published in Eastern Economist #410, December 11, 2001
Once again, with an election in the wind, the issue of the Russian language in Ukraine rears its many heads.
Just two months ago, it seemed that Ukrainian was on the fast track. The VR Science and Education chair had made a very public declaration that the installation of Russian-language software in Ukrainian schools was “unacceptable.” After some negotiating, the mighty Microsoft confirmed Oct. 19 that they would provide Ukrainian versions of Word XP and Microsoft Outlook XP for Ukrainian schools and finance localization in the first half of 2002.
Then, at the end of November, the Verkhovna Rada was presented with six separate language bills, five of which propose declaring Russian an “official” language. “De facto, this would mean that Ukrainian will return to the times, not so long ago, when it had about the same status as Latin,” wrote Ihor Ostrovskiy in Den', a national daily, in a Dec. 7 article titled, “Ukrainians aren’t against Russian; they’re in favor of Ukrainian.”
“All five bills are in violation of the Constitution,” noted Les Taniuk, chair of the VR Cultural Development Committee, “which does not include the concept of an ‘official’ language. This is yet another attempt to turn language into a fighting ring where the various factions can duke it out…”
The capital was a-buzz this week with even more controversy, after the Moscow paper Trud [Struggle], a soviet-era leftover, published an interview Dec. 4 with President Kuchma, in which it quoted Ukraine’s leader as saying the Russian language should have official status.
This sparked a wave of heated commentary. On Dec. 7, Mr. Kuchma denied that he’d been interviewed, saying he had only told a Trud correspondent that Russian should not be treated as a “foreign” language in Ukraine. “More comfortable circumstances for the continuing development of Russian might only be found in Belarus,” was Mr. Ostrovskiy’s response to the president’s remark. “If anything, Ukrainian citizens don’t have normal conditions for learning the state language – but no trouble at all mastering Russian.”
More than 75% of general circulation newspapers and magazines in Ukraine come out in Russian, which clearly does not reflect the real number of Ukrainian speakers in the country [see chart]. The situation with books is far worse: for every Ukrainian book published, 56 Russian books appear on the store shelves, according to the VR Culture Committee.
Hanna Chmil, deputy state secretary at the Culture Ministry, says, “As a Ukrainian citizen, my Constitution guarantees me unimpeded access to works of art of Ukrainian origin, including literature – and this I don’t have. For example, Russian is the primary language of broadcasting. And even in those instances where it doesn’t dominate, the cultural values and works it espouses are from another country, not mine.”
Studio 1+1’s Yuriy Makarov is even more adamant: “Tell me, what’s been done in the last 10 years at the national level to counteract the effects of decades of russification? What breaks were given to Ukrainian book publishers? How is television being monitored to comply with language norms? …As a professional linguist, I can only say one thing: permission only confirms the status quo. And you know as well as I do, what that is.”
“There’s no question that this issue has political overtones,” says Oleksandr Pavlichenko, director of the EC DIC in Kyiv. “It’s clearly designed to gain votes, particularly in eastern regions. The status quo of the Russian language in Ukraine today is very positive. To give it official status would mean automatic duplication of all official documents, including legislation, and would carry involve tremendous costs. That’s folly.”
Meanwhile, Ukrainians may have found an ally in an unexpected corner. There was a congress of Ukrainians in Russia this week in Moscow, at which all kinds of people addressed the issue of Russian speakers and things Russian in Ukraine. In a meeting with a Ukrainian delegation, Russian Premier Kasyanov sniffed that his government was about to open a number of Ukrainian schools and he expected “similar conditions” for speakers of Russian in Ukraine.
To comply with Mr. Kasyanov’s request and match Russian standards, Ukraine would have to swiftly start shutting down 90% of Russian-language pre-schools, public schools, institutions of higher learning, institutes and so on across the nation. It would immediately have to stop training at public expense Russian-speaking teachers of any level – including, possibly, teachers of the Russian language.
There are 108 Russian theaters and 16 studios in Ukraine; most of them would have to go. The Lesia Ukrainka National Theater of Russian Drama would have to be renamed the Lesia Ukrainka National Theater of Ukrainian Drama. (And she could stop rolling in her grave at last, poor soul.)
The government would have to forbid all documents of an official nature – contracts, memoranda, policy papers, company correspondence, government forms, state literature promoting programs not connected to tourism, and so on – to be produced in the Russian language. Companies who continued to negotiate and sign contracts in Russian would simply find that their documents had no legal validity.
The Verkhovna Rada would have to immediately send packing those of its members who are still declaiming in Russian despite a long-standing parliamentary rule that all sessions are to be carried out in the state language, Ukrainian. They might consider allowing surzhyk – the half-and-half dialect many Ukrainian deputies speak – for up to six months while those deputies study proper Ukrainian. After which they, too, would risk being sent packing.
Political candidates would be forbidden to campaign publically in Russian…
Oops, I’m sorry, Mr. Kasyanov, but I’m afraid we can’t allow you to interfere in the internal workings of a foreign state – much as some people in Ukraine might love to! •
–from the notebooks of Pan O, with thanks to Den’.
No comments:
Post a Comment