Interview: Elizabete Krivcova on Her Role as an Advocate for Minority Rights in Latvia

Elizabete Krivcova, a lawyer and human rights defender representing Latvia’s Russian-speaking minority, has been at the forefront of minority rights advocacy for more than 20 years. She has led important legal cases at both national and international levels and works to protect language and education rights in Latvia. Despite growing challenges, including stricter rules on minority language use and the impact of geopolitical tensions, Krivcova, who will also be speaking at the upcoming 8th Forum of European Minority Regions (26–27 November 2024 in San Sebastián/Donostia, Basque Country), remains determined to find effective solutions to preserve cultural and linguistic diversity. In this interview, she shares insights from her legal cases and reflects on the challenges faced by the Russian-speaking community in Latvia.

Elizabete Krivcova

Could you share one of the key initiatives you led in the past to advocate for minority rights in Latvia, and what lessons you took from it?

From 2012 to 2014, I led a major advocacy project aimed at increasing the political participation of minorities in Latvia, known as the Latvian Non-Citizens‘ Congress. This initiative focused on addressing the issue of statelessness in Latvia. Due to historical reasons, approximately 25% of national minorities in Latvia are non-citizens, so our goal was to integrate this group into political life and secure voting rights for them in municipal elections. We carried out an extensive campaign, gathered considerable public and international support, but unfortunately were unable to convince the governing parties to adopt a more inclusive approach.

Reflecting on this and other efforts to build a civic, rather than purely ethnic, nation, I am convinced that a strong idea, even if supported by international law, is not enough on its own. For change to happen, we need to build economic influence and strengthen the rule of law.

Reflecting on your long-standing work as a lawyer advocating for linguistic rights, could you share your experiences from past cases at national and international courts and the trends you have observed over the years?

From 2004 to 2024, I was involved as a team member or representative in cases concerning minority languages heard before the Latvian Constitutional Court, and later at the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) or ECJ (European Court of Justice), which included issues surrounding the use of minority languages in kindergartens, schools, and universities. Currently, I am handling a language rights case in the Latvian Constitutional Court, challenging the ban on minority languages in election campaigns.

Based on this experience, I can say that minority rights protections are often ineffective. The courts examine these cases, but the decisions usually only guarantee a bare minimum of rights. For example, we have seen the right to be instructed in minority languages decline from allowing 40% instruction in 2005 to a complete prohibition, where not even the minority language itself can be taught as part of the curriculum.

Despite some hopeful judgments by the ECHR in recent years, we are now witnessing a trend toward reduced linguistic rights for minorities, while states are given broader discretion to restrict these rights, often to the benefit of the majority population.

Even when legal cases are unsuccessful, do they still create any positive outcomes for minority rights?

Yes, there are still positive effects at the practical level. Firstly, state institutions must justify their decisions in court, and the court sets standards for future decisions. Secondly, these cases force state institutions to address practical issues, and often they address problems before the court hearing to avoid criticism, such as by ensuring adequate funding. So, even if we do not solve the larger problem, we can still address many smaller issues.

Reflecting on my experience, the only education language case we won was based on general academic freedom, rather than minority rights. General rights often prove to be more effective than specific minority rights.

In terms of language in education, I am convinced that we need to strengthen educational freedom so that minority representatives can benefit from this general right. Research shows that, contrary to discussions on innovation, educational freedom is actually declining worldwide.

How have recent geopolitical developments and global trends influenced the perception and protection of minority rights, particularly in Latvia?

It’s important to note that my work has taken place during challenging times. With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there is a widespread mistrust of Russian speakers, with attempts to associate the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia with the policies of Russia as a kin-state. However, the Russian-speaking community has lived in Latvia for over 300 years, and in many respects has closer ties to Latvia than to Russia.

I believe that difficult times test the resilience of principles, and our case illustrates the fragility of minority rights mechanisms. It is, unfortunately, quite easy to abandon these declared principles. Similar tendencies can be observed globally. We also see that minority rights are only effective if the kin-state advocates on their behalf, which runs counter to the fundamental idea of minority rights as human rights. Without additional efforts, we will likely see a continued decline in minority rights.

Latvia has recently passed a law prohibiting Russian on all public web pages. What do you see as the immediate and long-term consequences of this legislation for minority rights and linguistic diversity?

For less-educated and vulnerable segments of the minority population, this will result in reduced access to information about state and municipal services, such as security, healthcare, and social assistance, leading to greater social inequality. The absence of information in minority languages also causes alienation from the state and heightens interethnic tensions, which studies have already shown. Ultimately, this can lead to more restrictive and authoritarian measures to maintain order, which is economically inefficient and undermines social stability and resilience in critical situations.

What are the most pressing challenges that ethnic minorities in Latvia face today, and how do you believe these challenges can be addressed?

A key challenge is providing quality education for minority children. The school system is not adequately prepared to support the large number of children who speak other languages. Private schools are also not permitted to provide education in minority languages, which has led to a general shift where education increasingly takes place outside of the formal school system. Ensuring high-quality education in these circumstances is a major challenge.

Another major challenge is redefining our identity in a time when the state we used to cooperate with on cultural issues is now waging war in Europe. Many Russian-speaking groups in Europe are trying to find their place in this new context. I believe that to advance cultural rights, it is crucial to explore new ways of cooperation. However, instability in people’s personal circumstances makes this difficult.

What strategies or best practices would you recommend to minority communities advocating for their rights in complex legislative environments?

First, I would recommend focusing on strengthening general human rights, such as educational freedom, freedom of expression, and non-discrimination. Secondly, using the opportunities presented by digitalisation can help minority communities bypass restrictive state regulations and maintain their cultural and linguistic practices.

Further reading:

• Learn more about Elizabete Krivcova’s work and advocacy for minority rights by visiting her website: https://krivcova.lv/en