A British citizenship medal, London 2007 (AFP)

Doing away with the national question

Now that the borders have disappeared and its powerful Russian minority is calling for enfranchisement, Estonia is rethinking its concept of “cohabitation”. Postimees argues that this is something all countries should do, especially in light of latter-day immigration.

Published on 7 October 2009 at 15:01
A British citizenship medal, London 2007 (AFP)

On 1 October, justice minister Indrek Teder told the Estonian parliament the country is too ethnocentric and ought to be rethinking the principles and philosophy of the Estonian state, i.e. progressively moving towards a citizenship-based society. (Estonia basically distinguishes between Estonians and non-Estonians. Over 7% – mostly ethnic Russians – of the resident population do not have citizenship – down from 32% in 1992).

After the April 2007 riots (police clashed with ethnic Russians after the Bronze Soldier was taken down, a memorial to the Soviet army’s victory over Nazism), the Estonian state actively sought to integrate the young generation of non-Estonians into society. But when public opinion simmered down, other far more urgent issues eclipsed the quest for social cohesion. Apart from some draft legislation and various proposals on the matter, the discussion of integration was confined to the Ministry of Population (a body disbanded this summer), without eliciting a wider debate in society.

Towards a citizen-based society

Consequently, the justice minister’s proposals to the government ought to be applauded for rekindling the debate about the “national question” in Estonia. Mr Teder advances a cosmopolitan view that has yet to find many adherents in present-day Estonia, where it is more politically correct to vaunt the nation-state and the vital force of “feeling Estonian” than to see the dangers inherent in the principles of an ethnocentric state. The nation-state is perceived along very different lines on either side of Europe. The old European countries generally take the approach that anyone who lives in the country and speaks the language should be considered a fully-fledged member of society. We newcomers in Eastern Europe are more ethnocentric owing to our history: for over 50 years we had to watch from the sidelines as Europe’s borders fell, so all of that is very new to us.

Receive the best of European journalism straight to your inbox every Thursday

Addressing the nationality issue in terms of a society of “citizens” rather than “nationals” is a sign of a mature state. Our progress towards a more cohesive and citizen-centred society, as urged by Estonia’s minister of justice, is probably inevitable: we cannot possibly approach the question of nationality in the 21st century the same way we did in the 19th. The only question is whether this process is going to be steered by the government or left to the mercy of new and uncontrolled social outbursts like the “excesses” of 2007. Plainly, it would be wiser for the state to get the process going now, while it can still keep control over it, rather than remaining passive and running the risk of losing control.

OPINION

New citizenship for immigrants

The globalisation of the migration phenomenon “affects cohabitation, i.e. the very definition of citizenship,” says Catherine de Wenden from the Centre for International Studies and Research in Paris. And European countries, “in contrast to the United States, Canada and Australia, which redefined their citizenship in the 1960s, have only just begun to experience multiculturalism,” resumes the researcher in an interview published in Le Monde. Having long served as a place of departure, Europe “has a hard time accepting itself as a continent of immigration,” let alone a home for new settlers. As immigrants come to constitute a significant segment of the European population, European countries urgently need to give migrants an official status, insists de Wenden.

“The countries will only stand to gain if the migrants have a status, if they pay social security, consume, send money to their families.” What is more, she adds, it would make sense to establish a universal right of mobility, seeing as many migrants – e.g. wealthy and highly-qualified workers – aspire to make mobility a way of life. The big loser in this mobility trend is the state – in its attempt to impose its sovereignty on controlling the borders and defining national identity,” she observes. The principle of mobility still meets with the de facto resistance of governments that continue to favour a security-based approach to immigration. “We criminalise migration, to the detriment of an economic and social approach,” remarks Catherine de Wenden.

Tags

Was this article useful? If so we are delighted!

It is freely available because we believe that the right to free and independent information is essential for democracy. But this right is not guaranteed forever, and independence comes at a cost. We need your support in order to continue publishing independent, multilingual news for all Europeans.

Discover our subscription offers and their exclusive benefits and become a member of our community now!

Are you a news organisation, a business, an association or a foundation? Check out our bespoke editorial and translation services.

Support independent European journalism

European democracy needs independent media. Join our community!

On the same topic