In search of lost time: memory politics in Estonia, 1991–2011

Abstract

This article analyzes memory politics during the first 20 years (1991–2011) of the newly independent Estonia. Memory politics is understood as a politics endeavoring to shape the society's collective memory and establish notions of what is and is not to be remembered of the past, employing to this end both legislative means and practical measures. The paper presents one possible scheme for analyzing Estonian memory politics and limits its treatment in two important ways. Firstly, the focus is on national memory politics, that is the decisions of the parliament, government, and president oriented toward shaping collective memory. And second, only internal memory politics is discussed; that is, bi- or multilateral memory-political relations with other states or political unions are not examined separately. The analysis is built on four interrelated dimensions of memory politics, which have played the most important roles in Estonia: the legal, institutional, commemorative, and monumental dimensions. Also, a general characterization and temporal articulation of memory politics in newly independent Estonia is proposed.

Keywords:

• memory politics
• history politics
• transitional justice
• Estonia

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Toomas Hiio and Vello Pettai for sharing their (as yet) unpublished texts and commenting on an earlier draft of this article, and to Siobhan Kattago for her copy-editing. The research was funded by the Estonian Science Foundation grant no. 8625 and supported also by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (Centre of Excellence in Cultural Theory).

Notes

A good survey of the emergence of these three (or more precisely four – there are two words for “memory politics” in German: Gedächtnispolitik and Erinnerungspolitik) terms in Germany, first in journalism and then in academic writing, is given by Schmidt (2009). His analysis also demonstrates that currently, the term most frequently used in Germany is “history politics” (Geschichtspolitik). In the relevant English literature, however, the dominating term today in my view seems rather to be “memory politics.”

See in the first instance Hackmann (2003, 2009); Budryte (2005); Onken (2007a, 2007b, 2010); Brüggemann and Kasekamp (2008, 2009); Wulf (2008, 2010); Mälksoo (2009a, 2009b, 2009c); Hackmann and Lehti (2010); Grönholm (2011); Smith (2011); Kattago (2012).

An exhaustive survey of the legislative steps taken in Estonia in 1985–2009 within the broad framework of transitional justice is given by Pettai and Onken in their (undated) manuscript report to the research project commissioned by the European Commission on the crimes committed under European totalitarian regimes and their later treatment (cf. V. Pettai forthcoming a). See also the synthesis by Montero (2010) of the reports by all the states that participated in the project.

However, the foundation of the Estonian War Museum – General Laidoner Museum by the order of the minister of defense 26 February 2001 (RTL 2001, 33, 435) should be noted here.

The decision recommending the celebration of this day in member states was made by the European Parliament on 2 April 2009 (European Conscience and Totalitarianism 2009).

I admit that the present discussion somewhat unjustifiedly bypasses the memory-political attitudes toward the heritage of the German occupation, mainly concerning the commemoration of the Holocaust and the investigation of the crimes of Nazism. Although anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, including participation in it by Estonian citizens, were condemned already by the declaration of the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Estonia of 30 December 1991 (RT 1991, 45, 551), the issue has clearly been marginal in the general national memory politics; it has been urged as topical mainly by the US embassy and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. The official Estonian position has constantly been that, the Republic of Estonia having been occupied by the Nazis, Estonia cannot accept responsibility for the crimes committed during the Nazi occupation, though it does regret the participation of some Estonians in these crimes. See Weiss-Wendt (2008); E. Pettai (2011).

See for instance Burch and Smith (2007); Brüggemann (2008); Brüggemann and Kasekamp (2008, 2009); Lehti, Jutila, and Jokisipilä (2008); Münch (2008); Petersoo and Tamm (2008); Pääbo (2008); Smith (2008); Torsti (2008); Wertsch (2008); Ehala (2009); Kattago (2012, 77–95); Norman (2009); Selg (2009); Grönholm (2010); Wulf (2010); Leggewie (2011, 56–80); Tamm (2012).