‘Memory laws’ and the patterns of collective memory regulation in Poland and Ukraine in 1989–2020: a comparative analysis
Kuupäev
2022-07-08
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Abstrakt
Doktoritöö vaatleb mälupoliitika arenguid Poolas ja Ukrainas alates 1989./1990. aasta demokraatlikest siiretest, seda eeskätt läbi seadusandliku prisma. Neid kahte juhtumit võib käsitleda esinduslikena mälupoliitiliste debattide intensiivsuse osas regioonis ning doktoritöö seadiski eesmärgiks selgitada „mäluseaduste“ arengu üldisi mustreid ning selgitada lähemalt nn karistusõiguslikul tasemel vastu võetud seadusandlike aktide spetsiifilisi protsesse Poola ja Ukraina parlamentides. Dissertatsioonis uurisin süstemaatiliselt kahe juhtumiriigi ühismälu reguleerimise protsessiga seonduvaid poliitilisi arenguid.
Doktoritööga panustan teadusala arengusse kolmel viisil. Kontseptuaalsel tasandil eristab väitekiri ühismälu reguleerimise valdkonna üleminekuõigluse poliitikatest. Käsitlesin kriitiliselt „mäluseadusi“ kontseptualiseerivaid töid näitamaks, kuidas kontseptuaalset kategooriat saab kasutada kollektiivse mälu reguleerimise mustrite analüüsimisel. Iseäranis olulisena uuendasin Eric Heinze tööst lähtudes mäluseaduste kontseptualiseerimist, suhestades selle omakorda teiste temaatiliste käsitlustega. Empiiriliselt toetub doktoritöö kahe juhtumiriigi parlamentides vastu võetud mälupoliitikaga seotud aktide ammendavale ja süstemaatilisele uurimisele. Doktoritöö analüüs põhines unikaalsel, maksimaalselt ammendaval seadusandlike aktide kogumil, mis koosnes vastavalt 447 Ukraina ning 719 Poola parlamendi alamkojas ning Senatis vastu võetud aktist.
Analüütiliselt selgitab väitekiri erinevuste põhjuseid mälu ja mäletamist reguleeriva seadusloome komposiitmustrites Poolas ja Ukrainas (uurimus 1) ning karistusõiguslikul tasemel vastu võetud seadusandlike aktidega seotud spetsiifilisi protsesse (uurimus 2). Kahe uurimuse kaasamine väitekirja tulenes soovist illustreerida „mäluseaduse“ kontseptsiooni operatsionaliseerimise võimalusi juhtumiriikide mälupoliitiliste protsesside empiirilisel uurimisel. Uurimus 1 formuleeris kaks hüpoteesi parlamenditaseme mäluprotsesside regulatsiooni ajastuse kohta. Doktoritöö empiiriline analüüs vaidlustas olemasolevaid teoreetilisi vaatenurki, mille kohaselt peaksid mälupoliitilised protsessid algama varakult pärast siirdeprotsessi toimumist (üleminekuõigluse hüpotees). Selle asemel leidis uurimuses 1 toetust teine hüpotees (mälupoliitika hüpotees), mida tutvutatakse väitekirja sissejuhatuses. Uurimus 1 argumenteeris, et mälupoliitilise võimuvõitluse struktuur rahvusparlamentides tõi kaasa mäluseaduste profiilide hilisema intensiivistumise nii Poolas kui Ukrainas.
Uurimus 2 keskendus Poola ja Ukraina parlamentides karistusõigluslikul tasemel vastu võetud seadusandlike aktide esilekerkimise protsessi analüüsile. Keskseks küsimuseks oli, miks erinesid Poolas ja Ukrainas teatud mälu- või ajaloopoliitilisi seisukohtade avaldamist keelustavad seadused oma karistusliku iseloomu poolest? Kuigi mõlemas riigis keelustati teatud riigi minevikku puudutavatest teemadest rääkimine, erines vastavates seadustes oluliselt karistuslike meetmete ulatus. Uurimus 2 leidsin, et Poola Seimis ja Ukraina Ülemraadas välja kujunenud lähenemine rahvuslikule ajalookirjutusele ennustas variatiivsust karistuslikes meetmetes ajaloost kõnelemist puudutavas seadusandluses.
The dissertation investigates the politics of memory laws in Poland and Ukraine since the democratizing moments of 1989/1990. Considering two cases emblematic of the intensity of the politics of memory in the region, the thesis aimed to explain the overall patterns of memory legislation evolution and explicate the specific processes of punitive memory law-making in the parliaments of Poland and Ukraine. It systematically investigated the political dynamics behind collective memory regulation in two country-cases. I contribute to the state of the field in three ways. On a conceptual level, the thesis distinguishes the domain of collective memory regulation from transitional justice politics. It critically revisited the works over the concept of ‘memory law’ in order to show how this conceptual category can be used to analyze the patterns of collective memory regulation. In particular, I introduced a novelty with regard to the conceptualization of memory law originally formulated by Eric Heinze against the backdrop of other works in the field. Empirically, the dissertation provided an exhaustive and systematic investigation of commemorative lawmaking in the parliaments of two country-cases. The dissertation advanced its analysis based on a unique set of legislation consisting of 447 and 719 parliamentary acts issued by Ukrainian and Polish legislatures, respectively. Analytically, the dissertation explicated the reasons behind the patterns of collective memory regulation (Study 1) and the specific processes of the emergence of punitive memory laws (Study 2) in Poland and Ukraine. The rationale for dividing the dissertation into Study 1 and Study 2 was to illustrate the potential of operationalizing the concept of memory law into the empirical investigation of the politics of memory of country-cases. Study 1 examined the patterns of commemorative lawmaking in the parliaments of Poland and Ukraine, asking why there was a variation in intensity and propensity of commemorative lawmaking occurring in the politics of Polish Sejm and Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada. Study 1 formulated two hypotheses regarding the politics of memorialisation. It set an aim to verify these hypotheses through an empirical investigation of the politics of memory laws in two countries. Furthermore, Study 2 engaged in process analysis of the emergence of punitive memory laws in the national parliaments of Poland and Ukraine. It asked why there was a variation in criminal punishment functions between Polish and Ukrainian laws on historical denialism. While each country-case outlawed certain instances of historical speech over the national past, the severity of prohibitions found in the relevant laws was different. As an analytical added value of the investigation, Study 2 argued that the types of orientation towards national historiographies taken in the politics of the Sejm and the Verkhovna Rada predicted the variation in the formulation of punitive provisions between Polish and Ukrainian laws on historical speech.
The dissertation investigates the politics of memory laws in Poland and Ukraine since the democratizing moments of 1989/1990. Considering two cases emblematic of the intensity of the politics of memory in the region, the thesis aimed to explain the overall patterns of memory legislation evolution and explicate the specific processes of punitive memory law-making in the parliaments of Poland and Ukraine. It systematically investigated the political dynamics behind collective memory regulation in two country-cases. I contribute to the state of the field in three ways. On a conceptual level, the thesis distinguishes the domain of collective memory regulation from transitional justice politics. It critically revisited the works over the concept of ‘memory law’ in order to show how this conceptual category can be used to analyze the patterns of collective memory regulation. In particular, I introduced a novelty with regard to the conceptualization of memory law originally formulated by Eric Heinze against the backdrop of other works in the field. Empirically, the dissertation provided an exhaustive and systematic investigation of commemorative lawmaking in the parliaments of two country-cases. The dissertation advanced its analysis based on a unique set of legislation consisting of 447 and 719 parliamentary acts issued by Ukrainian and Polish legislatures, respectively. Analytically, the dissertation explicated the reasons behind the patterns of collective memory regulation (Study 1) and the specific processes of the emergence of punitive memory laws (Study 2) in Poland and Ukraine. The rationale for dividing the dissertation into Study 1 and Study 2 was to illustrate the potential of operationalizing the concept of memory law into the empirical investigation of the politics of memory of country-cases. Study 1 examined the patterns of commemorative lawmaking in the parliaments of Poland and Ukraine, asking why there was a variation in intensity and propensity of commemorative lawmaking occurring in the politics of Polish Sejm and Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada. Study 1 formulated two hypotheses regarding the politics of memorialisation. It set an aim to verify these hypotheses through an empirical investigation of the politics of memory laws in two countries. Furthermore, Study 2 engaged in process analysis of the emergence of punitive memory laws in the national parliaments of Poland and Ukraine. It asked why there was a variation in criminal punishment functions between Polish and Ukrainian laws on historical denialism. While each country-case outlawed certain instances of historical speech over the national past, the severity of prohibitions found in the relevant laws was different. As an analytical added value of the investigation, Study 2 argued that the types of orientation towards national historiographies taken in the politics of the Sejm and the Verkhovna Rada predicted the variation in the formulation of punitive provisions between Polish and Ukrainian laws on historical speech.
Kirjeldus
Märksõnad
history, historical memory, collective memory, political attitudes, juridical aspects, Poland, Ukraine, second half of the 20th century, first half of the 21st century