NATIONAL IDENTITY BETWEEN HISTORY AND POLITICS:
A Case Study of the Republic of Moldova (2001-2005)
Motto: History is yesterday’s Politics,
and today’s Politics is tomorrow’s History.
Abstract
In the context of the socio-political, economic and cultural changes of the end of the 20th century, the Republic of Moldova is laying down the foundation of a state based on democratic principles. The main problem experienced by this political entity in its endeavor to assert itself since the declaration of independence and to the present day has been its national identity - a subject closely linked both to the history and the language of the majority population as well as to the attitude of the country’s ethnic minorities towards it. The excessive involvement of the communist authorities in (re)writing the history has triggered each time major revolts and social movements.
The main goal of my paper is to analyze the relationship between National Identity, History and Politics in Moldova (2001-2005).
History is a sensible subject. Its main aim is to explain the realities of the past, which are not necessarily favorable or pleasant for us today. Therefore, this explanation has to be impartial, based on objectivity and well-supported arguments. The moments of glory and tragedy of a nation should not be transformed into myths or ideologies. Thus the mission of the historian derives from his responsibility on behalf of society[1]. As a discipline, history deals with the past, but it has a direct and close link with contemporaneous society.
History, as a social science and didactical discipline, has often served political purposes. Directly or indirectly, intentionally or accidentally history, has been one of the most discussed and topical subjects in society. In many countries history is a powerful source of political mobilization and in some a source of potent social cleavage. In some cases history reinforces the state, in others it provides space for resistance. These uses of history are justified, because only by knowing the past can we develop, understand, and shape the present[2] and plan the future[3], or in other words – history is yesterday’s politics, and today’s politics is tomorrow’s history.
History is a basic support of every society and the main discipline which has been mobilized by the states in order to cultivate the loyalty of its inhabitants. Historians more that any other intellectuals have contributed to the creation of the national memory and identity. Besides, the discipline of history plays an important role in the development of intellectual and personal capacities of the pupils, helping them to understand the present in the context of the past and to prepare them for tomorrow’s day[4]. Most of the present things have roots in the past, which can be clearly understood in the light of history. Knowledge of the origins of a process, event, object, people etc stimulates our curiosity and generates multiple questions. The questions regarding somebody’s origin and identity are often raised and researched among these. History teaches the young generation about their own identity, their neighbors, the states, about similarities and differences between cultures, traditions, and religions of the people. This also means that history has the potential of teaching tolerance while it explains differences and education of analytical skills and critical thinking.
History fosters people’s enthusiasm about freedom and the promotion of the values of democratic societies, where people’s equality and freedom of expression are guaranteed before everything else. Unfortunately, we have enough examples when committed politicians with the help of “politicized” historians try to mystify some historical realities in order to “justify” certain steps and political actions that contravene all principles of historic research. Such “achievements” only generate tensions or conflicts between scholars and in society as a whole.
One of the human rights of this era is to have knowledge of one’s national history, and the role and place of its nation in the world history. This is a desired right especially if one is to take into consideration that in the socialist period many historical realities were purposefully neglected or even falsified. After the collapse of the totalitarian regimes in Southeastern and Eastern Europe radical changes took place in the systems of political organization, education, research, etc. The replacement of the communist regimes by democratic ones was inspired by national values and national consciousness, both having a direct link with history and national identity. Therefore it was not surprising that these values were predominant in the post-totalitarian societies, which have been searching for their way to establishing democratic states founded on the fundamental human rights. Correspondingly, these changes generated new approaches to the process of history learning. History has remained a crucial subject in the development of democratic societies[5]. At the same time, nationality issues proved to be an explosive material and generated a number of interethnic conflicts. The conclusion was made that history could become a dangerous weapon and it should be used properly in order to enhance and support the process of democratization. This is especially true for the periods of transition or state instability.
The relation between national identity and the history Republic of Moldova represents a special case. Soviet historiography invented, in order to justify certain political steps, the Moldovan language and nation and counterfeited the history of the local population[6]. The population of the Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic (MSSR) was subject to communist ideology aimed at replacing the Romanian identity with another, newly-created one. “Moldovenism” became not only a historiographic strand but also a policy promoted for decades by the central authorities. In the end, the people living in Bessarabia were deprived of one of their fundamental rights – the knowledge of their national language and history. Given the attempts at returning to Romanian national cultural values and the historic truth, most initiatives are treated today by leftist political parties and some organizations, representing ethnic minorities, as nationalist. Most of the historians from Moldova replayed to this by defending the Romanian identity of the majority of the population from Moldova. They state that the Romanian nation developed in a common geographical, political, cultural, and linguistic area during the centuries. The historical evolution of Eastern Europe and especially the great-power politics of the 18th-20th centuries in this particular space disturbed the Romanians’ integrity. This discussion, however, is not closed yet and it does not take place only in history books.
In an attempt to trace the way in which the definitions of national identity and history education have developed since the declaration of independence to the present day, we can observe several stages:
I. 1988-1991 – the national movement culminated in the declaration of the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Moldova, the transition to the Latin alphabet, the replacement of the history of the USSR and history of the MSSR courses with world history and the history of the Romanians.
II. 1992-1994 – the War in Transnistria, was a conflict based on elements of Moldova’s national identity and interethnic relations. The accession to power of the Agrarian Party resuscitated the discussion around language and history. The promotion by the Agrarians of the “Moldovenism” policy led to increased tensions inside the country and the setting of the Moldovan language into the Constitution of Moldova[7].
III. 1995-2000 – the History enters the phase of curriculum reform. During this period the political crisis around the school subjects of Romanian language and history became extremely intense[8]. As a result of street rallies in the spring and fall of 1995 the government approved the school programs for World history and the history of the Romanians. Later the national curricula for the two subjects of history and the corresponding school textbooks were approved by the Government of Republic of Moldova.
IV. 2001-2005 – The communist government came to power in February 2001 elections. The relationship between the government and historians put again the subject of history in the public’s attention[9].
The first three stages have been described in a number of papers on the political evolution, the issue of identity and the subject of history in the schools of Moldova[10]. Therefore, I will dwell on the fourth stage concerning the issue of history teaching in schools and national identity during the Communist government (2001-2005).
When the Communist Party came to power, the discussion around history teaching in Moldova was rekindled. The communist government has been trying hard to change the name and content of the History of the Romanians course into a History of Moldova[11], and after a seminars organized in September 2002 and February 2003 by the Ministry of Education in cooperation with the Council of Europe[12] the idea of an Integrated History course appeared[13]. Many historians in Moldova viewed this attempt as Communist Party’s continuation of the tradition of Soviet historiography, concerning the Moldovan nation and language, an effort to develop further the counterfeit identity of the Moldovan state and nation as separate from Romanian. The new administration’s policy included both internal and external measures to promote a Moldovan identity. Thus, the Chisinau government which refused to sign agreements of cultural cooperation ignored the scholarships offered by Romania to Moldovan children and students, produced the cooling of relations between Moldova and Romania in 2001-2004. Internally this campaign was focused against the History of the Romanians course under the pretext that this is the history of “another country”, that its teaching “undermines Moldova’s statehood”, that “our children don’t study enough of the history of their native communities”, etc. With these arguments the Communist authorities try to achieve support from various international governmental and nongovernmental organizations in order to maintain this policy.
Civil society, in general, and the academic community, in particular, is against the involvement of politics in history education. Thus, at the Congress of the Historians of Moldova, held on 1st of July 2001 in Chisinau, university professors and school teachers of history, scientists and people of culture, students from various universities protested against the communist government’s attempt to replace the History of the Romanians. It was adopted the declaration For the Defense of National Dignity, Cessation of Romanophobia and Vilification of the History of Romanians[14]. The participants at the Congress also asked the leadership of Moldova to stop their campaign of vilifying the History of the Romanians course and pressuring scholars. The intellectual community of Moldova thus, tried to defend the right to its Romanian history and identity. In November 2001 the leadership of the Historians’ Association of Moldova published a declaration against the pressure from the central authorities to introduce the History of Moldova course, as a landmark in Moldova’s statehood. They drew the public’s attention to the fact that such actions were pursued in order to use history to the ideological interests of the Communist Party of Moldova[15].
Ignoring the opinion of civil society and historians, the communist government issued a decision in late 2001 introducing the Russian language as a compulsory school subject, starting in the second grade, which triggered major protests by parents, teachers, pupils and society as a whole. During the period of rallies in downtown Chişinău a small group of people required the president of Moldova to introduce without delay the History of Moldova course as, according to them, the History of the Romanians contributed to the “destruction of the Republic of Moldova”. Under the circumstances, on 1 February 2002 the Historians’ Association of Moldova addressed to the authorities a memorandum in which historians and scholars expressed their concern around the attempts to institute a dictatorial regime and resume “the old practices of indoctrinating the population with false and distorted ideas regarding the past of the Romanian people and especially of the Romanians living in Basarabia as a component part of the Romanian nation”. The authors of the memorandum asked the Moldovan authorities to respect and promote scientific truth in issues of national language, literature and history, and stop the Romanophobia campaign and the vilification of the Romanian language and history[16].
In spite of the mass protests in Chişinău’s main square, on 12 February 2002 the Minister of Education and five department directors of the Ministry of Education fully endorsed the Governmental Resolution on the introduction of the History of Moldova as a subject in schools, high-schools, universities and post-graduate institutions as of 1 September 2002, and on 15 February this resolution was approved at a governmental meeting[17]. This reckless decision enhanced the force of protests by teachers, students and other social and professional groups. Prime-Minister Vasile Tarlev considered a personal responsibility the adoption of those decisions because “the majority of independent states have their own histories”, while the Vice-Prime-Minister Valerian Cristea stressed that the Decision had been adopted following “numerous” requests of the parents. Historians responded by asking questions as: Why there were no such requests in the previous ten years? and From which parents came the requests since the school children who protested on 24 February were accompanied by their parents?
For a “smooth” implementation of this course a decision was taken to develop a textbook of the History of Moldova. This was an initiative of President Voronin, who appointed in 2001 one of the champions of “Moldovenism”, Vladimir Ţaranov editor of the textbook[18].
On 22 February 2002 the government of the Republic of Moldova approved a resolution “On steps to improve the study of history”[19], which revoked the decision of the executive from 15th of February 2002 concerning the implementation of the History of Moldova as a discipline to be taught in the educational institutions of Moldova. However, by this resolution Vice-Prime-Minister Valerian Cristea was charged to create a state commission for the development of the concept of the History of Moldova[20]. Thus, this was a clear sign of the decisiveness of the communists, who wanted to force the History of the Romanians out of school, who might delay immediate realization of the project because of the street protests, but have not renounce it.
On March 20, 2002, the Scientific Council of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova adopted a decision On the teaching and study of the History of the Romanians in the educational and academic systems of Moldova[21]. On March 26, 2002 the Academy of Sciences of Moldova voted by a majority to preserve the History of the Romanians in schools. Initially, the ex-president of the Academy of Sciences, Andrei Andrieş, supported certain changes in the history research in Moldova. The heavy criticism that followed in the mass media and academic circles severely affected his public image and authority and influenced a change in his position.