I have never used the notion “post-Soviet” when speaking about my country – the Republic of Latvia. My observations as a historian and as a diplomat force me to admit that common knowledge about the post-Second World War history usually connects the Baltic states with the Soviet Union and consequently the Baltic states are put into the basket of post-Soviet states. This interpretation is only partially correct and often confusing. In order to clarify it some facts have to be mentioned. The known expression “facta crescunt” - the facts proof - is applicable in this situation.
The case of the Baltic states and the USSR is complicated, because it is necessary to take into consideration two notions - de facto and de jure. The incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR was illegal, three countries were occupied and annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940. During the Second World War three states experienced Nazi Germany’s occupation and after the end of the war, the Soviets reestablished their occupational rule. Latvia, like the other two countries, became de facto part of the USSR, but maintained de jure statehood. Many suffered during Soviet and Nazi repressions, and a part of the society went into exile to the West, fleeing from the Soviet communism. These people in exile and limited diplomatic representation (legations in the USA, in the United Kingdom and in some other countries for a shorter time) continued to keep the Latvian state de jure alive and were protesting the Soviet occupation, demanding restoration of independence for their stolen states.
Latvia, like Estonia and Lithuania, cannot be called post-Soviet due to several reasons. One of them is that the incorporation into the USSR was not recognized by the Western countries. So-called non-recognition policy of incorporation into the Soviet Union or the Baltic Question became one of the issues in the confrontation between two antagonistic blocs during the Cold War. De facto three states have lost their independence and were incorporated into the USSR against their free will, but they continued to be de jure states.
The Baltic states cannot be called post-Soviet, because they are not successor states of the USSR. The already mentioned argument of illegal incorporation is of relevance in this regard. Latvia juridically restored the independence in August 1991. The Soviet Union recognized independence of three Baltic states in September, it was before the Union was peacefully dissolved in December 1991.
This year Latvia marks 100 years since it has been internationally recognized by allied powers at the Peace conference in Paris on January 26, 1921, followed by bilateral recognitions by many other states. A bit more than two years of turbulence and war against Russian Bolsheviks, monarchists and Germans passed between the proclamation of independent statehood in November 1918 and the recognition in 1921. The signing of peace agreement with the Soviet Russia was achieved in August 1920.
To sum up, it can be said that between 1940 and 1991 – the years of three occupations – Latvia continued to exist as a de jure state, but lost its independence de facto. The independence was regained in August 1991, before the end of the Soviet Union was declared in December.
Similar stories can be told about Estonia and Lithuania. In case of Lithuania, it has to be taken into account that it traces its statehood back to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and a common state with Poland. For Lithuania, declaration of republic in February 1918 after the First World War was renewal of the statehood, not establishment of independent states like it was in the case of Latvia, Estonia and some other new nation states in Europe. Taking into account the history of Lithuania, it is more than strange to call Lithuania post-Soviet. The Soviet occupation lasted 50 years – a short time in comparison with the long time of the Lithuanian state as kingdom and dutchy.
Latvia cannot be called post-Soviet either, because its people were reluctant to accept the Soviet rule. In spite of harsh repressions, jail sentences and deportations to Gulag, majority treated the imposed Soviet rule as foreign and resisted in open individual confrontations, hidden protests, nonviolent resistance.
Latvian society cannot be called post-Soviet because its nation was split. Part of it escaped to the West when it became clear that Soviet troops would be coming back while pushing out the German troops. Those who came from the Soviet Union – Soviet militaries, specialists of different sort and workers, were trying to introduce different lifestyle, but were hardly accepted among the local population. Despite 50 years under the Soviet rule, people preserved the memories of life before the Soviet occupation told by their grandparents. The living memory of independent state was an additional motivation to regain independent state back. When the president of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev declared radical reforms in the USSR, the Balts embraced the chance – they moved away from that country which was not theirs. The unification between exiled Latvians and Latvians in the fatherland Latvia played a role for more rapid transition from Soviet planned economy to market economy and to life in democracy.
If one is asking about the behavior of the people known as ‘Homo sovieticus’ - I would argue that this syndrome was not developed to the degree that it was not reversible. It disappeared gradually and now, after nearly 17 years of being a part of the EU and NATO, Latvian society does not associate itself with the former Soviet Union or typical features of ’homo sovieticus’ such as irresponsibility, passivity and fearfulness.
I would generalize a bit and propose to look at Latvia’s society consisting of four big groups of people :
- Latvian citizens who lived in Latvia during many generations,
- Latvian citizens (and their descendants) who returned from exile, which was chosen because of Soviet occupation. Naturalized citizens who arrived in Latvia after 1940/1945
- non-citizens – those who have chosen not to become citizens of Latvia, preferring not to participate in the public political life of the country and associate themselves with the past of the Soviet Union.
80 % of all population in Latvia are citizens, 5% are of other nationalities, the rest are without citizenship, protected by the laws of the state. Practically those who are not citizens have the same rights as citizens with the exception of the right to participate in elections. The individual choice not to become a citizen of Latvia is respected, a democratic state cannot impose citizenship on the individual. We, Latvians, experienced the forceful citizenship during the Soviet occupational rule. The relationship between the state and the individual differs radically between regimes like the Soviet one and democracy as Latvia is today. This is one of the aspects why it is not correct to call Latvia a post-Soviet country. And it should be mentioned that naturalization process has speeded up as a result of Latvia’s accession to the EU.
When speaking about nostalgia about the Soviet Union, mostly it can be observed among representatives of the group belonging to those who are not citizens of Latvia. Among them are many former Soviet militaries and their families. The feelings of the lost past of the great power are probably rather present, and a dissatisfaction of lost privileges as well. We cannot exclude nostalgia per se among Latvian citizens who had better conditions during the previous regime due to their positions in the hierarchy of the society, but people are not used to publicly refer to it. The nostalgic memories about the past Soviet times told to the grandchildren influence the perception of the present of their grandchildren, especially if the Russian and Belarussian TV channels (many of them can be watched in Latvia) are contributing to the mood to look at the former USSR from the perspective of lost society of imagined equality and justice.
The only way how to help these people to live in reality and accept the new circumstances which are not so new anymore, is to continue to tolerate their nostalgia. But it is of big importance that groups interested in destabilizing the society by invoking nostalgia are prevented from doing so. However, this is a marginal part of society and I do not see a big danger here.
The present lifestyle differs tremendously from the Soviet style. Young people have no idea how it was to live in a situation of scarcity of everyday commodities, or with restricted freedoms to travel abroad or to listen to the Western music. They have no idea how it was to live in the system where people were under permanent control of their political views, afraid to be punished if they express their critical thoughts. The current life in freedom makes people to take it for granted.
In my view, there is no need to use notion “post-Soviet” when referring to the societies which once were under the Soviet rule. Using this notion begs the question: why not use other similar notions like ‘post-Austro-Hungarian’ or ‘post-Habsburg’ or ‘post-Ottoman’? I presume we can find people who would feel nostalgic about the glorious past in the territories of those empires too. However, in my opinion it would be better to leave the past where it belongs.
Those who are interested in cultivating nostalgia about the Soviet past are doing so with a certain political purpose. Those who imagined that return of the old melody of the Soviet anthem and the flag of the Soviet armed forces in the Russian Federation will give back self-esteem to the people in the former USSR territory, were counting on superficial support in short term by part of the society. They were aware that it is impossible to introduce rapid reforms in order to improve wellbeing of the Russian people. In this context, if one recalls the infamous expression by the leader of the Russian Federation that the collapse of the USSR was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe, it becomes clear that to continue using the notion “ post-Soviet” means helping to support this approach and cultivate the myth of the great Soviet Union.
I can associate myself with those who urge to move away from labelling the countries according to their former regimes. I would like to finish this short essay quoting Swedish scholar Ninna Mörner, editor-in-chief of scholarly journal Baltic Worlds of September 2014. “Isn’t it time to question the use of post-socialism as a category? The dividing line between the Former Eastern European countries and the Western European countries is less sharp now, and still in a state of flux. Isn’t the European future one of interaction and mutual influence: sharing and shaping?“ I think also “post-Soviet” as a category has lived to the times when it shouldn't be used any more to refer to the countries of Eastern Europe. The Baltic states a priori do not belong to it, but those who were legitimate part of the USSR have also already developed in directions that have little in common with the Soviet Union. The notion post-Soviet can move to another scientific field - history.
Argita Daudze (Liepāja, Latvia 1962) is a historian and former diplomat (has been posted to Norway, Russia, and served as ambassador in Czech Republic, Croatia, Ukraine, Moldova, Spain and Andorra). Finished special course for young diplomats at Vienna Diplomatic Academy in 1993/94. In 2010 she defended her Doctoral thesis " Latvia in Swedish politics 1939 -1991" at the University of Latvia.
Since mid-November 2021 she works as a foreign policy adviser to the speaker of parliament (Saeima) of Latvia.
Speaks Latvian, English, Russian, Swedish , Spanish.