Estonia: A Model for Inter-War Europe?

Abstract

While Estonia's 1925 Law on Cultural Self-Government for National Minorities is often cited as a rare functioning example of Renner and Bauer's non-territorial autonomy scheme, there has until recently been comparatively little research on how the law operated in practice. This article analyses the institutions of German and Jewish minority self-government established in inter-war Estonia, arguing that (prior to the eclipse of democracy in 1934, at least) these possessed considerable depth and authoritative competence in the area of cultural and educational policy. Cultural autonomy did not resolve all outstanding points of division between state, majority and (in particular) Baltic German minority; nevertheless, it played a positive role in the regulation of ethnonational tensions. Even less well known is the international resonance of this unique law, which transnational minority activists argued should serve as a general model for the regulation of minority disputes. The League of Nations rightly questioned this claim, and the non-territorial autonomy model was scarcely applied beyond the Baltic region during the 1920s. However, it is still instructive to revisit the 1925 law today, at a time when several post-communist states have adopted minority rights legislation based on similar principles.

Notes

1. On the nature and limitations of the treaties and the League system, see Crols (2005) and Smith and Hiden (2012, pp. 20–23). For a comparative discussion of the autonomy laws in the Baltic States and their operation, see Smith (2005), Smith and Hiden (2012, pp. 26–69).

2. For a discussion of contemporary practices in the region based on non-territorial autonomy, see Osipov (2013).

3. These laws, however, did not imply automatic state support for already existing schools teaching in languages other than Estonian (Alenius, 2003, p. 246).

4. ‘Estlandssvenskarnas språkliga rättigheter I Estland’. 9/12 1974: Isberg, Fridolf, 1974. Landsmåls-och Folkminnesarkivet Uppsala, File no. 29727, p. 8; see also Alenius (2006) and Alenius (2003, pp. 309–313, 368–370).

5. See also the Draft Statute for the Jewish Community in Reval (Tallinn), State Archive of Estonia, F.2297, N.1, S.1.

6. For a comprehensive overview of the debates surrounding the origins of inter-war cultural autonomy, see Alenius (2003, 2004, 2007); see also Weiss-Wendt (2008), Laurits (2008), Smith and Hiden (2012, pp. 26–45), Piirimäe (2012).

7. Unless stated otherwise, discussion of the details of the law and its individual articles contained in this section is based on the Estonian-language text of the 12 February 1925 law (Riigikogu poolt vastu võetud ‘Eesti Vabariigi Vähemusrahvuste kultuuromavalitsuse seadus' ja üldkomisjoni seletuskiri), reproduced in Laurits (2008, pp. 266–270).

8. This article stated that questions of welfare relating to a minority would be regulated according to a separate law, though no such law was ever forthcoming.

9. Protokolle des 1 deutschen Kulturrats, 1 November 1925–22 October 1928, Nr 13, 22 October 1928. State Archive of Estonia F.85, N.1, S.66.

10. Protokolle des 1 deutschen Kulturrats, 1 November 1925–22 October 1928, Nr 10, 4 July 1927. State Archive of Estonia F.85, N.1, S.66. Once again, the complaints voiced by some Germans can be seen in part as reflecting the mindset of a former ruling elite which resented the loss of the dominant position it had held prior to the First World War. Revealing here is the remark at the inaugural session by one former German noble, who expressed the view that if cultural autonomy were adopted, future generations would feel themselves not as Baltic Germans, but merely as part of a minority (cited in Smith & Hiden, 2012, p. 50). In this regard, note also the claim by Weiss-Wendt (2008) that while the Jewish minority was by and large satisfied with cultural autonomy, many Germans saw it as a ‘tactical retreat’ that allowed them to cling to at least some vestiges of their former sovereignty.

11. For instance, in 1927, the Jewish National Fund in Palestine presented the Estonian government with a certificate of gratitude for its unparalleled act of granting cultural autonomy to the local Jewish minority; see Weiss-Wendt (2008, p. 98).

12. Cited in W.E. (1936, pp. 222–226).

13. For a full discussion of the Congress and its debates on non-territorial autonomy, see Hiden and Smith (2006), Smith and Hiden (2012, pp. 70–91).

14. ‘L'autonomie culturelle comme solution du problème des minorités. Note de M.Krabbe au date du 18 Nov 1931’, League of Nations Archive R.2175–4–32835.