Reetta Toivanen. Adjunct Professor at the University of Helsinki and a Finnish Academy of Science research fellow. Dr. Toivanen is also a non-resident senior research fellow at the ECMI. Additionally, she is the President of the Finnish Human Rights League and a member of the European Committee against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI).

Moldovans generally have a reputation of being hospitable, at least towards the people visiting our country. But is that true regarding our minorities as well? Has the government created a friendly enough environment for the minorities to prosper?

RT: I am not very familiar with the situation in Moldova, but based on Council of Europe reports on national minorities, as well as on impressions from the seminar discussions, there is still work to be done. As I said earlier, there must be political will to understand the necessity of accommodating the special needs of minorities.

PT: From what I know about the Moldovan situation, some steps in the right direction have been taken, in giving autonomy to certain regions, for example – this can be very helpful in preventing conflicts. I agree that there is still a lot of work to be done, but it is better to communicate than to stop communicating.


So communication, or the absence of communication, would be one of the challenges to building an effective dialogue with the minorities. But what are some other major challenges in Moldova to creating cohesion between the minorities and the majority?

RT: Based on the participants’ grievances, I understand that communication is indeed one of the biggest challenges and I think it is the easiest to solve. It actually does not cost much money to set up systems of advisory bodies; it might cost the equivalent of a small coffee or something.

Otherwise, Moldova is facing other kind of challenges, particularly economic ones. When this happens, governments tend to regard human rights issues as something that can be put aside for later, in order to save money. But in the long run, it would be really expensive for the European society not to invest in projects and programs that protect human rights.


Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, a linguistic and cultural minority of Russian-speakers existed in all the Soviet republics, and they felt frustrated when Russian lost its ‘privileged’ status as a language in particular and as a means of gaining higher social standing in general. Should the government somehow compensate this cultural and linguistic group for the loss of this privilege, or should it leave the group to deal with these frustrations alone?

RT: History is full of similar situations in which majorities suddenly are turned into minorities – due to state border changes and the like. Frustration diminishes if they see that their concerns and grievances are taken seriously. Good decision-makers take responsibility and show understanding. And changes are best when coordinated together with the language minority.

On the one side, Russian-speakers can see the situation as a chance to embrace new language and cultural skills, and to see their command of the Russian language as an additional benefit in their personal life. There must be a step-by-step move towards a new state language – especially older people may not be able to easily learn a new language fluently anymore, so there must be services made available for them. At the same time, any changes, especially in the area of education, must be made in a responsible way; the teaching of the new state language must start early, but the mother tongue should be kept as the language of instruction as often as possible.

PT: Situations like that often occur in cases where former parts of a particular state become independent, or become a part of another state: members of a majority population in a former state become a minority in a new state. In the changed context, the status of such ‘new minorities’ may, and usually does, change in many aspects, if not all, in comparison with the former.

There is probably no perfect model, but in general, such newly emerged minorities should minimally be able to enjoy all the important minority rights. These include, for example, the official use of their language, access to education in their language, various forms of participation in decision-making in issues related to their rights, access to media in their language, the possibility to communicate and cooperate with members of their group in other countries, non-discrimination, freedom of religion, etc.

Governments should provide means to secure at least those rights, and perhaps some additional ‘affirmative action’ measures; for example, a guaranteed number of seats in the state/regional/local parliaments for representatives of that minority group. However, differences may arise regarding what the minimum guarantees are, while many flaws may occur in the implementation of legal solutions in practice.


During the ECMI seminars, you discussed special arrangements for minority participation in public life and for communication between authorities and minorities. Are regular democratic mechanisms, such as multi-party system, general vote and parliamentarism, not enough for there to be harmonious relations between governments and minorities?

RT: Very good question. And the answer is no. A country can very easily end up with a ‘tyranny’ of the majority if it does not have special guarantees to provide protection for minorities.

PT: I would agree with that. If the general mechanisms were sufficient, there would not have been a need to invent some others that are focused on minority issues. Minority issues are always very sensitive wherever we go. So those general mechanisms which exist for general state business may not always fit with the relationship between the state and minorities.


Are there good practices of minority participation in public life and of effective dialogue between governments and minorities? Can countries of the EU Eastern Neighborhood such as Moldova import this experience and benefit from it?

RT: I think ‘importing’ would be a bit difficult. These best-practice talks are good, but we always need to consider specific circumstances. I do not think there is a ‘perfect’ practice or solution that you can just take and implement. So I am glad to see all these very engaged individuals (participating in the ECMI seminars) who are eager to exchange ideas and think about alternatives, knowing their own countries and specific situations. For example, the participants from Moldova have a lot of good will and interest that they are willing to bring to the table.


Maybe Serbia could offer us a good model?

PT: I don’t know whether it is good. We have had different models of minority integration and many mechanisms have changed in the last twenty years. So Serbia is still in search of the best solution, of the best ways to communicate and cooperate with minorities. As to whether a model can be imported, I think it should rather serve as an inspiration, because there are quite a lot of areas where adjustments can be made. For example, if we talk about the institution of ombudsman (for minorities), one should keep the core and the main characteristics of this mechanism, but the details can vary.

RT: Regardless of what model you choose, the most important consideration is to have the political will to engage with minorities. Without that, no model will be successful.

One model discussed (during the seminar in Chisinau) entails a direct representative for minorities in Parliament. Then there are different forms of cultural autonomy where there is a close relationship between decision-makers and minority representatives.

But as I said, for example in Moldova you seem to have rather good laws. Yet, if there is not enough political will behind them to engage in a serious, substantial discussion with minorities, then the impact of the law is rather watered-down.


What are some of the highlights of your lectures delivered in Moldova, and maybe some of the conclusions that were reached during the ensuing discussions?

RT: My main message was that it is very important to understand that minority rights are in the core of the human rights system. So it is not about separate or ‘additional’ rights for minorities, it is about additional protection for those who do not enjoy the same rights as members of the majority do. The majority can take many things for granted, for example, they can hear their language on the TV and everywhere, or they can profess their religion without any disturbance, but minorities do not enjoy these things. So there is a need for special guarantees in order to protect human rights on the same level for members of minorities as well.

The people who attended the seminars were very enthusiastic about thinking in this way, from a human rights perspective. At the same time, it was maybe a little bit challenging (for them to understand) what human rights concretely mean (even if you have civic education in schools, which is a very good basis for learning this system).

During the discussions, there was a lot of interest in the experience of some indigenous peoples in the Nordic countries who enjoy this kind of cultural autonomy. This is a specific form of autonomy where they get a certain amount of money from the state budget, which they can spend for cultural purposes as they wish. Such forms of autonomy do not entail a lot of political rights, although they do entail the right for minorities to be heard in the decision-making process that deals with their lives; but they are more or less about culture and language. This is a soft form of accommodation for minority needs.

PT: I primarily discussed various institutions and mechanisms aimed at protecting minority rights, and/or at maintaining and improving the communication and relationships between the state (and, generally, the majority population) and the members of ethnic minorities. Some are parts of the executive, others are independent institutions like that of the ombudsman, some are consultative bodies. Most of them may use various legal means in cases where minority rights have allegedly been violated, but they also contribute to improving communication with the state.


Speaking of special mechanisms. Dr.Teofilović, you have been one of the pioneers of Serbia's provincial ombudsman institution, and in fact you were Serbia's first such official. What are the main purposes of this institution? Do you think it would work well in Moldova?

PT: The main purpose of the institution of ombudsman is, in most cases, the protection of human rights in general (or of certain categories of rights or groups, like ethnic minority rights) when those rights are allegedly violated by the administration.

In accordance with the tasks of the institution, the Ombudsman also controls all aspects of the administration’s work when investigating particular cases, and thus becomes an institution with specialized knowledge and experience, and unique insights in the structure and functioning of the administration. Its recommendations should be well explained and supported by strong and relevant legal arguments, and as such may contribute to the improvement of the work of public offices and services.

More than two-thirds of the contemporary states have established this institution, most of them in the last 40 years.

However, it is important that means for keeping this institution independent be provided in order to secure its unbiased and objective expertise and conclusions on whether human rights had been violated.


Do you think that a joint discussion involving public officials, civil society representatives and academic experts, like the one taking place at the ECMI seminars, is really fruitful and effective?

RT: I think it is the only way to proceed. I would have loved to see more people from the ministries and politicians (at these seminars). I think this might be the next phase. Now it is rather people that really understand the problem (that attend the seminars). But then there would need to be another meeting where these problems are communicated to the decision-makers.

PT: These kinds of meetings and debates are very important, and even if differences of opinion occur, it is good to be aware of those differences and to try to reach some common ground.


Thank you.