Since British Prime Minister, David Cameron's Speech at Munich, there are lots of debates, discussions and deliberations on the subject, whether multiculturalism has failed or not. Senior Politics Editor of New Statesman, Mehdi Hasan, disputed the claim that multiculturalism has failed in his write-up, "In defence of multiculturalism" (New Statesman, dated 31st March 2011). Before going to look into the opinions and views expressed in the media, let us start with the scholarly and intellectual observations of academicians.
Multiculturalism has failed?
The Prime Minister said, "Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream."
He mentioned about liberal values, muscular liberalism. "We need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism. A passively tolerant society says to its citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values."
"A genuinely liberal country does much more. It believes in certain values and actively promotes them. Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality. It says to its citizens: this is what defines us as a society. To belong here is to believe in these things," said Prime Minister.
Academician: Professor Tariq Modood
Tariq Modood, Professor of Sociology, Politics and Public Policy in the Department of Sociology, University of Bristol, observed multiculturalism has made progress in Britain - but white reticence is still the stumbling block. "a decade on political multiculturalism flourished as Labour came to accept ethno-religious communitarianism as it had previously accepted other assertive identity movements. The sanctioning of faith schools, religious discrimination legislation, bringing Muslims into the networks of governance - all these happened well after the original "death of multiculturalism." ('Multiculturalism: not a minority problem,' in The Guardian, 7 February, 2011).
Professor Modood also said, "One of the reasons multiculturalism does not die despite having its last rites continually read out by successive government Ministers, like David Blunkett, Ruth Kelly and Hazel Blears, is that there are very few policies at stake. This is clear from David Cameron's speech, which despite its emphatic rhetoric has very little practical content. After all, many worry about residential segregation and inward-looking communities. But population distribution could only be achieved by, to coin a phrase, muscular illiberalism. Residential concentrations result more from fear of racism and "white flight" than self-ghettoisation. Research shows that all minorities - including Muslims - want to live in mixed neighbourhoods, and ghettos are created by those who move out."
"Unlike Cameron I call that "multiculturalism" and I am in favour of it, with certain conditions. One is that it must be within a context of robust individual rights. Society cannot be reduced to individuals, and so integration must be about bringing new communities, and not just new individuals, into relations of equal respect. This means challenging racism and Islamophobia and so on, not by denying that there are groups in society but by developing positive group identities and adapting customs and institutions that enable that," mentioned Professor Modood and added, "Equally importantly, we must not take for granted what we have in common, but work hard to ensure that all citizens recognise themselves in our shared concept of citizenship - imaginatively shaped by our sense of who we are, where we are coming from and where we are going. An out-of-date national story, for example, alienates new communities, who want to be written into the narrative backwards as well as forward."
"Multiculturalism is incomplete and one-sided without a continual remaking of national identity," said Professor Modood and observed, "This aspect has been understated, and so the inattentive assume that multiculturalism is all about emphasising difference and separatism. In fact it's about creating a new, ongoing "We" out of all the little, medium-sized and large platoons that make up the country."
Professor Modood founding Director of the Research Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Citizenship at the Bristol University, maintained, "Even today ethnic minorities are more likely than white people to say they are British. It is white reticence, not minority separatism that is an obstacle to an inclusive national identity; without overcoming this, multicultural nation-building is difficult."
Professor Tariq Ramadan
Dr Tariq Ramadan, Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies at Oxford University, said at a Conference in London recently, "Over the last few years we have this discussion, the rhetoric; multicultural failed. We have rhetoric of failure and saying that it does not work. Once again, here, we have to be consistent and clear what we are talking about. What this multiculturalism you are talking about? Are you exactly addressing? Because once again we have all this discussion in Europe, between the French model and now we can have the German model and the British model and then say the British model is multicultural model and other models are all about integration; the authority of the republic, the unity of the country and in between we have other models. The German is some way neither the French one nor the British one."
"Now what we are facing is the reality of the pluralistic society of Europe. We have common citizenship and different religious, cultural backgrounds and this is what I call, and to discuss what do you mean by this multicultural. The only thing that we have and that we have to deal with is pluralistic society. The people are coming with different cultural backgrounds, different religious backgrounds and they have the same status," said Professor Ramadan.
"Now how we are going to deal with this? Are we serious about equality? Are we serious about diversity?" asked Professor Ramadan and said, "All our Constitutions and when there is not clear Constitutions, are all saying that we have to respect freedom of conscience, freedom of worship and the diversity of culture."
Professor Ramadan observed, "Now we are changing the substance of what citizenship means because we don't trust the cultural background, the religious background of some people and this is all rhetoric. And what should we do to be accepted as complete citizen when we have a Muslim background and a religious background. So there is a discourse, a rhetoric beyond culturalise, to religionise to Islamise all the questions that is we have, that I have nothing in fact to do with religion at the beginning."
Professor Bhikhu Parekh
Mehdi Hasan, Senior Politics Editor of New Statesman, quoted Lord Bhikhu Parekh: "The term itself can be problematic," agrees Parekh, author of Rethinking Multiculturalism and political philosopher. He distinguishes between he calls "multi-culturalism" and multicultural-ism". The first sees "each culture as a world unto itself, a self-contained universe that cannot be criticised from the outside; there are no universal or intercultural norms and values". The second - which Parekh supports - sees "no culture as perfect; each captures one particular vision of human life and highlights one set of capacities. Such an approach sees each culture as valuable but also incomplete; it therefore needs to engage in dialogue with other cultures, to access those treasures that they possess, but it does not." Therefore, he argues, diversity on the latter model "enriches our society"." (In defence of multiculturalism, New Statesman, dated 31st March 2011).
Professor Amartya Sen
Hasan also referred to the Noble Prize-winning economist and philosopher Amartya Sen who also reached a similar conclusion. Hasan wrote, "In his book Identity and Violence, published in 2006, he distinguishes between multiculturalism, which revolves around a tolerance of diversity and crucially allows for "cultural freedom" (including the freedom as an individual to move away from traditional ways of life), and what he calls "plural monoculturalism". The later is characterised by "a diversity of cultures, which might pass one another like ships in the night...as if the distinct cultures must somehow remain in secluded boxes"."
Hasan again quoted economist Sen, "The vocal defence of multiculturalism that we frequently hear these days is a very often nothing more than a plea for plural monoculturalism," writes Sen. "If a young girl in a conservative immigrant family wants to go out on a date with an English boy, that would certainly be a multicultural initiative. In contrast, the attempt by her guardians to stop her from doing this ... is hardly a multicultural move, since it seeks to keep the cultures separate." (In defence of multiculturalism, New Statesman, dated 31st March 2011).
Politician: Simon Hughes
Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Mr. Simon Hughes, M.P. said in his address at the second annual Muslim Leadership Dinner, "Like you, I am a person of faith; I am a person of politics and like you I am also a person of passion. I have seen what you have done; I have seen your contribution. You are part of the mainstream. I have seen your contribution grow and developed. Britain is phenomenal richer for it."
"Certainly you have been a community that has been there for others in the moment of tension, crisis last ten years. You have been here with your families, many for generations. You should not be fearful of the past, work with the present and be optimistic of the future," said Lib-Dem M.P.
Community leader
I have shown before what the scholars and academicians think about the situation of Multiculturalism and their responses to the British Prime Minister's speech. Their scholarly observations and comments are of great value and importance.
But I was interested to know the feeling of the common people of this country. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the former Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and the present Chairman of Muslim Aid, who have been working in the community for 30 years, I thought, would be the most responsible and representative voice of the people. I had the opportunity to interview him on this important issue.
Interview: Sir Iqbal Sacranie
Sir Iqbal Sacranie said, "Last few months have seen the curse of Islamophobia on the increase; we had seen a number of nasty and unpleasant incidents happening in the community including mosques being vandalised, desecration of Muslim graves, women being attacked because of wearing Hijab or Nikab and list goes on. With all such attacks happening, the mainstream media is either silent or ignorant at worst of these anti Muslim hate crimes. What one finds amazing instead of showing signs of concerns to good community relations and social cohesion by reporting these incidents, the right wing media continues to pursue its agenda of denigrating Islamic values by concentrating on the un-Islamic acts of the few which have been condemned by mainstream Muslim organisations."
Commenting on Prime Minister David Cameron's speech on Multiculturalism, Sir Iqbal said, "I think it was a great disappointment. David Cameron, Prime Minister of a country, brings up an issue relating to Muslim community and Islam at a Security Conference in Munich, Germany. This conference was geared towards discussing issues surrounding international security. Sadly a very high-profile conference was seen as an opportunity for the Prime Minister to have a go at Islam and Muslim community without recognising the tremendous contribution of the vast majority of Muslim community in UK. Nor was there any reference to the scourge of Islamophobia and it's ill effect on the community and the British society. I believe it was a typical blunder to quote forced marriages as somehow related to Islamic practice."
"Prime Minister's advisers should have known better that Islam utterly and totally condemns forced marriages. In Islam, forced marriage is no marriage. And yet he uses this example as though it is prevalent widely in the Muslim community. This is a cultural issue; an issue that transcends the sub-continental communities and has no bearing of any of the religions," said Sir Iqbal and observed, "So for him to condemn multiculturalism by quoting this worst example shows how badly he was briefed. Forced marriages are not a product of Multiculturalism nor does multiculturalism condone forced marriages."
Sir Iqbal also said, "I think, one can simply say that those of us who have been working in the community for last 30 years have seen the real benefits accruing to all sections of our societies whether it is recognition of rights and responsibilities of every citizen or addressing lacunas in legislation. The fact is Multiculturalism recognises that every citizen has an important role to play irrespective of ones religious or cultural identity. The recognition of the fact that we are living in a multicultural society and the different communities have a role to play which together builds a national identity of being a proud British citizen. This has brought together and enabled those communities like Muslim community, who has been marginalised for a number of decades, to play its role in the mainstream."
"If you look at the political front, a community which had no representation in Parliament and public life 10 years ago, today, we have half a dozen MP's and approaching a dozen in the House of Lords. We have few hundred Councillors from different political parties, playing a key role in the national life of our country," Sir Iqbal added.
"If you look at the contribution to the economy of the Muslim community in terms of GDP, we may be the three and a half per cent of the population but our contribution is more than 12% of the GDP. These are fruits of multiculturalism. If the community is not given its due recognition, I don't think, it would have played such an important role in the mainstream. Muslim community is part of the mainstream and will always remain part of the mainstream," Sir Iqbal said.
Media Personnel; Madeleine Bunting
Madeleine Bunting, Columnist and Associate Editor of The Guardian, said David Cameron's analysis is flawed; it's individualism and globalisation that are undermining a strong national identity. "there is something extraordinary about how Britain has accommodated this hyper-diversity, the legacy of its economic boom of the last decade. And a sense that the process of how people become British, what it is to be British, is being subtly negotiated in a myriad of interactions on the street, in schools and hospitals," said Bunting and added, "As Professor Tariq Modood recently pointed out, despite the continuing hostile political rhetoric the irony is that multiculturalism has continued to expand in government policy. It's partly a matter of pragmatism - how do you reach Asian mothers to teach them English? - and partly due to explicit government promotion such as new faith schools and the "big society" agenda of encouraging community groups. Politicians' speeches have floated free of policy development."('Blame consumer capitalism, not multiculturalism, in 'The Guardian, 6 February, 2011).
"If a generation of political leaders keep telling us that the hyper-diversity of London, Rotterdam and Hamburg is a failure, then that is how it will be understood; it robs millions of some measure of dignity in their efforts to adapt and accommodate difference. It deprives European urban multiculturalism of hope, as Modood points out, and makes it instead something to fear," commented Madeleine Bunting.
The Observer Editorial
Under the caption: 'Multiculturalism: Mr. Cameron's crude caricature solves no problems' The Observer editorially wrote on Sunday, 6th of February, that the Prime Minister's speech disguises a paucity of coherent thought. "Multiculturalism is one of the most flexible words in the political lexicon, meaning whatever the speaker wants it to mean. To its defenders, it is the principle that people of different faiths and traditions should be able to live side by side, without surrendering their identities. To its detractors, it is the notion that the state should sponsor cultural division, exempting minority groups from certain obligations of citizenship. Viewed this way, multiculturalism is seen as excusing behaviour that should never be tolerated in a civilised democracy. That is the interpretation given in a speech in Munich yesterday by David Cameron. He drew a direct connection between "the doctrine of state multiculturalism" and the insularity of Muslim communities that can foster terrorism."
Bagehot in Economist
Writing in Economist, under the caption "A coalition disagreement over engaging with extremists," Bagehot mentioned, "Watching David Cameron answer questions from university students in Qatar last week, one of his less impressive moments came when a student tackled him over a speech on multiculturalism and radical Islam that he gave to the Munich Security Conference in early February. You said in that speech that multiculturalism has failed, said the student. Don't you think you are encouraging hatred? What about British tolerance?"
Bagehot mentioned, "Mr Cameron gave a slightly waffly reply. Britain was a successful example of a multiracial society, he told the students of Qatar University. What he had been criticising in Munich was the idea that Britain should be "super tolerant" about communities living separately. He was criticising "state multiculturalism, which was the doctrine that we had in our country for too long that you keep people separate". Under this doctrine, he said, it was believed that different immigrant groups should live together, speak their own language, go to their own schools and not integrate at all. I remember leaning over to the reporter next to me and saying, blimey, he is describing apartheid, not multiculturalism. All in all, the prime minister sounded a bit shrill and unconvincing."(Bagehot, Economist, 3rd March 2011).
Interview with Peter Oborne
On Friday, the 18th of March, 2011, there was MCB's second annual Muslim Leadership Dinner at the Millennium Hotel, London, where Peter Oborne, Chief Political Commentator for the Daily Telegraph, Mehdi Hasan, Senior Politics Editor of New Statesman and Simon Hughes, deputy leader of Liberal Democrats, came as guests. Before the start of the event, I had the opportunity to talk to Peter Oborne and I enquired on the issue of multiculturalism.
Mr. Oborne said, "I am going through aberration on the David Cameron's speech. He is capable of being outstanding Prime Minister but I thought this is the worst speech he made since becoming, I mean, as a Prime Minister. I think he shows a lack of understanding of Islam and he did not understand what he is talking about. I felt very uncomfortable with that speech. I think he needs to get out of this."
Baroness Warsi made an interesting speech on Islamophobia, Peter Oborne, said, "courageous speech, in fact; there is hostility towards Muslims in part of British society; not everywhere at all but in the media which is not acceptable."
Oborne mentioned, she talked about "categories Muslims as extremists, about their religion, about their ideology might be," "let me say that Sayeeda Warsi was very great courageous," said Oborne, and added, "let me say the British Prime Minister made a great damage categorising good people as being subversive, I think it's really bad."
Replying to my query what would ultimately going to be the government policy on multiculturalism, Oborne said, "Lib Dem appears to have much more intelligent understanding of multiculturalism; whereas much less readiness to categories these Muslims who have strong feeling about Afghanistan war, the war in Iraq, Palestine, does not categories and does not therefore make them unpatriotic or wrong or evil anything; and on the other hand, you have Cameron who seems to be defining moderate Muslims, were describing very prescriptive, in my view, half-baked way."
Finally Oborne observed, "It's a very interesting question. If Cameron's speech turns into government policy, that is very worrying, something which we have to fight against strongly."
