Latvia is a country on the Baltic Sea. Despite its relatively small size, the country boasts a diverse population of 1,871,882 inhabitants. The Republic of Latvia regained its independence in 1991, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The official language is Latvian article 4 of the Latvian Constitution, a language from the Baltic linguistic group spoken exclusively in Latvia. Language is a crucial element of Latvian identity, with maximal juridical protection by the State – as stated in the introduction of the Constitution and emphasized by Judges of the Constitutional Court of Latvia and the Commission on Constitutional rights (paragraph 100: “Language is a fundamental element of national identity”; paragraph 200: “Latvian language was in critical condition after the Soviet occupation, and became a necessity to put it back at the centre in order to restore the Latvian State”). Article 18 of the Constitution states that an elected member can only acquire a mandate as a member of the Saeima (the Latvian Parliament) after pledging to strengthen the Latvian language as the sole official language. Latvian is the working language of the Saeima (Article 21) and local governments (Article 101), and all individuals have the right to receive official replies in Latvian (Article 104). Among the Constitution’s 116 articles, only article 114 states that individuals belonging to ethnic minorities have the right to preserve and develop their language, ethnicity, and cultural identity.

To give some means of comparison: the Italian Constitution addresses language in Article 3, ensuring equality for all citizens regardless of language; Article 6, protecting linguistic minorities; and Article 111, granting the right to a translator in legal proceedings. In the Constitution, Italian is not explicitly declared the official language. However, Law 482/1999 “Norms protecting historical linguistic minorities” declares that Italian is the official language (article 1.1) and that the Republic, while promoting the Italian heritage, shall also value the languages protected by the law (article 1.2).

The French Constitution declares French as the official language in Article 2, recognizes regional languages as cultural heritage in Article 76, and promotes solidarity among Francophone states in Article 87.

The Spanish Constitution emphasizes linguistic diversity, declaring Castilian the official language in Section 3, while granting co-official status to other regional languages. It supports their use in media (Section 20), allows communities to promote them (Section 148), and requires the Constitution’s publication in all official languages.

The importance of the Latvian language is also inferable because there is an “Official Language Law”. This Law establishes Latvian as the mandatory default, with specific exceptions permitting other languages. Sections 3.4 and 4 emphasize the need to preserve Latgalian, recognized as a historical variant of Latvian, and Liv, the language of the Indigenous population. Section 5 designates all other languages as foreign.

Compliance with this Law is guaranteed (Section 26) by the work of the State Language Center – an institution under the supervision of the Ministry of Justice. The State Language Center deals with official translations, publishes guidelines on the use of language, and has the power to set monetary penalties for those who don’t comply with the linguistic requirements laid out by the Language law. Moreover, there are guidelines by the Government, stating the need to ensure Latvian as the main language of all the inhabitants of Latvia.

The focus on language is not wrong in the abstract. Nonetheless, it can be considered problematic, since about 37% of Latvians consider Russian their mother tongue.

Why are there so many Russian speakers in Latvia? Some are descendants of the old believers or of the Russians who moved there in the 18th century after the conquest by the Russian Empire. Others are the grandchildren of those who fled the Bolshevik revolution in 1917. Many arrived during the Soviet occupation following the Second World War.

When Latvia regained its sovereignty in 1991, the acting Government pursued an ideal continuity with the first independence (1918-1940). That meant granting citizenship only to those who could prove they were already citizens before the start of the occupations. Consequently, individuals who arrived in Latvia during the Soviet times were given “non-citizen” status. To obtain citizenship, they had to pass a language examination and pledge their loyalty to the newly re-founded State. Furthermore, until 1998, a quota system was in place to restrict the annual number of individuals eligible for naturalization. Progress in the European path – Latvia has been a member of the European Union since 2004 and ratified the Framework Convention on National Minorities in 2005 – changed the attitude of the State and led to a more inclusive naturalization process. As a result, the granting of non-citizen status to children has been terminated starting from 1 January 2020. Still, there were 169,276 “non-citizens” living in Latvia in 2024.

Regarding the language, Latvian institutions provided several opportunities for the members of the Russian-speaking communities to learn the official language. Meanwhile, spaces for the use of the Russian language in the public sphere began to fade. Conversely, the Russian Federation decided to claim the role of protector of the Russian-speakers. Since 2008, reforms in Latvia started diminishing the chances to learn and teach Russian in public schools. A referendum to recognise Russian as a co-official language was rejected in 2012 by 75% of voters. The unlawful annexation of Crimea reinforced concerns about the risks associated with having Russian speakers within the territory, leading to the dominance of assimilationist tendencies. These fears were further heightened by the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, deepening mistrust toward Russian speakers.

While official state positions on this issue are clear, understanding the perspectives of Russian speakers themselves is far more complex. No organization has the authority to speak in their name. Some political parties, such as the “Latvian Russian Union” and “Harmony”, claimed to represent them. However, they do not enjoy much popularity and since non-citizens cannot vote, the analysis of the voting habits is less relevant.

To obtain empirical evidence, between February and March of 2024, I visited Jelgava, a Latvian city close to Riga. My goal was to carry out interviews with the support of the local University. However, the willingness to discuss the issue vanished suddenly upon revealing the idea of representing Russian speakers as a minority of the Latvian State. On the one hand, Russian speakers are considered too heterogenous to from a cohesive group, because their existence is merely an unwanted consequence of Soviet policies. This perception persists even though the Soviet Union collapsed over 30 years ago, and people in Latvia still speak Russian. Conversely, , questionnaires, public media, and statistical studies portray Russian Speakers as a cohesive – and sometimes dangerous – group.

As the topic is highly politicized, a high degree of mistrust is present online. To reach potential respondents, I created a post in the Facebook Group “ДРУГАЯ ЕЛГАВА - CITA JELGAVA”. It took moderators a week before publishing my post, and, in the comments, I was accused of being either a Russian spy or a “snitch” for the Language State Center.

Despite the hindrances, I persisted, and I am extremely grateful to the people who accepted to be interviewed. A comprehensive analysis of the results will be presented in my dissertation; however, I would like to share some preliminary observations here.

I am aware of the limits and possible bias of my research: I was able to reach only a limited number of respondents (22); most of them are followers of a blogger that helped me reach more respondents (so they are probably part of a given type of informational space); people with more extremist views probably would not have trusted me; and I have twice the number of female respondents than male ones. Nevertheless, there are strengths: I have over 16 hours of recorded materials; respondents were from diverse age groups (youngest participants were less than 25 years old, oldest were more than 65 years old) and all of which had different life experiences.

Most respondents stated that they speak both languages (Latvian and Russian) at a very high level, even though Russian is their mother tongue. They are Russian speakers, but they don’t identify with the stereotype of “the Russian speaker” portrayed in the Latvian media. The use of the Russian language does not equal ethnic self-identification, it is not necessarily a political choice and doesn’t imply adherence to the values expressed by the Russian Federation. Notwithstanding the erasure of symbols meaningful to their community, most confirmed their loyalty to the Latvian State. They even justified these aggressive actions, as they empathized with the fears expressed by the majority. However, some felt frustrated by being unfairly blamed for things beyond their control. They also resented being treated as outsiders despite their efforts to belong.

As an Italian native speaker, born and raised in South Tyrol, I am particularly attuned to language minorities and the benefits of institutional bilingualism. While our system is not perfect, it has helped overcome historical tensions.

In contrast, I fear these Latvian policies will deepen the existing divide. I hope Latvia will find a path to integration, as called for by the founding treaties of Europe, our home. However, I worry that the shadow of geopolitical fears will be in the way long before we reach this outcome.