Controversy over national identity in Moldova

A controversy exists over the national identity and name of the native language of the main ethnicity of the Republic of Moldova.

The controversy

The indigenous majority, is defined as “Moldovan” by article 12 of the Constitution [ [http://www.moldova.md/ moldova.md] ] . Several laws [ [http://www.parlament.md/download/laws/ro/546-XV-19.12.2003.doc] ] verify source|date=August 2008 make clear that this identity excludes “Romanian” identity; for example, teachers of this language are forbidden to call it “Romanian”: any reference to the speaking of Romanian is said by the Moldavian authorities to be a “manifestation of Romanian imperialism and its supporters” (who are described as “enemies of the nation and agents of a foreign power”). [ [http://www.moldova.md/president Voronin declarations] ] verify source|date=August 2008 It is also specified in several decrees that “Moldovan” preceded Romanian historically, since Moldavia was in existence as a Principality (from 1359) long before the birth of Romania (1859). [ [http://www.moldova.md/History] ] verify source|date=August 2008 Moldovan is the official language of the state, the status of “language of interethnic communication” is provided to the Russian language. [ [http://www.moldova.md/] ]

The official definition of a Moldovan identity, which reserves the name “Moldovan” for Daco-Romanian speakers only, while denying their Romanian speaking (since “Moldovan” is defined as a “different language from Romanian”fact|date=August 2008), has four political effects and one scientific effect [ [http://www.iatp.md/istorie/organizatii/iiasm.shtml] ] verify source|date=August 2008:
* it gives rise to protests from the majority of the scientific world and the teaching profession (hence constant strikes and demonstrations) [ [http://www.flux.md/] ] verify source|date=August 2008;
* it prevents the majority of the people from freely developing their culture beyond the state boundaries (as the minorities are allowed to) since, if a Russian or a Ukrainian may freely take advantage of and benefit from Russian or Ukrainian culture, a Moldovan may not freely take advantage of and benefit from Romanian culture;fact|date=August 2008
* it excludes the minorities from the “Moldovan” political community, with the result that they have no commitment to that State;fact|date=August 2008
* it blocks the rapprochement of the Republic of Moldova with the European Union, for Romania refuses to ratify any document which denies the Romanian ethnic identity of the indigenous people of the Moldova [ [http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/md.html] ] verify source|date=August 2008;
* finally, as far as science is concerned, it repudiates two facts:
** the existence of a Daco-Romanian-speaking group which differs from the political grouping of Romanian or Moldovan citizens (who are not all, Daco-Romanian speakers) and who understand one another’s speech immediately and completely without any need of a translator;fact|date=August 2008
** the fact that the ancient regional dialects of the Daco-Romanian language (called “Romanian” in Romania and “Moldovan” in Moldova), dialects of Moldavia, Transylvania, Valachia and Dobruja, were unified in the 19th century beyond political boundaries, thanks to the progress of education, as was the case elsewhere in Europe with other languages to the point where today, one can no longer speak linguistically of different languages in these different countries.

The controversy surrounding national identity fuels permanent tension in the Moldovan society:
* in constitutional and legislative instability (viz. the constitution, numerous laws, the state anthem, regional organisation, uniforms, institutions have all undergone numerous changes since independence) [ [http://www.flux.md/] ] verify source|date=August 2008;
* in that it has been impossible to build up local patriotism, to give the population any confidence in the future of the country (as one can see from the serious problems in education and in the high proportion of double or triple citizenships among the Moldovan citizens) [ [http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/md.html] ] verify source|date=August 2008;
* in regional organisation where federalism is not an association on equal terms among regional units with the same rights, but judicial and economic discrimination to the advantage of two of these units (who benefit from extensive autonomy, which is refused to the “rayons”) one of which, Transnistria is independent of government authority;fact|date=August 2008
* in the instability of relations between Moldova and neighbouring countries: to round up its electors, each political party uses its special relationship with one of the neighbouring countries while frightening its supporters by denouncing the privileged relationship of opposing parties with other countries. [ [http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/md.html] ] verify source|date=August 2008

Moldovan identity controversy spills over into Romania

Indeed, Russian writers, Soviet writers and writers from the Moldova who uphold the definition of “non-Romanian Moldovan” identity are divided over the question whether the Moldavians from the region of Moldavia in Romania (“regiunea Moldova”) are also “non-Romanian”, or whether they are Romanians and so, different from the Moldovans of Moldova.fact|date=August 2008

Thus, each country upholds a definition of the population of the other country on the other side of the border between Moldavia and Moldova. However, the Moldavians from Romania all have the same opinion as their administrationfact|date=August 2008, where as the Moldovans of the Republic of Moldova are more divided when it comes to the definition of their own administration: some are against (mainly the young and the city dwellers), some do not know, others are in agreement with the authorities (more the elderly, the villagers and the people who speak Russian and Ukrainian).fact|date=August 2008

If historical and ethnological arguments are sometimes put forward in this controversy, the main part of the argumentation of the two “schools”, “romanists” and “moldavists” comes from the field of linguistics.

Linguistic point of view

The linguistic dispute which separates “romanists” from “moldavists” focuses on two points :
* are Romanian (SIL Code, RUM; ISO 639-1 code, ro; ISO 639-2 -B-code, rum; ISO 639-2 -T-code, ron) and Moldovan (ISO 639-1 code, mo; ISO 639-2 code, mol) two distinct languages or one single language?fact|date=August 2008
* if they are one single language, is it right to give it several names, names which differ from one State to another or should not one name only be selected?fact|date=August 2008

Those who speak the language understand one another immediately and completely without translation or dictionary and no distinction between the two languages is made by scientific linguists, who agree that the basic lexical content and grammatical structure are identical, even though there are regional accents and some local expressions (which can be found, moreover, on either side of the border which separates Romania and Moldova). For example, a cabbage, a drill and a water melon are respectively said “Curechi”, “Sfredel” and “Harbuz” in Moldova and Moldavia, but “Varzǎ”, “Burghiu” and “Pepene” in Transylvania and Valachia. However, all the Daco-Romanian-speakers know and understand both forms of each term [see Eastern Romance languages] .

From a strictly linguistic point of view, Romanian and Moldovan are merely political terms for one single language: “Daco-Romanian”, an “abstand” language in socio-linguistic terms, that is to say, a language in which the dialects, past or present, display enough common structural traits, scientifically established, to constitute one language.

But even on scientific grounds, a further difficulty arises from the fact that most Romanian linguists consider that “Daco-Romanian” is not a language [see “” on the Romanian Wikipedia] . For them, it is merely a dialect (with Aromanian, Istro-Romanian and Megleno-Romanian - spoken south of the Danube) of a more widely defined language, which, according to them, should be called “Romanian” (even if a speaker of Daco-Romanian and a speaker of Aromanian do not understand one another immediately without a translator). So, for these Romanian nationalists, “Romanian” and “Moldovan” are not two names for the same Daco-Romanian language , but a “correct” name and a “wrong” name. This stance does not make dialogue easier.

However, before 2001, the two regulating bodies of the Daco-Romanian language, the Romanian Academy and the Academy of Sciences of Moldova had two different rules for the sound represented by the Russian letter "ы", or Turkish ı : the Romanian Academy writes it “î” as initial, “â” in other positions, but the Academy of Sciences of Moldova always writes it as “î”.

The name of the country

To differentiate the name of the modern republic, which has been independent since August 1991, from that of the historic Moldavia, the authorities of Chisinau have registered with UNO both in English and in the Romance languages, the neologism “Moldova” (which is the Daco-Romanian form of the name) as opposed to the historic form Moldavia.fact|date=August 2008

Before 1991, the term “Moldavian” was generally taken to mean everything which belonged to or was the concern of Moldavia (in Romanian "Moldova"), whether it was a matter of the historic Principality of Moldavia, of the actual geographical region of Romania, or of the soviet Moldavian republic.

Since 1991 the term “Moldovan” (the Daco-Romanian form of the name) refers solely to anything which relates to Moldova.The Romanian nationalists also challenge the use of the name Moldavia for the Republic of Moldova, as, according to them, that name should be kept for the Romanian part of Moldavia and the republic of Moldova should be known as “Bessarabia”.

History of the Moldavian/Moldovan identity

The Moldavian identity has gone through two radically different stages :
* a historic period, medieval in origin, prior to the emergence of the nations of the 19th century and connected with the Principality of Moldavia, in which “Moldavian” identity was defined, as was the case in the whole of Europe, by membership of a certain empire, kingdom, principality or duchy [Charles Upson-Clark, Bessarabia, Dodd, Mead & Co., N.Y., 1927] ;
* a soviet period , which followed the emergence of the Romanian nation in the 19th century in the areas inhabited by the Daco-Romanian speaking peoples. This second period began in 1924 with the founding of an autonomous Moldavian region where a distinct Moldovan identity was defined, as opposed to the Romanian “imperialist” one. [Robert King, Minorities under communism, Harvard Univ. Press, Ma, 1973] .

The historic Moldavian identity is compatible with the Romanian identity as also occupancy rights (according to which any inhabitant of Moldavia is a Moldavian, whatever his origins, culture or language). On the other hand, the present Moldovan identity, Soviet in origin, [Gheorghe Negru, Politica etnolingvistică în RSS Moldovenească, Ed. Prut international, Chişinău 2000, ISBN 9975-69-100-5] excludes both occupancy rights and the Romanian identity. Controversy ensues from this incompatibility. [Keith Hitchins, Studies on Romanian national consciousness, Milan & Nagard 1983]

According to Miron Costin and Grigore Ureche, before the second half of the 19th century, the inhabitants of the Principality of Moldavia, called themselves “Moldavians”. Their Slav neighbours called them "Volokhs", a term which referred also to the Romance language speaking people of Vallachia, Transylvania, Dobruja and the Balkan peninsula. [Roger-William Seton Watson, A history of the Romanians, Cambridge Univ. Press 1934]

During the 19th century, as happened throughout Europe, a new feeling of nationality developed in the sentiment of the Romance language speaking peoples of these countries. Just as those who spoke Germanic languages began to feel themselves to be Germans, despite their political splits or their dialects, and just as the Italian language speakers began to define themselves as Italians and to dream of a united country which would bring them together into one state, so did the Vlachs of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, of the Russian Empire and of the Ottoman Empire develop a new “Romanian” identity and start to claim their freedom and their unification into a single state which they intended to call “Romania”. [Frederick Kellogg, A history of romanian historical writing, Bakersfield, Ca., 1990]

But these ideas spread mainly in urban areas and amongst the better educated while the rural communities continued to define themselves as “Transylvans” (Ardeleni, Ungureni), “Moldavians” (Moldoveni) or “Wallachians” (Munteni). [Roger-William Seton Watson, A history of the Romanians, Cambridge Univ. Press 1934]

The roots of the identity controversy in Moldova arise from this difference between the various classes of the population and from the fact that the Russian Empire until 1917 and then the Soviet Union and finally the Moldovan government since 1994 did everything possible to root out from the Moldovans the feeling of being “Romanian” and to transform their adherence to the Moldavian area into a national identity which was different from and opposed to the Romanian identity.fact|date=August 2008

In the Moldovan SSR, several factors contributed to the elimination of the Romanian identity:
* the physical elimination of the people who were its agents (described as agents of the "Боярская Румыния", i.e. anti-Soviet aristocratic Romania) [Bugai, Nikolai F.: Deportatsiya narodov iz Ukainyi, Belorussii i Moldavii - Deportation of the peoples from Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. Druzhba Narodov, Moscow 1998, Dittmar Dahlmann & Gerhard Hirschfeld. - Essen 1999, pp. 567-581] ;
* the repression by the fifth directorate of the sixth administration of the KGB of any such belief, which was then called “manifestation of bourgeois nationalism” together with sanctions applied against its agents [John Barron, The KGB, Reader's Digest inc., 1974, ISBN 0-88349-009-9] ;
* the professional chicanery and legal proceedings which the current government institute against intellectuals who might be tempted to claim Romanian identity. [ [http://www.flux.md/] ] verify source|date=August 2008

In this situation, the separatist group should represent a majority over the “pro-unification” group.

Behind these controversies over identity are, on the one hand, political divisions among the “pro-Westerners,” [ [http://www.flux.md/] ] verify source|date=August 2008 who are trying to distance themselves from the Soviet model and to adapt to the European model and, on the other hand, the “pro-Russians” who are trying to rebuild the Soviet world and to come closer to Moscow: thus the politics of Vladimir Voronin in Moldova, with its reference to communism and to a Moldovan identity which differs from the Romanian identity, is clearly pro-Soviet. [ [http://www.moldova.md/] ; [http://www.flux.md/] ] verify source|date=August 2008

Other national identity controversies

The position of this controversy is not unique. In the former Yugoslavian republics the transformation can also be observed from “local” and geographic identities into national identities which differ from and conflict with another one. Thus, in Montenegro, there is controversy over identity between the people who see themselves as Serbs because they speak the same language, use the same alphabet and practise the same religion as the Serbs, and those who see themselves as Montenegrins because Montenegro and Serbia were at times part of different states or were set up in different kingdoms. The Montenegrin government encourages the Montenegrin identity. [ [http://www.njegos.org/census/index.htm] ] verify source|date=August 2008

This transformation of local identities into national identities, which leaders of these states judged necessary in order to legitimise their independence, rests on the following principal developments:
* the construction of an appropriate history, emphasising everything which separates the state from its neighbours;
* emphasis on the existence of a local language (Moldovan,Montenegrin or Macedonian).

Public opinion is thus split between a “pro-unification” group (with Romania in Moldavia, with Serbia in Montenegro, with Bulgaria in Macedonia) and a “pro-independence” group (which in these three cases won the majority). [Hugh Seton Watson, New nations & states, London 1997]

References

Bibliography

* John Barron, The KGB, Reader's Digest inc., 1974, ISBN 0-88349-009-9
* Bugai, Nikolai F.: Deportatsiya narodov iz Ukainyi, Belorussii i Moldavii - Deportation of the peoples from Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. Druzhba Narodov, Moscow 1998, Dittmar Dahlmann & Gerhard Hirschfeld. - Essen 1999, pp. 567-581
* Charles Upson-Clark, Bessarabia, Dodd, Mead & Co., N.Y., 1927
* Frederick Kellogg, A history of Romanian historical writing, Bakersfield, Ca., 1990
* Charles King, The Moldovans: Romania, Russia, and the politics of culture, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University, 2000. ISBN 0-8179-9792-X
* S. Orifici, The Repubic of Moldova in the 1990's : from the declaration of independence to a democratic state, Geneve 1994
* A. Pop, The Soviet-Romanian controversy & Moldova's independence policy, Romanian review of international studies, 26, 1992
* Hugh Seton-Watson, New nations & states, London 1997
* Roger-William Seton-Watson, A history of the Romanians, Cambridge Univ. Press 1934
* G. Simon, Nationalism & Policy toward nationalities in the Soviet Union, Boulder, S.F., Ca, & Oxford, 1991