to 11th Parliament.

      The map clearly shows that the Concord Centre received majority of the votes in the areas with a large share of Russian-speaking voters. The support of that party in different areas apparently depends on the share of the Russian-speaking voters living there. Where the number of Russian-speaking voters was below 5 %, the party balanced on the verge of 5 % threshold, but where their share was 40 % or more, its support was significantly higher. Correlation coefficient (r) between the share of non-ethnic Latvian citizens in the areas and votes given for the party is 0.976, and the coefficient of determination (R²) is 0.953 (see Fig. 8).