Minorities the case of Ukraine

1
Minorities the case of Ukraine

• Nataliya BELITSER Pylyp Orlyk Institute for
  Democracy,
• Olexia BASARAB,
• Sergiy GERASYMCHUK
• Strategic and Security Studies Group
• Kyiv, Ukraine

International Workshop Effective political,
economic and social participation of minorities
Budapest, May 15 16, 2007
2
GENERAL OVERVIEW

• Ukraine is a poly-ethnic state apart from ethnic
  Ukrainians (titular ethnos) now constituting
  77.8 of the whole population, Ukraine is home to
  over 130 ethnic communities widely differing in
  size, sense of common ethno-cultural identity,
  commitment to self-preservation and development,
  political and social agenda etc.
• However, only a few ethnic minority groups have
  distinct common characteristics and the ability
  to self-organise in such a way as to influence
  state affairs and domestic sometimes also
  foreign policies.
• The interethnic situation and majority-minority
  relations in Ukraine are seriously complicated by
  the legacy of a sojourn under different Empires
  and totalitarian Soviet regime.
• This legacy has deeply affected the self-identity
  of national minorities and a significant part of
  Russified ethnic Ukrainians.

3
TABLE 1ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF UKRAINE ACCORDING
TO THE 1989 AND 2001 CENSUS
4
DYNAMICS OF MINORITY GROUPS

• A comparison of data obtained from the censuses
  of 1989 and 2001 shows a general trend of
  decreasing number of persons belonging to
  national minorities, resulting in the increased
  proportion of ethnic Ukrainians from 72.7 in
  1989 to 77.8 in 2001.
• Only two ethnic groups Romanians and Crimean
  Tatars exhibit net growth, in the last case
  determined by the process of mass repatriation of
  formerly deported Crimean Tatar people.
• However, this criterion should not be
  overestimated because the decreasing or
  increasing number of people self-identifying as
  members of a minority group depends on several
  factors and by no means should be regarded as
  indicative of a discriminatory policy in Ukraine
  towards minorities (compared to the USSR).

5
DYNAMICS OF MINORITY GROUPS (CONTINUED)

• One notable factor is the liberalisation of
  movement across borders (elimination of the iron
  curtain).
• The most conspicuous process of emigration is
  that of the Jewish population that decreased
  significantly as they left Ukraine and moved
  mostly to Israel, the US and Germany.
• A potent incentive for emigration, shared by both
  majority and minority population, was the
  economic hardships of the transition period.
• An interesting and not yet thoroughly studied
  reason for demographic shifts in minority
  populations is the process of re-identification,
  mostly by descendants of mixed marriages who in
  Soviet times usually preferred to claim
  themselves Russians, but after the collapse of
  the USSR often self-identify as Ukrainians.

6
Numbers of NGOs established by relevant minorities

Source Public organisations of ethnic minorities
of Ukraine the nature, legitimacy, activities
(in Ukrainian). By L.I. Loyko, Kyiv, 2005, pp. 1
633
7
LEGAL BASE

• The Declaration on the State Sovereignty of
  Ukraine, Ukraines Declaration of Independence,
  the Declaration on the Rights of Nationalities,
  the Law on National Minorities, the Ukrainian
  Constitution and the Law on Local Self-Government
  served as the legal basis for the development of
  the State ethnic policy.
• A number of legal principles and procedures
  protecting the interests of national minorities
  are set forth in the Law on Citizenship, the Law
  on Citizens Associations, the Law on Freedom of
  Conscience and Religious Organisations, the Law
  on Education, the Law on Languages, the Print
  Media (Press) Act and the Principles of Ukrainian
  Cultural Legislation and complemented by the Law
  on Education, the Foundations of legislation of
  Ukraine on culture, Civil and Criminal Codes.
• The Law on National Minorities of Ukraine was
  adopted in June 1992 earlier than in many other
  post-Communist transition countries. For quite a
  while, this law has been exemplified as the most
  liberal and democratic, ensuring a rather strong
  regime of minority protection.

8
A SPECIAL CASE OF CRIMEAN TATAR PEOPLE who are
they?

• They are neither Tatars nor Turks.
• They are a distinct ethnos, a nation without a
  state of their own.
• Contrary to the widespread notion, their
  ancestors did not arrive in Crimea as late as the
  13th century (with Genghis Khan warriors).
• Their ethnogenesis is closely linked to the
  Crimean peninsula, where local tribes from time
  immemorial have mixed and assimilated with
  numerous other tribes, peoples and nations
  migrating to and through the Crimea.
• Therefore, the Crimean Tatars are indigenous
  people of Crimea whose rich cultural and
  historical traditions include a historical memory
  of their own statehood, of the once well known
  and well established state the Crimean Khanate,
  which lasted for over three centuries (from 1433
  till 1783).

9
A SPECIAL CASE OF CRIMEAN TATAR PEOPLE (continued)

• The very term people here symbolises the
  extreme importance of their claim to be
  recognised as not a national or traditional
  (autochthonous) minority, but as a people
  (nation), i.e., a distinct ethno-cultural entity
  with their own, unique identity, language,
  historical tradition etc., thus having the right
  for self-determination.
• After the genocidal deportation in May 1944 and
  almost half a century of living in exile, their
  severely undermined identity continues to be
  under threat of extinction.
• The process of Crimean Tatar repatriation to
  their motherland (now having a status of the
  Autonomous Republic of Crimea) has been financed
  by the only post-Soviet country Ukraine
  despite the officially proclaimed role of Russia
  as the successor of all assets and debts of the
  Soviet Union.
• To integrate fully the former deportees, at least
  proportional representation of Crimean Tatars in
  all branches of power is needed.
• However, no legislative mechanisms to ensure
  their effective participation in political life
  yet exist at either national or republican level.

10
THE SYSTEM OF SELF-GOVERNMENT

• Their public and political activities have rather
  become possible due to the unique experience in
  self-organisation and mobilisation. The striking
  illustration of this ability is the establishment
  of their own bodies of self-government central
  Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people,
  democratically elected by the Kurultay
  (all-national Assembly, first held in June 1991),
  and regional and local Mejlises elected by local
  communities.
• Regrettably, these bodies of the Crimean Tatar
  self-government are not yet officially recognised
  by Ukraines legislation. Nor has any special
  status been provided for the Crimean Tatar
  people, despite the fact that a relevant draft
  law was prepared in 1996, soon after the adoption
  of the new Constitution of Ukraine, which
  referred to indigenous peoples.
• The situation was only partially alleviated by
  the Decree of the President of Ukraine from 18
  May 1999 On the Council of Representatives of
  Crimean Tatar People. This Council was
  established as a consultative-advisory body
  attached to President of Ukraine.

11
REPRESENTATION OF MINORITIES IN OTHER
MULTIETHNIC REGIONS OF UKRAINE

• Among most sizable and compactly living
  ethnic groups, Hungarians and Romanians should be
  addressed. The majority of them traditionally
  inhabit Transcarpathian and the Chernivtsi
  (Bukovyna regions (oblasts).
• The TRANSCARPATHIAN REGION is populated by more
  than 70 nationalities. The data below provides
  quantitative characteristics of the biggest
  ethnic groups (in thousands).
• Ukrainians 10 10.1
  (80.5)
• Hungarians 151.5
  (12.5 )
• Romanians 32.1
  (2.6 )
• Russians 31.1
  (2.5 )
• Roma 14.0
  (1.1 )
• Slovaks 5.6 (0.5
  )
• Germans 3.5 (0.3
  )

12
The number of ethnic minorities representatives
in the local government

• The number of ethnic minorities representatives
  in the local government reflects their relative
  political activeness and ability to
  self-mobilise.
• In district and city councils there are 147
  Hungarians (12.8), 15 Romanians (1.3), 10
  Russians (0.9), and 3 Roma (0.3), with lower
  representation of other ethnic groups.
• It should be noted that before the parliamentary
  elections of 2006, the Association of Hungarian
  Culture in Transcarpathia was transformed into
  the Democratic Party of Hungarians of Ukraine
  that won 5 seats in the Regional Council and 66
  in district and city councils. Its leader, Istvan
  Haidosh, became a major of Beregovo the city
  with the most numerous Hungarian population
  amounting to 54,000.

13

• The population of the CHERNIVTSI REGION is
  represented by almost 80 nationalities, the
  biggest being Ukrainians (75), Romanians
  (12.5), Moldovans (7.3 ), Russians (4.1), Jews
  (0.2), Poles (0.3), Belarusians (0.2) and
  Germans (0.1). According to the 2001 census, the
  Romanian minority is the biggest, amounting to
  114,500 members. In several districts of the
  region, Romanians live as compact communities as
  is illustrated by the table below.

The Romanian minority is represented by 16
deputies in the Regional Council, which
constitutes 15 of the Councils deputies, thus
exceeding proportionate representation that would
equate to 12 13.
14

• Compactly living ethnic minorities are well
  represented in District Councils. As shown by the
  table below, the percentage of Romanians and
  Moldovans is either proportionate or sometimes
  surmounts their share in the regions population.

The Romanian minority also enjoys a good
representation in local bodies of State
Administration. For example, in the Herza
District Administration, three deputy-heads and
70 of all of the employees are ethnic Romanians.
22 of the employees in the Storozhynets District
Administration and one deputy head are also of
Romanian ethnic origin. For the Glyboka District
State Administration, the figures are one and
10, respectively.
15

• Since both Hungarians and Romanians have
  traditionally populated these territories, now
  neighbouring their kin-states, these
  kin-minorities should also be regarded as
  traditional national minorities, using the
  criteria provided by the Resolution 1201 (1993)
  of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
  Europe on an additional protocol on the rights of
  national minorities to the European Convention on
  Human Rights.
• According to Article 1 (Section I) of this
  Recommendation,
• the expression ''national minority'' refers to a
  group of persons in a state who
• reside on the territory of that state and are
  citizens thereof
• maintain longstanding, firm and lasting ties with
  that state
• display distinctive ethnic, cultural, religious
  or linguistic characteristics
• are sufficiently representative, although smaller
  in number than the rest of the population of that
  state or of a region of that state
• are motivated by a concern to preserve together
  that which constitutes their common identity,
  including their culture, their traditions, their
  religion or their language.

16

• An important point concerning this particular
  Resolution is that it is often included into
  bilateral treaties concluded between many
  European states, especially those of Central and
  Eastern Europe.
• These treaties, incorporating what were initially
  only political, soft law documents, having been
  subsequently ratified by special legislative
  acts, in such a way acquire legally binding
  force. Therefore, provisions of the PACE
  Recommendation 1201 (1993) should be regarded as
  parts of national legislations obligatory for
  implementation except special reservations
  concerning Article 11, when the contracting
  parties usually agree upon not accepting
  obligations to provide national minorities with
  territorial autonomies based on ethnic criteria.
• This issue was addressed, inter alia, by the
  Venice Commission (European Commission Democracy
  through Law.) It was indicated that
  incorporation of soft law provisions, such as the
  Council of Europes Parliamentary Assemblys
  Recommendation No. 1201 (1993) and the CSCE
  Copenhagen Document (1990) gives them binding
  effect in mutual relations between the
  Contracting Parties (see the Report on the
  Preferential Treatment of National Minorities by
  their Kin-State adopted by the Venice Commission
  at its 48th Plenary Meeting, Venice, 19 20
  October 2001).

17
CONCLUSIONS

• Currently, the Ukrainian legislation in the field
  of minority rights and interethnic relations is
  rather outdated and inconsistent.
• Its further development should be realised in
  full compliance with relevant instruments of
  international and regional (European) law, paying
  also close attention to the recommendations
  elaborated, in particular, by the Council of
  Europe and OSCE.
• Special focus should be made on ensuring
  effective participation of ethnic minorities in
  political, economic and social activities on both
  grass-root and decision-making levels.

18
CONCLUSIONS (continued)

• Experience and good practices of some
  neighbouring and other European countries would
  be of great importance in developing Ukrainian
  legislation and state policies.
• Promoting closer regional cooperation between
  various state bodies and different actors of
  civil society would be of added value.
• As an example of the emergence of such
  cooperation, the recently implemented
  quadrilateral project involving expert groups
  from Hungary, Moldova, Romania and Ukraine, could
  be mentioned.
• An outcome of this project is the book titled
  Interethnic Relations, Minority Rights and
  Security Concerns A Four-Country Perspective.

19

• Thank you!