Jewish National Democratic Party (JNDP)
Also known as the Populist Party, National Democrats, or possibly the Jewish People’s Party. Apparently, it began operating earlier than all other Jewish parties in Latvia and is mentioned in the newspaper Segodnya as early as 1919. In the press, the JNDP was often referred to as the Volkspartei, and its members as populists. However, this organization should not be confused with the Volkspartei founded in 1929 by S. Dubnov, V. Latsky-Bertoldi, I. Efroykin, and M. Kreinin.
The JNDP united segments of the Jewish intelligentsia that did not share Zionist ideas. The party’s ideologues—P. Mintz, Ya. Landau, and L. Fishman—characterized it as a centrist party. They believed that since 95% of Jews were religious, the principle of the “separation of church and state,” i.e., the separation of religion from nationality, could not be applied to them. At the same time, they rejected the Zionist solution to the Jewish question, arguing that “due to technical and economic difficulties, mass resettlement to Palestine is inconceivable. Therefore, Zionism cannot form the basis of a party pursuing real politics.”
On the question of languages (Yiddish or Hebrew), the JNDP declared a path of compromise, while at the same time allowing for Jewish schools with Russian or German as the language of instruction (at parents’ choice). The National Democrats (Ya. Landau, P. Mintz, L. Fishman) interpreted the issue of language of instruction in Jewish schools as follows.
They considered Hebrew to have been lost as a native language: during the long suffering of the Diaspora, their newspaper Narodnaya Mysl (“People’s Thought”) wrote, the biblical language had ceased to be a native, family language, and “the people began borrowing their everyday spoken language from the languages of the peoples among whom they lived.” They criticized Hebrew less harshly, noting that it was highly revered, but not the family language of the majority of Jews, scarcely existed in the Diaspora, and had little hope of revival there. From this, they concluded that learning subjects in Hebrew proceeded slowly and thus hindered students’ development.
Yiddish, in the view of the National Democrats, was a second-rate language. Its basis, they argued, was a German dialect with admixtures of ancient Hebrew, Russian, Polish, Ukrainian, and even (after emigration to the United States) English words. As a result, Yiddish varied by region, and a Polish Jew might not easily understand a Russian Jew. In their opinion, Yiddish lacked prestige and was unfamiliar to many. They claimed that even those who spoke it did not respect it, that Jewry did not recognize it as a national language, and that there was little attraction to it. They believed Yiddish had little chance of becoming a nationwide language because it lacked historical prestige, and that Yiddish literature did not possess the same value as earlier literature. Therefore, they considered instruction in Yiddish unacceptable. Moreover, they argued, Yiddish led to the “Germanization of students.” At best, it was a family language. It is easy to see that in their assessment of Yiddish, JNDP members were highly subjective, and many of their claims (low prestige, low literary value, lack of respect among speakers, limited spread, etc.) were far-fetched.
For some Jews in Latvia, Russian or German were family languages. The National Democrats acknowledged that Russian or German, as they put it, led to Russification or Germanization of the younger generation due to the absence of a national element. However, they believed that language choice was guided by practical considerations and should be left to parents. Moreover, they argued that for Latvian Jews, Russian and German served as means of access to world culture.
The JNDP’s concept was implemented, for example, in the Riga Jewish Municipal Gymnasium. There, the language of instruction was Russian, but “special Jewish subjects”—Jewish history, Hebrew, Yiddish, and literature in those languages—were taught. The National Democrats fought for the right to educate Jewish children in Yiddish, Hebrew, Russian, and German. In an appeal to parents they wrote: “Only in Latvia do the leaders of ‘Zionism’ consider it possible to violate the will of 90% of the Jewish population by banning all languages of instruction except Yiddish and Hebrew.” However, in debates over the language of instruction in Jewish schools, the National Democrats did not play a leading role.
Regarding the position of Jews and antisemitism, the party leader, Professor of Law P. Mintz (the only Jewish minister in Latvia, brought into the government under pressure from the Entente countries), believed that in independent Latvia, restrictions on Jewish rights were impossible. He regarded antisemitism among part of the Latvian population as a relic of the tsarist era that would “undoubtedly disappear within 15–20 years.” Mintz even avoided using the term “antisemitism” with regard to Latvians, preferring to speak of hostility among part of the Latvian population toward Jews.
From 1922 to 1925, the JNDP published the weekly newspaper Narodnaya Mysl (“People’s Thought”). Its editor was M. Rozovsky, and active contributors included K. Arabazhin, M. Vaintrob, V. Ladinsky, Ya. Oksner, S. Pozner, B. Khariton, V. Khovin, and E. Shklyar. The paper declared itself an “organ of democratic Jewry.” Its editorial declaration reflected the party’s core positions: fighting for actual equality of Jews in Latvia; promoting cooperation between Jews and other peoples of Latvia in building the state; opposing all manifestations of antisemitism; and implementing a policy of healthy Jewish nationalism and economic outlook. The latter was understood as a call for social and professional balance within Jewish society. Criticism of Zionism in the paper was moderate. Narodnaya Mysl ceased publication in 1925, partly because it could not withstand competition from Latvia’s largest Russian-language newspaper, Segodnya.
The JNDP and related circles also attempted to publish a Yiddish-language newspaper, Lecte Naies. It appeared from January to May 1925. Contributors included L. Gribeshok, Z. Levitas, M. Finkelstein, Z. Kalmanovich (managing editor), Kh. Aktsin, L. Weinerman, V. Herbach, Ts. Herzbach, N. Dimenstein, M. Shreiber, and foreign authors. The paper was anti-Zionist in orientation and was characterized by a dogmatic rejection of Zionism and Hebrew. For example, it did not even inform readers about such a significant event in Jewish life as the opening of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (1925) and sharply criticized the newspaper Das Folk for supporting Zionism and Hebraism. These factors contributed to declining readership and finances, and on May 22, 1925, publication ceased.
An organization close to the JNDP, Akhdut (“Unity”), published a monthly journal of the same name in Russian and German from 1927 to 1930 for the Jewish intelligentsia. The journal was edited by M. Graevsky, with contributors including S. Bergman, B. Herzfeld, N. Pereferkovich, and M. Zentnershver. Akhdut saw its main task as defending the interests of the Jewish minority. Somewhat close in ideology was the German-language weekly Rigaer Jüdische Rundschau (“Riga Jewish Review”), published on Saturdays from 1929 to 1931 under the editorship of N. Kaplan, which aimed to unite various strata of Latvian Jewry and serve as a link between Jews and other ethnic groups in Latvia. Similar positions were held by the authors of another German-language Jewish newspaper, Vindausche Zeitung (“Vindava [Ventspils] Newspaper”), edited by L. Kopelovich.
The Jewish National Democratic Party never enjoyed significant influence. For example, in elections to the First Saeima, not a single voter in Daugavpils voted for its candidates, and in the 1925 elections the party list received only 87 votes. Even in the 1920 elections for the leadership of the Daugavpils Jewish community, the “populists” managed to elect only one representative. The situation was no better in other localities. In 1931, the JNDP attempted to merge with the non-party Jewish organization Akhdut, with which it usually formed electoral blocs. The organization created as a result of this merger—the Jewish Progressive Association—was defeated in the Saeima elections.
After the K. Ulmanis coup, the JNDP was closed.