If the state of public
debate in recent months is any indication, we might well say that
multiculturalism in Britain is beyond repair. There is a growing
sense among Britons that political correctness has suffocated
genuine debate about diversity, and that celebrating difference
does more to encourage separatism than integration. As communities
secretary Ruth Kelly posed in a speech in September: ‘In
our attempt to avoid imposing a single British identity and culture,
have we ended up with some communities living in isolation of
each other, with no common bonds between them?’
All this seemed to culminate last month in the extended—and
highly polarised—debate about the wearing of veils by Muslim
women. But if public opinion was generally divided, it certainly
wasn’t among most sections of Britain’s political
and community leaders. Prime Minister Tony Blair suggested that
the naqib was ‘a mark of separation’ and made people
outside Muslim communities ‘uncomfortable.’ Similarly,
the Conservative Party home affairs spokesman, David Davis, said
that tolerating the veil risks creating a system of ‘voluntary
apartheid.’ The chair of the Commission for Racial Equality,
Trevor Phillips, even warned that the debate could spark a repeat
of the race riots five years ago in northern England.
Some suggest that the instigation of the veil debate—indeed,
of a debate about multiculturalism and integration more generally—is
nothing more than political populism aimed at exploiting Islamophobia,
and shoring up the white working-class vote (Labour would have
no doubt seen the warning signs from the renewed showing by the
BNP in the local council elections held this past May). It is
true that a large section of the British population feel a measure
of discomfort with some of the changes taking place in their neighbourhoods.
Yet, at the same time, it would be wrong for us to think that
this current debate is just a rerun of the Tories’ ill-fated
‘Are you thinking what we’re thinking?’ campaign
of 2004.
A more complex story has been unfolding. Despite forebodings
of riots, Britons are broadly speaking comfortable with diversity
and living side-by-side with different ethnic and religious groups.
But they don’t believe enough is being done to ensure that
multiculturalism doesn't lead to minorities living apart from
the mainstream. A recent poll conducted for The Guardian on Muslim
integration, for instance, showed that only twenty-two percent
of voters believed British Muslims have done all they need to
in order to fit into British society. A majority, 57 percent,
indicated Muslims should be doing more to adopt a British identity.
The crux of the problem with integration lies in the nature of
Britain’s multiculturalism. As public policy, it has veered
too much down the course of difference and away from social cohesion.
While many supporters of multiculturalism believe that any mention
of integration and cohesion are a code for enforced assimilation
and racism, we shouldn’t ignore the need to assert some
common values amidst our differences. Recognising the value of
different identities should not require us to sanction relativism
and raise fences around cultures, allowing different ethnic and
religious groups to be governed entirely by their own internal
standards. There is nothing oppressive about insisting that the
right to express one’s cultural identity should be balanced
by the obligation to accept values such as the rule of law, freedom
of speech, and equality of the sexes.
Herein lies the real challenge facing Britain at the moment (and,
for that matter, many other Western liberal democracies struggling
with cultural diversity). Even supporters of diversity need to
realise that solidarity is not a dirty word. If anything, it is
our common ground—our shared civic values and our shared
participation in an ongoing public conversation—that makes
tolerating differences possible. The challenge is to articulate
a sense of collective identity without lapsing into the belief
that a sense of belonging is only possible with some measure of
homogeneity.
At the same time, we must ensure that this process is open to
all voices, even those ones with which we don’t agree. In
insisting on shared liberal values as the glue that holds people
together, Britons should be careful not to lapse into beating
their chests to the tune of ‘this is how we do things here.’
The recent veil debate illustrates just how fine a line this can
be.
It will be a test of the maturity of British society whether
it can successfully negotiate this high-wire act. Since there
isn’t a safety net, we can only hope that Britons get it
right.
Tim Soutphommasane
Editor-in-Chief
Balliol College, Oxford
November 2006
|
