Estonia: A Model for Inter-War Europe?

Abstract

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.

Conclusion: Patterns of Non-Territorial Autonomy

“…The millet system, similarly, helped to prevent large-scale opposition to the state (Barkey and Gavrilis, 2016). Indeed, in Moravia the 1905 'compromise' succeeded in preserving the influence of conservative forces (Kelly, 2003, pp. 300-1), the 1925 Cultural Autonomy Law offered the Baltic Germans a residual hold on power in Estonia (Smith, 2016), and in Belgium the set of post-1970 constitutional reforms of which community autonomy was part helped to preserve the declining influence of the traditionally dominant French-speaking section of the population. In a world where populations are more intermingled than ever before, it would be inappropriate to write off the potential future of this institutional device.…”

“…The Estonian cultural autonomy law of 1925 has also received a positive assessment (Smith, 2016). According to Macartney (1934, p. 469), 'by common consent, [it] has given the most admirable results in practice ';and Housden (2004, p. 232) noted its 'enthusiastic' reception by commentators.…”

“…Members of other groups may also seek to claim membership to avail Patterns of non-territorial autonomy p. 16 of additional benefits, thus diluting the character of the group and undermining the logic of the system, a possibility in the millet system (Barkey and Gavrilis, 2016). Measures can of course be taken to prevent this, as in Estonia in the 1920s, when a law designed to prevent those of Estonian descent from claiming German nationality was enacted (Smith, 2016).…”

“…In both Moravia and Estonia electoral rolls for communal representation were based on a draft compiled by officials, but there was an element of personal choice in that individuals could opt in or out of a particular list-freely in the case of Estonia, subject to official veto in the case of Moravia (Kuzmany, 2016;Smith, 2016). In the case of indigenous peoples, membership definition has shifted over time, hampered by the absence of an effective operational definition that is accepted internationally (Berg-Nordlie et al 2015b;Costa, 2015 choose to remain on the general electoral roll (New Zealand Parliament, 2015).…”

Introduction: Dispersed Minorities and Non-Territorial Autonomy

“…Here, two cases are examined. Smith (2015) considers the fascinating case of Estonia, whose cultural autonomy law of 1925 made it a poster-child of non-territorial autonomy. Dalle Mulle (2015) explores the extent to which constitutional reforms in Belgium since 1970 have had a non-territorial dimension, alongside their more obvious territorial and consociational features.…”