Play by the rules

The difficulty of the language conflict in Moldova, perhaps like any other, is that both sides consider themselves victims.

Who's the big victim?

Moldovans feel disadvantaged in situations where people in professions related to communication - salespeople, waiters, taxi drivers - do not know the language. “Why can we speak Russian, but they cannot speak Moldavian?”

Some people feel that there is too much Russian around them - on the TV screen, on the street - and that the Romanian/Moldovan language needs to be saved.

Russian-speaking people believe that they were squeezed out from everywhere - from state institutions, the government apparatus, the court, the police, the prosecutor's office, from scientific, creative and non-governmental organizations. The Russian language is consistently being squeezed out of universities, schools, and libraries. And although the Law on the Functioning of Languages ​​is loyal to the Russian language, the right to receive information in Russian is violated everywhere from the pharmacy to the mayor's office.

This is difficult to deny, but the opposite side believes that the reason for the absence of Russians in power lies not in the ethnocratic nature of the state, but in the fact that Russians do not know the Romanian language. Moldovans (perhaps not all, but many) seriously think that Russians do not know the language because they do not want to learn it. But they don’t want to teach because they are chauvinists, “fragments of the empire,” “occupiers,” and seek to maintain their “privileged position.”

Russian speakers do not read Romanian newspapers, and therefore do not know that they are chauvinists and fragments of the empire, but sincerely believe that it was the Moldovans in Soviet times who had privileges for education and career growth. Just like today. Russian speakers (Russian thinkers, Russophones) are sure that they cannot be chauvinists, since Russian speakers are not a nationality, there are no more than a quarter of people of Russian origin in this environment, the rest are Ukrainians, Moldovans, Gagauz, Bulgarians, Jews and anyone else by origin.

Here there is a clash of different models of consciousness - the paradigm of linguistic and national community. Nationalists do not understand what “Russian-speaking” is: “I also speak Russian, which means I am also Russian-speaking”; “Ukrainians are not Russian speakers, but Ukrainians, and should speak Ukrainian.” However, whether someone likes it or not, the reality is that the Russian-speaking community really exists, and Moldovan Ukrainians have never spoken standard Ukrainian (Galician dialect), many even consider themselves Rusyns, but everyone speaks Russian.

Unfortunately, both linguistic communities judge each other, to put it mildly, by their most expansive representatives. Maybe that’s why Russians don’t understand that Moldovans are generally receptive to the Russian language and culture, and Moldovans don’t understand that Russians’ lack of knowledge of the language is the result of isolation.

Switzerland

Okay, let's say I want to get some kind of job in the public sphere. And he must know the Moldovan language. How good is it and for what profession?

Not clear. There is neither a list of specialties that require knowledge of a language (Moldovan, Russian, Gagauz), nor a system for determining the level of knowledge, such as TOEFL English or French DAFL certificates.

What then is the point of arguing about whether Russian will be the state language if there are no rules for using the language? What difference does it make whether a language is called “official” or “interethnic communication” if it doesn’t mean anything?

And is it possible to say that some position or profession requires knowledge of a language if this is not stated anywhere?

Just tell me that a salesman must know two languages ​​at such and such a level, and a policeman at such and such a level, and tell me where I can take a language proficiency exam, then I will understand whether I can apply for this job. If I fail the exam, I will only be offended by myself, and will not feel that I am both discriminated against and forced to learn the language.

Arguments lead nowhere; no one can be convinced of anything. The only way out is to introduce clear language rules. All Moldovans do not need to know Russian, all Russians do not need to learn Romanian. Let waiters, salespeople, hairdressers, doctors, police officers, presidents, and I don’t know who else, know two languages. Let the rest live as they wish. And we will have Switzerland.

It is clear that everyday xenophobia will not go away. The rules won't work right away. Discrimination may also be caused by other motives, for example, nepotism (nepotism, nepotism). Certificates can be purchased, just like university diplomas. Even, most likely, the rules will not work. But this is a step in the right direction.

And here's another. In 1848, the Swiss state assumed the costs of translating documents from German into other languages ​​of the country - French and Italian. But some Moldovan politicians, say, Oazu Nantoi, even after a century and a half continue to argue that translating documents into Russian is too expensive. I would argue that the lack of translation will cost more.