János Pusztay, Szombathely, Hungary

Young People are the Key to the Future of the Finno-Ugric Peoples Plenary address for the 4th Congress of WCFUP, Tallinn, August 2004 padar ńeńur xājērŋäe xäejje, mań ŋāńi” xāsawa ńū jirīŋäe ŋäedaptaŋkūw May your daughter become the sun, and I send my son to be the moon. Madame President, Presidents, Finno-Ugric Family, Ladies and Gentlemen! I The central topic of this 4th World Congress of Finno-Ugric Peoples is the future of our peoples. We have good reason to feel anxious about this matter, since even the 14-15 million Hungarians belong to the so-called ‘small peoples’, not to mention our language relatives in Russia. We live in a globalising world. Globalisation can be of worldwide dimensions and also of local strength. Whereas the effect of worldwide globalisation is felt where all peoples with non-Anglo-Saxon culture and language are concerned, local globalisation—over and above this—prevails in a more or less closed, originally multi-lingual and multi-cultural society due mainly to political or ideological reasons. This latter situation can be observed in the case of the Finno-Ugric peoples in Russia. From among Finno-Ugric peoples, Estonians, Finns, Livonians and the majority of Hungarians and Saamis can create their futures within the framework of the European Union. It is the future of our language kindred in Russia that gives most cause for concern, which is why my presentation will focus on their situation. II According to UNESCO data, there are currently 6 to 7 thousand languages in the world, and this number is decreasing by a few per cent each year. A pessimistic scenario would be that between only 10 and 20 per cent of the indigenous languages will survive the next 50 to 100 years. I wonder how many seats of representatives of Finno-Ugric and Samoyed peoples will be empty at our 10th Congress? The future of Finno-Ugric and Samoyed peoples in Russia will be determined by two factors: the politico-economic framework within which our language relatives live and, to almost the same degree, the will of our language relatives. In a favourable political climate and with the commitment and determination of the people, provision for survival can be developed. 1. The Politico-economic Framework and Its Planned Reform 1.1. Currently, the Finno-Ugric and Samoyed peoples in Russia live largely in administrative units providing some kind of autonomy: those larger in number, like the Mordvins, the Udmurts, the Maris, the Komis and the Karelians, in their republics; those smaller in number, for example the Permian Komis, the Mansis, the Khants and the Nenetses, in autonomous districts. At the very most, other peoples may have some degree of local representation (for example, in the municipal council). Republics and autonomous districts, albeit in restricted measure, provide titular peoples with the opportunity to assert their interests; for example, in relation to the use of the mother tongue and the preservation and promotion of native culture. Nevertheless, it should be realised that, with the exception of the Permian Komis, all the Finno-Ugric and Samoyed titular peoples are a minority in the territories named after them, although these very territories are the ancient settlement areas of these peoples. 1.2. However, the planned reform of the administrative framework will radically change the living conditions of the small, indigenous Finno-Ugric and Samoyed peoples. The structural reform of the Russian Federation aims at an essential reduction in the number of constituting units of the federation: from the present 89 to 28. As we all know, the first step is to unite the Permian Komi Autonomous District with Perm Oblast. This autonomous district was created by political will at the beginning of the 1920s, separating on the basis of the divide et impera principle the Permian Komis from the linguistically and ethnically identical, and even geographically neighbouring, Komis. Now we will see the end of the only Finno-Ugric autonomous district with a titular people which were in the majority. And through unification, this people will lose all opportunities to assert their interests, because the approximately 125 000-strong Permian Komi population will disappear in the predominantly Russian-speaking environment of the Permsky Kray. We know of further measures too. For example, talks are already under way on the merging of the Autonomous Districts of Yamal Nenetsi and Khanty-Mansi–Yugra into the planned Tumensky Kray. (I would mention in brackets that these are the richest territories of the Russian Federation for mineral resources – natural gas and oil.) Up to this point, the local government of Yugra for example has granted the indigenous Mansi and Khant people many favours considering that they only constitute 1.5 per cent of the population. In the wake of radical changes in the political and as a result economical conditions, these favours will cease. According to Argumenti i Fakti information, plans already exist for the merging of Finno-Ugric republics into a larger unit. I am not alone in thinking that, on the basis of weakening economic competitiveness and the threat of direct ‘Russianizing’ measures—for example, the passing of an act restricting the use of the languages of the republics—even the strongest Finno-Ugric territories are unlikely to be able maintain their national subsidy system at its present level. The reduction in the number of units is only one objective of the Russian Federation’s territorial reform. The other perhaps more important objective is the linguistic-ethnic homogenisation of the country, the elimination of national minorities or, provisionally, the ‘folklorisation’ of the national minorities. (To take the example of the Permian Komis: the incorporation of the Permian Komi Autonomous District into the Komi Republic would also have reduced the number of the units, although it would have increased the proportion of the Komi population within the Republic.) The principles of the minority policy were drafted in 2002 (Российская Федерация: проблемы формирования этнокультурной политики. Русский мир, Москва – “The Russian Federation: Problems of Development of Ethno-Cultural Policy”) by the then minister for ethnic affairs (V. Yu. Zorin). It shows that the state seeks to solve the ethnic problems by shifting from national–territorial structure to cultural–educational structure, otherwise known as national–cultural autonomy. The basis of the national–cultural autonomy was the fact that almost half of the non-Russian peoples lived in their own national state formation, although more than half of the inhabitants of these republics and districts is made up of non-titular people. (However, Zorin believes this mainly Russian population were put at a disadvantage.) The author is quick to denounce the opponents of the plan. Using an old political tactic he refers to the experts, stating that it is mainly followers of ethnic territorialisation and politicisation who will be against the new national–cultural autonomy, because they see the possibility of the reduction of the national statehood. It is a sign of the folklorisation of the minority issue that, during the reconstruction of the government in the spring of 2004, the position of the minister without portfolio for ethnic affairs was cancelled and at the time of drafting this presentation the minority, nationality issues were being dealt with by a division of the Ministry of Culture. Ethnicity is a source of conflict, and it also serves as territorial reorganisation ideology claims the author of the study. He states that ethnophobia and xenophobia are on the increase in Russia. One of the reasons for the latter is that the representatives of the diaspora (in Zorin’s usage this word always refers to 'non-Russian minority’) show no respect for the national customs, traditions and everyday psychology of other peoples, especially those of the Russians. The study does not mention Russian intolerance. Therefore the proposed direction is - to dismember the administrative units and have the groups confront each other, creating minorities everywhere → no interest-assertion → Russification - small peoples will only be of importance from the points of view of statistical data and folklore colouring. 2. The Demographical Situation According to the most recent census data, the total number of the Finno-Ugric (Uralian) population has decreased dramatically since the 1989 census. There are a few welcome exceptions in the case of some peoples, small even by Finno-Ugric standards, (Khants, Mansis, Nenetses, Selkups, Enetses and the Saamis of Russia). Table showing changes between the 1989 and the 2002 censuses: 1989 2002 % Mordvins: 1,073,000 845,000 -21% Udmurts: 715,000 637,000 -11% Maris: 643,000 605,000 -6% Komis: 337,000 293,000 -13% Permian Komis: 147,000 125,000 -15% Karelians: 125,000 93,000 -26% Vepsians: 12,000 8,000 -33% Khants: 22,000 29,000 +32% Mansis: 8,000 12,000 +50% Kola Saamis: 1,800 2,000 +11% Nenetses: 34,000 41,000 +21% Selkups: 3,600 4,000 +11% Nganasans: 1,300 1,000 - 31% Enetses: 200 300 +50% Total: 3,122,900 2,695,300 -13.7% When projecting the same rate of growth or decline for the next almost one hundred years, the number of the Finno-Ugric (Uralian) population (calculated on cycles of 13 years—the number of years between the two latest censuses) will change in the following way (numbers in 1000s): 1989 2002 2093 Mordvins: 1,073 845 182 Udmurts: 715 637 282 Maris: 643 605 393 Komis: 337 293 110 Permian Komis: 147 125 40 Karelians: 125 93 12 Vepsians: 12 8 0.46 Khants: 22 29 201 Mansis: 8 12 210 Kola Saamis: 1.8 2 4.1 Nenetses: 34 41 160 Selkups: 3.6 4 8.2 Nganasans: 1.3 1 0.08 Enetses: 0,2 0,3 5,4 Total: 3,122.9 2,695.3 1,608.24 That is, the total number of the Uralian population will almost halve. Within this, the number of the Finno-Ugric population in European territories will dramatically decrease, while that of language relatives in West Siberia increases significantly. I will return to the issue of language usage later. We are still waiting for a detailed analysis of the demographical situation covering all peoples. The soon-to-be-published analysis carried out in the Komi Republic, shows that: - Previous decade are characterised by the fact that the decrease in population affects not only the urban but also the rural population, and the villages are where the indigenous population of the republic—the Komis—live. - The most dramatic fall in the birth rate was found among the rural population. In 2000 only 2359 babies were born, which is 3.7 times fewer than at the beginning of the 20th century. - The mortality chart shows an upward tendency: Morbidity coefficient dynamics of the population of the Komi Republic by nationalities in 1989–1999, per 1000 capita Nationality 1989 1992 1994 1995 1998 1999 Total population 7.0 9.1 13.2 12.6 10.0 10.7 Russians 5.9 7.8 11.1 10.3 8.4 9.3 Komis 10.7 12.8 18.0 17.1 13.2 13.9 - The deteriorating economic situation, the declining standard of living and the increasing unemployment of the preceding years were also reflected by the increase in suicides, which characterise both the welfare and the mental-moral state of the society. These phenomena are characteristic mainly of the territories inhabited by Komis, where in more than one in four cases (27.5%) the cause of death is accident, poisoning or suicide. - Among all causes of death, non-natural mortality is highest among those able to work: more than half the deaths among men able to work are due to alcoholic intoxication, homicide or suicide. - Compact habitats of Komi people are also affected by ecological damage. The deterioration of the environment, air pollution and quality of drinking water all weaken the immune system, which leads to an increase in the proportion of malignant diseases. - Negative tendencies in the mortality processes have become causes of low life span. In 1999, the average life span in districts predominantly inhabited by Komis was 0.9–6.8 years lower than in the entire Komi Republic. I think the statements concerning the Komi Republic are also more or less valid in the case of the other Finno-Ugric and Samoyed peoples. 3. The Linguistic Situation 3.1. Language as a vehicle of identity Language is a vehicle for identity—if not the most important one—and vice versa: linguistic identity is an essential basis to the development of ethnicity. It is due to this very attribute that language is a strong instrument for national cohesion and solidarity. 3.2. Mother Tongue and Choice of Mother Tongue Language is a basic means of socialisation. By learning to speak, a child becomes a member of society. Children acquire patterns of social behaviour through various models and situations, and these patterns are parts of sets of behaviour in the broader sense and part of the culture. For this very reason it is important which language they begin socialising in, their native language or another language. The linguistic environment plays an essential role in a child’s linguistic development; the mother tongue cannot develop normally without it. Small peoples and national minorities are generally bi- or multilingual. In their case, the number of the population and of those choosing or acknowledging the mother tongue do not always coincide. The choice of the mother tongue depends on its status. The status of the mother tongue, in turn, depends on the - size of the community - self-esteem of the community - political, administrative status of the community - politics (e.g. existence of language act and its execution) - developed state of the language. Language usage proportions observed during the 1989 and 2002 censuses, and their extrapolation to 2093: 1989 2002 difference 2093 Mordvins: 740 (=69%) 615 (=73%) +4% 182 (=100%) Udmurts: 506 (=71%) 464 (=73%) +2% 245 (= 87%) Maris: 527 (=82%) 488 (=81%) -1% 291 (= 74%) Komis: 239 (=71%) 217 (=74%) +3% 105 (= 95%) Permian Komis: 105 (=71%) 94 (=74%) +3% 38 (= 95%) Karelians: 61 (=49%) 53 (=57%) +8% 12 (=100%) Khants: 14 (=64%) 14 (=48%) -16% --- Mansis: 3 (=38%) 3 (=25%) -13% --- Nenetses: 27 (=79%) 32 (=78%) -1% 114 (= 71%) Selkups: 1.7 (=47%) 2 (=50%) +3% 5.8 (=71%) Total: 2223.7 1982 992.8 This means that the number of people speaking Uralian languages will decrease to half the present number, and several Uralian languages will disappear during this century. Particularly striking is the linguistic loss of the Khant and Mansi peoples, who are in theory increasing dramatically in number. This, naturally, also results in loss of identity. There are no detailed statements on the distribution of language users according to age groups. However, most of those using some Finno-Ugric language as their mother tongue presumably belong to the highest age group, and the younger a generation is, the less it uses their Finno-Ugric mother tongue. This situation can be clearly illustrated by a pyramid. The Pyramid 3.3. Language Status The status of a language is connected to the self-esteem of its speakers, which in turn depends on the domain of language usage and their substance from the language speaker’s point of view (e.g. literary language, language of religious activity, lingua franca). The language and native culture of an ethnic group has no chance of survival and development unless it is used both in mass communications and at home and school. When one language takes over the functions of another language in more and more areas this leads to the lexical and grammatical reduction of the displaced language, and in extreme cases may bring about its extinction. Social causes of the extinction of a language are heavy cultural pressure, fall in prestige of the language in the eyes of its speakers, negative attitude towards the language and/or its speakers, modernisation and in its wake the abandoning of the traditional way of life and habitat (this can be seen in the situation of the Northern peoples of the former Soviet Union and present Russia). An important sociolinguistic statement is that language usage is closely connected to territory. That is to say the language of the indigenous population will not survive without historical territory. The death of a language does not necessarily mean language degradation; a language may disappear with its entire grammatical and lexical structure when the speaker community adopts another language. The size of the community speaking a language plays an undeniable role in the survival of the language but it is not the decisive factor. Let me cite some examples concerning the linguistic situation of the—at least at present— more numerous Finno-Ugric peoples of Russia. In Komi Republic, as a consequence of the measures of the 1930s, 1950s and finally 1970s, the Komi teachers’ college trained no more teachers for the national schools and even the publishing of textbooks was halted. As a result of this, Russian was the language of education in every school and Komi was only taught in national curriculum schools—as a second language. This is how a whole generation (the under 30s, 56.9 per cent of the population) grew up, not knowing their mother tongue and with no interest in the history and culture of their people. The Udmurt language has virtually become the vernacular and ‘Küchensprache’ of the rural population. Küchensprache is an allegedly inferior idiom used by less well-educated people and in the family sphere. In the 1960s, the shops and service units in Izhevsk all had bilingual signs, but by the end of the 1980s there was not one Udmurt sign to be seen. The use of the national language declined mainly among young people because the Udmurt language was given no place in the culture. Education in the mother tongue is only present in the first years of primary school, and in the upper years Udmurt can only be studied as a second language. Nevertheless, there are efforts to introduce Udmurt into secondary education in order to form a national elite. In higher education the language of instruction in the Udmurt and Finno-Ugric faculty is Udmurt, and in the other faculties it is Russian. Udmurt schools are to be found only in the villages; there are none at all in the towns. The good news is that in recent years Udmurt has been spreading in kindergartens, in towns too. In the Mari Republic, the Mari language has remained the language of instruction virtually only in a few rural elementary schools. The writing and publishing of textbooks has practically stopped. The lack of textbooks is one of the main obstacles to Mari language teaching and this provokes the most strenuous parental opposition to the language. In towns and town-like settlements, it is the workplace, children’s Russian-language environment, mixed marriages and the nihilism of urban youth that is the reason for Russian or Russian and the national language being designated as the mother tongue. More than 30 per cent of Mari school children said that they speak Russian at home, and that they are not interested in Mari books. When analysing the data of a detailed study showing the linguistic and educational situation of the Mari Republic, it seems that something serious happened in 2001, as both the number of schools teaching Mari and the number of pupils learning Mari decreased dramatically. Young people moving into towns either do not believe in the development opportunities of their own mother tongue culture or do not consider it important, and identify the language of their ancestors with a backward, conservative way of life. In the Mordvin Republic, the language act was passed after encountering heavy resistance. Its terms are rather ambiguous and allow for plenty of loopholes. The linguistic and cultural programme following the Act deals a lot with linguistic research and much less with the propagation of Mordvin among the wider public. 3.4. Linguistic Rights, Minority Human Rights The mother tongue is connected with important individual and collective rights; for example the right to use, cultivate and pass on the language. According to Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson, linguistic rights include two fundamental rights: - the right to learn the official (literary) language of the state - the right to the mother tongue, i.e. the mother tongue identity, education and public services. In the introduction to the 2001 Vienna Conference, which was devoted to the European language policy, it is emphasised that both equal access to (European) institutions and the right to vote albeit passive are possible only in the mother tongue. In connection with this allow me to cite statements from some international documents. - The Copenhagen Document (Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE – 1990) states that national minorities have the right to preserve their ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identities, have the right to receive voluntary and open assistance for educational activities, and have the right not to be assimilated against their will. - The 1994 the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities emphasises that the protection of minorities is not simply an internal affair of state. - The collective right to linguistic security makes it obligatory that other groups do not use their advantages (e.g. their numerical superiority or political dominance) to restrict or abolish the language in question. - Among the Hague and Oslo recommendations it is found that the minority peoples should be provided with mother tongue education at all levels of public education (involving bilingual teachers and assuring training of suitable teachers). - F. De Varennes (Language, Minorities and Human Rights. The Hague, Boston, London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996: 168) prepared the following comprehensive list of minority rights: - the right of the linguistic minority to mother tongue education, foundation and maintenance of mother tongue educational institutions where the mother tongue as the language of instruction should be used in a degree according to the will of the minority - the right of the linguistic minority to use their mother tongue in cultural, welfare and political organisations - the right to minority language personal and place names - the right to use their own writing in the private sphere - the right to minority language media - the right to use the minority language both at home and in public. How much do universal linguistic rights prevail among the Uralian peoples in Russia? The answer to this question can be given on the basis of some articles from the Barcelona Declaration (1996), and a plus sign or minus sign in square brackets shows whether or not the given article prevails among the Uralian peoples in Russia. A ± sign shows that the given right prevails either partially, or does with some peoples but elsewhere does not. Uralian peoples who have obtained member republic status have language acts, the others do not. The language act declares that on the territory of the given republic the language of the titular nation is, together with Russian but primus inter pares, the state language. However, law and practice are for various reasons generally far removed from each other. Some paragraphs from the Declaration: [+] - Paragraph 3: the right to the use of mother tongue in mass communication [+] - Paragraph 9: the right to codify, standardise, preserve, develop and support the linguistic system [+] - Paragraph 18: representative assemblies must have as their official language(s) the language(s) historically spoken in the territory they represent [+]. [±] - Paragraph 4: management of public affairs in one’s own language [±]; - Paragraph 16: interrelation with the public authorities in one’s own language [±]; - Paragraph 41: the right to use, maintain and develop one’s own language in all forms of cultural expression [±]; - Paragraph 50: the right to use one’s own language in advertising, on signs and road signs, etc. [±]; - Paragraph 8: to ensure the transmission and continuity of one’s own language [±]; - Paragraph 23/2: education shall help to maintain and develop the language [±]; - Paragraph 26: the right to an education which will ensure the acquisition of a full command of one’s own language [±]; - Paragraph 15: the right to the legal and administrative acts drawn up in one’s own language [±] (the example of the Komis is a positive one: thanks to the Ministry of Ethnic Affairs, documents of state power and government offices are translated into Komi; decrees of State Council, decisions of Constitutional Court, documents of ministries, contracts are published in both official languages; both languages are used during elections, preparation of social and political events); [–] - Paragraph 3: the use of one’s own language by government bodies [–]; - Paragraph 47: the use of one’s own language in all socio–economic activities [–]; - Paragraph 48: the right to have all documents (forms, cheques, contracts, invoices, etc.) in one’s own language [–]. 3.5. Language Policy Language policy is closely connected to identity policy on all its levels: individual, group, local, regional, national and transnational. Language policy reflects the power relations of society projecting them onto the linguistic society. Although the Finno-Ugric republics in Russia have passed their own language acts which, in principle, ensure state language rights for the language of the titular nation within the borders of the republic, as we have already seen, the effect of these acts is rather limited. So far, no legal standards have been enacted in connection with the language acts of the various member republics (in Russia), and this promotes the continual expansion of Russian. The direct or indirect enforcement of Russian on the minorities can be considered as linguistic imperialism, which goes hand in hand with economic and political dominance. The advance of English, which can be seen the world over, brings forth a kind of cultural arrogance and linguistic imperialism. Similar phenomena can be observed in the relationship between Russian and the minority languages (and cultures) in Russia. A healthy identity can be established in Russia if its citizens find their own language and culture in it. Should the conditions not be established, the negative processes will strengthen and nationalistic ideologies may gain ground. 3.6. Language Development The most important issue in language development is to decide how many languages a Finno-Ugric people should have. In my opinion, differentiating between Zyrian Komi and Permian Komi, Meadow Mari and Mountain Mari, and Erzya-Mordvin and Moksha-Mordvin is artificial, and not even linguistically justifiable. Although these distinctions may have a historical, ethnic and partly perhaps linguistic basis, in order to preserve the nation, the national language and national culture, and to fend off the divide et impera principle, efforts should aim at the creation of a ‘one nation, one language’ situation. In their present condition, the Uralian languages in Russia do not comply with the requirements of the state language. In the case of Uralian peoples with larger populations and at least an autonomous district, the language lends itself well to the publishing of literature, newspapers and periodicals, and to being the language (or at least subject) of instruction. However, in all fields where special vocabulary is needed (e.g. politics, administration and science), speakers automatically switch to Russian. That is why it is essential to start or go on with the creation of special terminology and nomenclatures in order to make the language suitable for performing the desired functions in all fields of life. The restriction of language use (e.g. only to folklore and culture) starts, in most cases, irreversibly negative processes, as far as the suitability of the language for technical communication is concerned. In addition to the technical implementation of language development, the psychological status of languages should also be changed. Image creation is an essential element of status planning: it is this that creates a favourable background to language planning. This is especially important in the case of those languages which for some reason are not highly valued. In order to change the social acceptance of a language, its prestige has to be raised. On the basis of what has been found to be the case with various Finno-Ugric peoples, we can see that a lot of hard work will need to be done to foster a love of the mother tongue and end national nihilism. Intellectuals who consciously acknowledge their mother tongue both among themselves and in public, and politicians speaking in their mother tongue can do a lot to create language prestige. If the use of a language is force out of more and more domains, it will sooner or later cease to exist. This can already be seen both among young people and humanities scholars and politicians. 4. Young People are the Key to the Future Despite negative tendencies, the future of the Finno-Ugric peoples in Russia is not without hope. However, this will remain nothing more than an unjustifiably optimistic statement, unless: - politics treat minorities in the spirit of the standards of international law, - the peoples concerned give up their nihilist, depressive, self-destructive behaviour, and create a healthy self-esteem in order to save and revitalise their language, their culture and therefore themselves (see example of neighbouring Tatars, Chuvashes, Bashkirs), - following international examples (see e.g. Ireland, Wales), Finno-Ugric peoples reorganise almost from its bases their mother tongue education from elementary school to university level, the mother tongue press, mother tongue administration, and mother tongue scientific life. Young people and intellectuals, especially young intellectuals, have a fundamental role to play in this revival process. 4.1. A New Political Attitude in Compliance with International Standards I recommend to the Congress the Vienna Manifesto accepted in 2001 (Wiener Manifest zur Europäischen Sprachpolitik—Vienna Manifesto on European Language Policy), the statements and proposals of which could also be applied perfectly—political will permitting—in connection with national minorities in Russia. Let me cite some principles, changing the word ‘Europe’ to ‘Russia’, ‘English language’ to ‘Russian language’ and ‘European Union’ to ‘Russian Federation’: - ‘Only if Russia’s linguistic diversity is preserved and promoted will the project of the Russian Federation succeed. On the one hand it is impossible to make foreign language skills a prerequisite for exercising democratic rights, on the other hand mutual understanding is indispensable for living together.’ - ‘There is no contradiction between using a lingua franca (predominantly Russian) in some spheres of work and actively practising multilingualism in other areas...’ - ‘...Many of Russia’s cultural achievements are closely linked to the achievements of specific languages and intellectual traditions. A renouncement of these languages and achievements would mean a serious restriction and depletion of the cultural diversity in Russia.’ - ‘It is the job of schools, universities and institutions of advanced training on the one hand, and the obligation of governments on the other to safeguard multilingualism... An important element in this process is to preserve and use the existing wealth of languages by placing more emphasis on minority and migrant languages when integrating them into the general educational system.’ And now, after the principles, let’s look at some recommendations from the Vienna Manifesto: - Measures have to be taken to ensure ‘the right of all citizens to learn and use their own national and minority languages.’ - The Russian Federation ‘is called upon to implement multilingualism in its own practices in a more credible way * by extending the working language regime... * by involving national and sector-specific terminology resources, including those of the private sector...’ * ‘As regards humanities and sciences, measures have to be taken to ensure that national languages other than Russian (used by many scholars as a lingua franca) will be preserved and further developed as technical languages. At least in the humanities and arts, this is a crucial prerequisite for preserving academic cultures with their specific knowledge gains. This means * ...promoting doctoral theses and theses required of candidates wishing to qualify to lecture at university written in the national technical language * not basing the evaluation of academic achievements on evaluation standards... clearly preferring a lingua franca but encouraging multilingual publications activity (particularly in so-called “national” fields of knowledge such as history and linguistics).’ - ‘An appropriate linguistic attitude in situations of multilingual communication is a prerequisite for an effective multilingualism in the humanities and sciences.’ 4.2. Ethnic/national Self-esteem instead of Ethnic Nihilism The Finno-Ugric peoples of Russia have a right to be proud. According to the latest research data, the ancestors of the present-day Finno-Ugric and Samoyed peoples were the aboriginal inhabitants of the European and West Siberian territories of the North Eurasian region. So these peoples have a past: namely, a language and culture of ten or twenty thousand years. It was they who gave names to rivers and lakes in the region; it was they who created the determining material and spiritual culture of the region. During the last few centuries, they succeeded in adapting themselves to the demands of more modern times, while preserving their ancient languages and traditions. Permian written literature is, after Hungarian, the oldest written culture. Our peoples have given the world numerous internationally known artists, writers, researchers and sportsmen to the world. We should preserve these valuable assets and multiply them. 4.3. Mother Tongue Before Everything Else Cultivation and fostering of the mother tongue begins in the family and continues at school. Effectiveness can be guaranteed by a suitable educational system; one which does not merge schools using the mother tongue as language of instruction with those teaching it as a compulsory or even just as an optional subject—as proposed by the author of the above-mentioned political document. The effective operation of schools can be ensured by the creation of the necessary conditions (teachers who can teach in the mother tongue, mother tongue textbooks of appropriate level). Education helps spread mother tongue equivalents of new terms, translating the results of terminology creation into practice. Parental attitude is a determining factor. A negative parental attitude towards the mother tongue will deprive children of motivation and will have an adverse effect on their school achievements. In mixed marriages, a change in the relation to language and culture is needed. Bilingual families should make every effort to see that the children learn the language of both parents. Present experience shows that only the Finno-Ugric population is bilingual; Russians are virtually monolingual. The press has an extremely important part to play and responsibility in preserving and promoting the mother tongue. 4.4. The Role of the Intellectuals, Especially Young Intellectuals Experience gained in the Mari Republic shows that those most devoted to the promotion and teaching of the mother tongue are prospective teachers and agricultural professionals. However, no substantial improvement can be expected until the entire intelligentsia, or at least all those representing the humanities, make a stand for their mother tongue and set examples through their own behaviour. Consider this: how many intellectuals and politicians present here use their mother tongue in everyday practice? How many of them have ensured that their children master the language of their forefathers? I have bad experiences in this area. It is thanks to this kind of attitude that we have the analysis results I have quoted several times already. Although it only refers to Mari El, it is clearly more or less valid in relation to other republics as well. The analysis states that 74.7 per cent of Mari students in secondary or upper level institutes of vocational education use Russian to communicate with their peers, and only 15.5 per cent of them use Mari. I can, however, also report some nice and very promising experiences. - When visiting Finno-Ugric university towns, I was pleased to see that audiences at Finno-Ugric language theatrical performances were made up mostly of young people who understand and demand theatre in the mother tongue. - There is a young intellectual stratum in the making which is aware of why the mother tongue is important. Surveys show that while young people in general understand the Finno-Ugric language of their parents less and less, young intellectuals still do know and want to know their mother tongue. The demands of young people for the mother tongue and the culture of their ancestors must be supported. - Politicians have to create favourable political, psychological and economic conditions. As a first step, a list should be compiled of all the state offices where a good command of both state languages is required; - Professionals—linguists and scholars from various academic fields—should join forces in order to promote the language; - Attractive mother tongue programmes for children should be developed (using computers and the Internet); - Gems of foreign literature should be translated into the mother tongue; - Foreign language films should be dubbed... and the list of proposals could go on. The general atmosphere does not seem to be altogether unfavourable: comparative analysis of surveys made among both the student and the adult populations shows that interest in the Mari language among Russian-speaking students increases with age and level of education. 5.7 per cent of Russian pupils believe the compulsory teaching of Mari to be necessary in every school. In the case of students in secondary and higher education this figure is 13.4 per cent, and the adult population is even more loyal. This result just emphasises how great a responsibility lies with parents, teachers, government officials and politicians. The extremely disadvantageous demographical situation is undoubtedly a problem. This phenomenon is not specific to Russia. The recent Hungarian example shows that the unfavourable tendency can be slowed down if beneficial psychological and material conditions for young families are created. This situation can be changed by politics and—for biological reasons—young people. It is the self-confident young who can stand the present clearly unfavourable pyramid on its head. A Pyramid Standing on its Base and a Pyramid Standing on its Head For this I wish favourable circumstances, strength and self-confidence; and I offer the moral and technical help of Finno-Ugric peoples with independent statehood. Thank you.