Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:14:25.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language, Nationalism, and Populism in Belarus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Alexandra Goujon
Alexandra Goujon*
Affiliation:
Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Political leaders often use language as an instrument to establish their legitimacy. From the end of the 1980s, the Belarusian language became the symbol of Belarusian independence; however, it has never been the language of power. The language law of Belarus, which was adopted in 1990 and made Belarusian the official language of the state, appears to have been more a symbolic action for a new appropriation of power than the expression of a real political will. During perestroika political elites, mostly Russophones, preferred to rely on the language situation inherited from the Soviet system, in which the majority spoke Russian, rather than question a policy that could guarantee their popularity. When Alyaksander Lukashenka came to power in 1994, the gradual process of Belarusian language development was slowly reversed in order to integrate language policy into the continuity of Soviet practice. The promotion of the Russian language and the increase of discrimination against Belarusian have taken place along with the establishment of an authoritarian regime, which is based on press censorship, arrests of political opponents, and the monopolization of social, political, economic, and cultural activities. Faced with a direct threat to its existence, the Belarusian language became, as was the case during the Soviet period, a language of opposition and of counter-power. Belarusian leaders have tried to keep the Belarusian language and the discourses related to it out of power. The opposition, however, uses Belarusian as a political weapon against the regime, seeking to transform Belarusian into a future language of power. Considering the language as a crucial political issue, language policy is a way to manage and control not only the use of language, but also the discourse and the persons who are using it. In that context, language implies a speech, and the French distinction between langue and language is interesting in this respect. Language politics implies social and political representations of language and speech, which can be studied, analyzing the influence of political actors on these representations and the way in which they deal with the language problem.

Type
Forum: New Directions in Belarusian Studies
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , December 1999 , pp. 661 - 677
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. On the Belarusian language, see Belaruskaia mova. entsyklapedyia (Minsk: Belaruskaia Entsyklapedyia, 1994); Alexandra Goujon and Virginie Symaniec, Parlons biélorussien: langue et culture (Paris: L'Harmattan, 1997).Google Scholar

2. On the Lukashenka regime, see Heinz Timmermann, “Belarus: eine Diktatur in Europa,” Blätter für deutsche und Internationale Politik, Vol. 42, No. 5, 1997, pp. 597–607; Rainer Lindner, “Präsidialdiktatur in Weissrussland: Wirtschaft, Politik und Gesellschaft unter Loukasenka,” Osteuropa, Vol. 47, Nos 10–11, 1997, pp. 1038–1052.Google Scholar

3. On the relationship between language and power, see “La division des langues” in: Roland Barthes, Le Bruissement de la langue. Essais critiques IV (Paris: Seuil, 1984), pp. 119–133; Benedict Anderson, Language and Power. Exploring Political Cultures in Indonesia (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990); Jean-William Lapierre, Le pouvoir politique et les langues. Babel et Leviathan (Paris, PUF, 1988).Google Scholar

4. Gellner, Ernest, Nations et nationalisme (Paris: Editions Payot, 1989), p. 13.Google Scholar

5. On the relationship between language and nationalism, see Joshua A. Fishman, Language and nationalism. Two Integrative Essays (Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1975).Google Scholar

6. On nationalism in Belarus, see Alexandra Goujon, “Belarusian Statehood and Lukashenka's Politics,” Belarusian Review, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1998, pp. 7–10; Alexandra Goujon, “La construction de l'Etat-nation en Biélorussie: les fondements politiques et sociaux de deux formes de nationalisme,” Cahiers Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu, No. 4, 1999, pp. 141–150.Google Scholar

7. populism, On, see Margaret Canovan, Populism (New York: Harcourt Brace Janovich, 1981); Ghita Ionescu and Ernest Gellner, eds, Populism. Its Meanings and National Characteristics (London: Weidenfeld ∧ Nicolson, 1969).Google Scholar

8. Listy da Harbacova (London: Association of Byelorussians in Great Britain, 1987); Roman Solchanyk, “Letters to Belorussians' Weekly Evidence Strong Support for Native Language,” Radio Liberty Research, RL 425/86, 9 November 1986; “A Letter to Gorbachev: Belorussian Intellectuals on the Language Question,” Radio Liberty Research, RL 142/87, 20 April, 1987; “An Open Letter to Gorbachev from Belarussia,” Radio Liberty Research, RL 344/87, 19 August, 1987.Google Scholar

9. Anderson, Benedict, L'imaginaire national. Réflexions sur l'origine et l'essor du nationalisme (Paris: La Découverte, 1996), pp 77–91.Google Scholar

10. On the history of Belarusian nation, see David Marples, Belarus. A Denationalized Nation (Amsterdam: Harwood University Press, 1999).Google Scholar

11. On the history of language issues in Belarus, see Virginie Symaniec, “Biélorussie: langues et politique,” Nouveaux Mondes, No. 9 (Geneva: CRES, 1999), pp. 61–80; James Dingley, “Ukrainian and Belorussian—A Testing Ground,” in Michael Kirkwood, ed., Language Planning in the Soviet Union (Basingstoke: MacMillan Press, 1989), pp. 174–188.Google Scholar

12. On language policy in the Soviet Union, see Glyn E. Lewis, Multilingualism in the Soviet Union: Aspects of Language Policy and Its Implementation (Paris: La Hague-Mouton, 1973).Google Scholar

13. On Soviet nationalities policy, see Jeremy R. Azrael, ed., Soviet Nationality Policies and Practices (New York: Praeger, 1978); Henry R. Huttenbach, ed., Soviet Nationality Policies. Ruling Ethnic Groups in the USSR (London: Mansell, 1990); Rogers Brubaker, Nationalism Reframed. Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).Google Scholar

14. It is necessary to note precisely that in the 1930s all languages in the Soviet Union, including Russian, were reformed in order to show the well-founded policy of the friendship between people ( druzba narodov ).Google Scholar

15. Kreindler, Isabelle, “The Changing Status of Russian in the Soviet Union,” International Journal of the Sociology of Language , No. 33, 1982, pp. 7–39; Patrick Sériot, “La langue, corps pur de la nation. Le discours sur la langue dans la Russie brejnévienne,” Les Temps modernes, No. 550, 1992, pp. 186–208.Google Scholar

16. Zaprudnik, Jan, “Developments in Belorussia since 1964,” in George W. Simmonds, ed., Nationalism in the USSR and Eastern Europe in the Era of Brezhnev and Kosygin (Detroit: University of Detroit Press, 1977), p. 111.Google Scholar

17. Aleh Bembel', Rodnae Slova i Maral'na-estetychny pragress (London: Association of Byelorussians in Great Britain, 1985); Letter to a Russian Friend: A “Samizdat” Publication from Soviet Byelorussia (London: Association of Byelorussians in Great Britain, 1979). Initially published anonymously, this book is known to have been written by Aliakseï Kauka.Google Scholar

18. The Association of Byelorussians in Great Britain played a deciding role in this respect.Google Scholar

19. On the history of the Belarusian Popular Republic, see Vitaut and Zora Kipel, Byelorussian Statehood: Reader and Bibliography (New York: Belorusian Institute of Arts and Sciences, 1988).Google Scholar

20. For example, Said Negipoglu, “‘Your Second Native Language’. The Soviet Campaign of Cultural Genocide,” Problems of the Peoples of the USSR , No. 17, 1963, pp. 3–7.Google Scholar

21. On these questions, see Alexandra Goujon, “Le processus de formation d'une opposition politique et nationale en Biélorussie: le Front populaire biélorussien (1988–1991),” Revue d'Etudes Comparatives Est–Ouest, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1998, pp. 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. Ustanouchy Z'ezd Tavarystva Belaruskai Movy Imia Frantsiska Skaryny (Minsk: Navuka i Tèkhnika, 1992). See also Litaratura i Mastatstva, 30 May 1989.Google Scholar

23. Jan Zaprudnik, “Belorussian Reawakening,” Problems of Communism , July–August 1989, p. 50.Google Scholar

24. Notably, the Belarusian Language Society was created several days after the Founding Congress of the Popular Front.Google Scholar

25. The Belarusian Cultural Fund is, in fact, the Belarusian branch of the Soviet Cultural Fund.Google Scholar

26. The creation of such organizations is also a way to keep on the official side some intellectuals who might otherwise be tempted to work in informal structures.Google Scholar

27. See the language law in Litaratura i Mastatstva , 2 February 1990.Google Scholar

28. On language laws in other Soviet and post-Soviet Republics, see William Fierman, ed., “Implementing Language Law: Perestroika and Its Legacy in Five Republics,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1995, pp. 505–659.Google Scholar

29. “Dziarzhaunaia pragrama razvitsia belaruskai movy i inshykh natsyianal'nykh mou u Belaruskai SSR,” Litaratura i Mastatstva , 28 September 1990, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar

30. Hilevich, Hil, “Nezalezhnasts' movy—nezalezhnasts' dukhu,” in Iak ne spynic' uzykhodu Sontsa … (Minsk: Navuka i Tèkhnika, 1993), p. 7; Valentin Taras, “Iazyk ili mova?” Narodnaia hazeta, 26 June 1993.Google Scholar

31. Konstitutsiia Respubliki Belarus' (Minsk: Polymia, 1994), p. 6.Google Scholar

32. One should note the difference between Lukashenka and Leonid Kuchma, the Ukrainian president, who began to speak Ukrainian after his election in 1994.Google Scholar

33. See Lukashenka's program in Narodnaia hazeta , 14 June 1994; Nezavisimaia gazeta, 29 May 1997.Google Scholar

34. Markus, Ustina, “The Bilingualism Question in Belarus and Ukraine,” Transitions, Vol. 2, No. 29, 1996, p. 18.Google Scholar

35. Kanstytutsyia Rèspubliki Belarus' (Minsk: Belarus, 1997), p. 8.Google Scholar

36. Sovetskaia Belorussiia , 26 November 1998, p. 2.Google Scholar

37. Lukashenko, Alexander, Belarus Tomorrow (Geneva: East European Development Association, 1998), pp. 36–37.Google Scholar

38. Markus, Ustina, “Lukashenka's Victory”, Transitions, Vol 1, No. 14, 1995, pp. 75–78; “A War of Referenda in Belarus,” Transitions, Vol. 2, No. 25, 1996, pp. 12–15.Google Scholar

39. Pierre-André Taguieff, “Le populisme et la science politique. Du mirage conceptual aux vrais problèmes,” Vingtième siècle , No. 56, 1997, p. 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40. When the language law was adopted in January 1990, Popular Front had no seats in the Supreme Soviet. It gained some seats only after parliamentary elections in March 1990.Google Scholar

41. Concerning this period, many Russian speakers, even if they supported the Language Law, were apprehensive about the methods by which this law would be implemented.Google Scholar

42. Interview with S. Navumchyk, 5 January 1996.Google Scholar

43. Mukhin, Viktar, “Bèènèfauskaia mova,” Nasha Niva, Vol. 124, No. 3, 1999. Bèènèfauskaia mova means literally the language of the BNF, Belarusia Narodny Front, Belarusian Popular Front.Google Scholar

44. Svaboda, No. 19, 1995.Google Scholar

45. In the post-Soviet Belarus the concept of “fascism” seems stronger than the one of “nationalism” to denounce the opposition.Google Scholar

46. In this respect, Lukashenka said that the Russian language is, in fact, not a “Russian language,” but the language that Slavs founded together. Imia, 17 May 1995, p. 11.Google Scholar

47. Isabelle T. Kreindler, “A Second Missed Opportunity: Russian in Retreat as a Global Language,” International Political Science Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1993, pp. 261–262.Google Scholar

48. In his interview with a Russian newspaper, Lukashenka mentioned, indirectly, the association between language and rural origins. Nezavisimaia gazeta , 29 May 1997.Google Scholar

49. Concerning the concept of “high culture,” see Ernest Gellner, Nations et nationalisme (Paris: Editions Payot, 1989).Google Scholar

50. Nezavisimaia gazeta , 29 May 1997.Google Scholar

51. Belarus, In, most of all in rural areas, Russian is presented as the language of educated and cultured people (hramatny), contrary to Belarusian, which is considered the language of uneducated people. Lukashenka also uses such stereotypes. See Komsomol'skaia pravda, 3 July 1997.Google Scholar

52. Milton J. Esman, “The State and Language Policy,” International Political Science Review, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1992, p. 389.Google Scholar

53. “O vnesenii izmenenii i dopolnenii v zakon Respubliki Belarus‘; ‘O iazykakh v Respublike Belarus,’ ” 13 July 1998.Google Scholar

54. Pozniak, Zenon, “Bilingualism and Bureaucratism,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1988, p. 269. The original version is Zenon Pozniak, “Dvuiazychnie i Biurokratizm”, in Sapraudnae ablichcha (Minsk: Palifakt, 1992) p. 49.Google Scholar

55. Pozniak, “Bilingualism and Bureaucratism,” p. 270; “Dvuiazychnie i Biurokratizm,” in Sapraudnae Ablichcha , pp. 50–51.Google Scholar

56. Goujon, Alexandra, “La construction de l'Etat-nation en Biélorussie: les fondements politiques et sociaux de deux formes de nationalisme,” Cahiers Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu , No. 4, 1999, pp. 141–150.Google Scholar

57. Symaniec, Virginie, ”Biélorussie: langues et politique, in Nouveaux Mondes, No. 9 (Geneva: CRES, 1999), pp. 61–80.Google Scholar

58. The Belarusian Language Society adopts regularly statements concerning the Belarusian language situation. See its newspaper, Nasha slova. See also, RFE/RL Newsline, Vol. 3, No. 2, Part II, 1999.Google Scholar

59. The radio broadcasts from Poland.Google Scholar

60. The successor of the newspaper Svaboda is Naviny.Google Scholar

61. On this affair, see Nasha Niva, No. 11, No. 13, No. 14, No. 15, No. 16, and No. 18, 1998. See also, Jan Maksymiuk, “Belarus: Language Goes on Trial,” RFE/RL Newsline, Vol. 2, No. 152, Part II, 1998.Google Scholar

62. Viachorka, Vintsuk, “Ahul'napryniatyia Normy,” Nasha niva , No. 11, 1998.Google Scholar

63. See also the newspaper Holas Radzimy , which is dedicated to Belarusian people abroad.Google Scholar

64. “Pra dyskryminatsyiu belaruskai movy u Rèspublicy Belarus,” Rèzalutsyia Kangresa dèmakratychnykh sil Belarusi, 30 January 1999.Google Scholar

65. On the relationship between language and nation, see Pierre Caussat, Dariusz Adamski, and Marc Crepon, La langue, source de la nation. Messianismes séculiers en Europe centrale et orientale (du XVIIIème au XXème siècle) (Liège: Editions Mardaga, 1996).Google Scholar

66. One should note the distinction in the meaning of “nationalism” between that of Western countries and the post-Soviet states, in which it is linked to the past negative use of the term by Soviet propaganda.Google Scholar

67. See for example, Astrid Von Busekist, La Belgique: politique des langues et construction de l'Etat de 1780 à nos jours (Brussels: Duculot, 1998).Google Scholar

68. Symaniec, Virginie, “Pas à pas et au cas par cas,” Perspectives Biélorussiennes , No. 10, 1998, p. 9.Google Scholar

69. On this event, see Nasha niva , No. 20, No. 21, 1998; No. 3, 1999.Google Scholar

70. See, for example, Siargej Pul'sha, “Razmauliaiu pa-belarusku. Kronika udalaha èkspèrymèntu,” Nasha niva , No. 3, 1999.Google Scholar

71. The amendments to the 1990 Law adopted in July 1998 are one way to answer such requests.Google Scholar

72. See the newspaper Prava na Volju , the news bulletin of the Human Rights Center “Viasna-96” (Spring-96), in which there are regular articles on language issues.Google Scholar

73. “Belarus: New Clampdown on Press Spells Further Repression,” Paper of Article 19, 5 August 1998.Google Scholar

74. In this respect the Ukrainian case is different because of the existence of one official Ukrainian language.Google Scholar

75. On the question of purism in language issues, see Paul N. Wexler, Purism and Language: A Study in Modern Ukrainian and Belarussian Nationalism (1840–1967) (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1974).Google Scholar

76. See Nasha niva , No. 20, 1998.Google Scholar

77. Patrick Sériot, “La langue, corps pur de la nation. Le discours sur la langue dans la Russie brejnévienne,” Les Temps modernes , No. 550, 1992, pp. 186–208.Google Scholar

78. On the relationship between language and ethnicity in Belarus, see T. M. Mikulich, Mova i etnichnaia samasviadomasts' (Minsk: Navuka i Tèkhnika, 1996).Google Scholar

79. Goujon, Alexandra, “‘Genozid’: A Rallying Cry in Belarus,” Journal of Genocide Research, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1999, forthcoming.Google Scholar

80. Martine Fourier and Geneviève Vermes, Qu'est-ce que la recherche interculturelle? Ethnicisation des rapports sociaux. Racismes, nationalismes, ethnicismes et culturalismes , Vol. 3 (Paris: ENS Fontenay Saint-Cloud, L'Harmattan, 1994).Google Scholar

81. “Ne—kul'turnamu henatsydu belaruskae natsyi!,” Zaiava Soimu BNF “Adradzhèn'ne,” 13 June 1998.Google Scholar

82. Nasha slova , No. 10, 1999.Google Scholar

83. Brian D. Silver, “The Ethnic and Language Dimensions in Russian and Soviet Censuses,” in Ralph S. Clem, ed., Research Guide to the Russian and Soviet Censuses (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986) pp. 70–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

84. Malady Front , No. 2, 1999, p. 4.Google Scholar

85. Concerning the Belarusian Popular Front's recommendations, see BelaPAN, No. 70, 1999.Google Scholar

86. “Ni pad iakim natsiskam ne admovimsia ad rodnai movy,” Narodnaia Volia , 30 January 1999.Google Scholar

87. Tchakhotine, Serge, Le viol des foules par la propagande politique (Paris: Gallimard, 1952).Google Scholar