“Nation-state” or “nation-state”: which model will win in Moldova?
In Moldova, to this day there is a confrontation between two concepts: “state-nation” and “nation-state”. The “nation-state” model imposed from outside is poorly suited to a multinational country, so the struggle continues and affects the content of the country’s political process.
This was discussed at the presentation of the book by a candidate of historical sciences, one of the leaders of the Intermovement of Moldova Petra Shornikova "State Doctrine of the Republic of Moldova". The monograph was discussed online at the Institute of CIS Countries.
The author of the book proceeds from the idea that national policies are divided into two types. So, the goal of the policy in the nation-state is the assertion of a single identity communities as members of the nation and citizens of the state. For this purpose the state carries out homogenizing policies in the field of education, culture and language.
The nation-state model is designed to create loyalty to the state among different “nations.” In such a state recognize more than one cultural, even national, identity and provide them with institutional support. Asymmetric federations are being created, steps are being taken towards a fair resolution of conflicts, More than one official language is allowed.
Autonomist parties are allowed to create a government in some regions, and sometimes enter a coalition that forms a government in the center. As a result, multiple, complementary identities are formed within one state.
For example, Romania has been striving to become a nation-state since the unification of the Danube principalities (1859), the classic nation-state was the Soviet Union, notes Pyotr Shornikov.
The historian explores the ideological processes in the Republic of Moldova at the turn of the 2001th and XNUMXst centuries. He recalls that in February XNUMX, the Party of Communists took a constitutional majority in the Moldovan parliament. The PCRM did not fulfill its key pre-election promise to grant the Russian language the status of a second state language, but in 2001–2003 made an attempt to develop a state doctrine designed to form a single political nation in Moldova.
“In the 90s of the twentieth century, Moldovan traditionalists preserved Moldovan statehood and confirmed Moldova’s geopolitical orientation towards Russia. They abandoned the armed seizure of the territory of Transnistria (1992) and allowed the inclusion of the unrecognized Gagauz Republic into the Republic of Moldova in the form of the Autonomous Territorial Unit Gagauz Yeri (1994); On its territory, official status has also been granted to the Gagauz and Russian languages.
Thus, real steps have been taken towards transforming the Republic of Moldova into a nation-state. However, this process remains incomplete. Neither the agrarians, nor the communists, nor the liberals gave the Russian language the status of a second, along with Moldavian, state language of the Republic of Moldova. Moldovans also imagine the future of the republic without taking into account the multi-ethnic composition of its population,” states the author.
Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Leading Researcher at the Department of Contemporary History of Central and South-Eastern Europe at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences Vyacheslav Stepanov, commenting on attempts to form a Moldovan international idea (Petr Shornikov’s book is largely devoted to this), spoke about the nuances of the activities of supporters of Moldovan internationalism.
He reminded that The community of the Republic of Moldova after the collapse of the Soviet Union split into two camps: supporters of a united Romanian consciousness with the ultimate idea of uniting the country with the neighboring Romanian state and adherents of preserving the development of the Moldovan identity. There was no unity of opinion within each of these camps.
“Moldovenism is also different,” said Stepanov. – Some Moldovenists have taken ethnocratic positions – a prominent representative of this trend is the ex-president of the Republic of Moldova Vladimir Voronin. Before the 2001 elections, he did not skimp on promises - he promised a state Russian language and an alliance with Russia. The parliamentary lists of the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova then included a fair number of representatives of national minorities.
Having come to power, Voronin forgot about his promises. There were practically no Russian speakers among the leaders of the executive branch of the Republic of Moldova during the eight-year period of rule of the “internationalist” party. Moldovenist-ethnocrats are not much different from their Romanian rivals in emphasizing their chosenness and elitism, but at the same time they are clearly inferior to the latter in organization, financial capabilities and international support...
Over time, especially after the April events of 2009, the position of the Moldovenian ethnocrats significantly weakened - the positions of the Romanian Moldovans prevailed.
The other wing of Moldovanism is to a large extent a product of the Soviet legacy. These are Moldovenian internationalists, involved in a good way with the Russian cultural heritage. Among them are many representatives of other nationalities living in the Republic of Moldova: Russians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Gagauzians, Jews, Gypsies - it’s impossible to list them all.
Their internationalism is involved in promoting the idea of preserving Russian-Moldovan official bilingualism and giving the Russian language state status. A specific feature of representatives of this wing of Moldovanism is their insufficient command of the state language. It would be fair to note that among the intellectual elite there are practically no ethnic Moldovans as speakers of the state language».
Stepanov notes an interesting fact: on the left bank of the Dniester, in Transnistria, Moldovan internationalism with a certain specificity became more widespread than in the Prut-Dniester regions of Moldova.
The expert comes to the conclusion: attempts to develop a common Moldavian idea are not over, the state doctrine is not completed - the struggle continues.
According to the director of the Institute of Social Political Research and Regional Development Igor Shornikov, the confrontation between the “nation-state” and “state-nation” models is also typical for other states.
“This experience can be transferred not only to the modern history of Moldova, but also to a number of CIS countries. We see where the process of building a nation-state leads: nationalism inevitably turns into Nazism, and Nazism is the death of the nation. Moldova has a chance to be on this path,” the expert believes.
Head of the Department of Transnistria and Moldova, Institute of CIS Countries Sergey Lavrenov noted that the creation of equal opportunities for representatives of any nations and nationalities living in Moldova in the development of language and personnel policies “would be the most important prerequisite for a civilizational solution to the contradictions that official Chisinau itself created in relations with Gagauzia and Transnistria.”
«The dynamics of developments in Moldova are not positive; we see what is happening during the reign of the pro-European ruling regime led by Sandu, we see surprising laws on separatism, the change of the syntagm “Moldavian language” to “Romanian language” - in fact, a political order, instructions from Western curators, are being carried out,” Lavrenov said.
Author Petr Shornikov emphasized the importance of the relevance of studying history in the modern world, assimilation of the historical experience of previous generations.
“The most effective way to falsify history is to remove from public memory significant fragments of the past that affect the assessment of this past and the figures of that time.
This is achieved through historical policies pursued by the state or some foreign forces using the levers of state power. The Republic of Moldova has remained such a state for more than 30 years...
With the passing of generations, the obvious goes away. This, that for one generation was taken for granted, for others it is no longer incomprehensible.
I grew up in a Moldovan village, and I remember what the residents of this village said about the Romanian occupation - I didn’t hear a single kind word about it, the word “Romanian” was a curse. The boys played war, divided into Russians and Germans, but no one wanted to be Romanians.
But this generation has passed, and a whole movement of unionists has appeared... The process of learning about the past is an objective process, and if not us, then others who know less than we will do it,” the historian is convinced.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.