multiculturalism: new policy responses to diversity; most policy

Multiculturalism:New Policy Responsesto Diversity

by Christine Inglis

MOST Policy Papers 4

—

Optical Character Recognition (OCR) document. WARNING! Spelling errors might subsist. In order to accessto the original document in image form, click on "Original" button on 1st page.

MOST Publications

Book SeriesDevelopment and the Differentiation of Growth Patterns. History andObservation of Social ‘transformations (HOST) Network, MOST/StatisticalPublishing House, Vietnam, 199.5.

Policy Papers

N°1 Searching for New, Development Strategies - The Challenges of theSocial Summit, by Ignacy Sachs, 1995

N°2 From Social Exclusion to Social Cohesion: a policy agenda, by SophieBessis, 1995

N°3 Cybernetics of Global Change: Human Dimension and Managing ofComplaxity by M., Mesarovic, D. McGinnis and D. West, 1996

N°4 Multiculturalism: A Policy Response to Diversity, by Christine Inglis1996

Discussion Papers

Multicultural and Multi-ethnic Societies, by Henri Giordan, 1995

Managing Social Transformations in Cities: A challenge to socialsciences, by Céline Sachs-Jeantet, 1995

Differentiating between growth regimes and the management of socialreproduction, by Pascal Byé, 1995

Urban Research in Latin America - Towards a Research Agenda, byLicia Valladares et Magda Prates Coelho, 1995

Management of Multiculturism and Multiethnicity in Latin America,by Diego A. Iturralde, 1995

Local, Global, Hibrid - Aproximaciones a una discusión que comienza,by Heinz R. Sonntag and Nelly Arenas, 1995

Reflexions on the Challenges Confronting Post-Apartheid South Africa,by Bernard Makhosezwe Magubane, 1995

Coping Locally and Regionally with Economic, Technological andEnvironmental Transformations,, by S. Jentoft, N. Aaarsaether andA. Hallenslvedt, 1996

© 1996 United Nations Educational,

ElScientific and Cultural Organization7, place Fontenoy 75007 Paris


About the authors

Christine Inglis

Christine Inglis, Director of the Multicultural Research Centreof the University of Sydney, has a long-standing interest inethnic relations and migrations, especially in the Asia-Pacificregion. The role of economic and educational institutionsand the part played by public policies is a particular focusof her research. She is the President of the InternationalSociological Association’s Research Committee on Ethnic, Raceand Minority Relations, and her recent publications includeMaking Something of Myself... Educational Attainment and Socialand Economic Mobility of Turkish-Australian Young People, 1992,Asians in Australia: The Dynamics of Migration and Settlement,1992, Global Population Movements and their Implications forAustralia, 1993 and Teachers in the Sun: The Impact of ImmigrantTeachers on the Labour Force, 1994.

El


Table of contents

Preface p. 6

Introduction p. 9

The United Nations and Ethnic Diversity p.12

Multiculturalism and the Needfor New Policy Responses to Diversity p.15

■ Multiculturalism: A Clarification of the Concept p. 16

~ Critiques of Multiculturalism p. 17

Contemporary Influences on Patternsof Ethnic Diversity p. 19

■ Political Change p. 19

~ Globalisation p. 22

■ The Increase in International Population Movements p. 25

The Changing Nature of Multi-ethnic Societies p. 31

Recurring Policy Issues in Multi-ethnic Societies p. 33

The Policy Models of Multi-ethnic States p. 37

Multiculturalism in Practice:Australia, Canada and Sweden p. 41

■ Origins and Developments p. 41

■ Policy Initiatives p. 46

■ Evaluation p. 52

The Broader Applicability of Multiculturalismas a Policy Response p. 59

■ Does Multiculturalism Provide a ViableAlternative? p. 60

■ How Widely Applicable is Multiculturalismas a Policy Model? p. 64

Conclusion p. 66

References p. 67


T he “rediscovery” of ethnicity and cultural identitiescreated an awareness of the need to cope with the mana-gement of ethnic and cultural diversity through policies

which promote ethnic and cultural minority groups’ participa-tion in, and access to the resources of society, while maintainingthe unity of the country. That diversity characterizes the greatmajority of the countries in the world, and that with the end ofthe cold war and bipolar international order, identitarian claimsof ethnic, religious and cultural varieties are becoming stronger,are well-known facts. Such developments, which sometimes leadto conflictual situations and tragedies such as in Bosnia andRwanda, seriously challenge the States, which respond to itthrough different policies, which range from assimilationism andintegrationism, to differentialism. The latter, not always inten-tionally conceived, involves indirect exclusion, implicit in social,economic, cultural and institutional practices, as well as activeexclusion, which may go as far as apartheid and even genocide(Gamson, 1995). Multiculturalism is a democratic policyresponse for coping with cultural and social diversity in society.The analysis offered here takes an in-depth look at multicultu-ralist policies and assesses their advantages and limitations.

Multiculturalism, as a systematic and comprehensive responseto cultural and ethnic diversity, with educational, linguistic,economic and social components and specific institutionalmechanisms, has been adopted by a few countries, notablyAustralia, Canada and Sweden.

Understandably, multiculturalism as a search for democraticpublic policy responses to cultural and ethnic diversity incertain countries is of prime interest to UNESCO, in so far as itembodies the ideal of reconciling respect for diversity withconcerns for societal cohesion and the promotion of universally


shared values and norms. While UNESCO's Constitution stressesthe ‘(fruitful diversity of cultures”, its highest principle is “theintellectual and moral solidarity of mankind’. UNESCO's ideals inthis field are well illustrated by the following quotation fromMontesquieu (1949):”Je suis nécessairement homme [...] et je

. - . . . .ne suis français que par hasard” ¹

The study of multiculturalism is a core subject for the MOSTprogram. Several international MOST projects are on topicsrelating to the management of multi-ethnic and multiculturalsocieties 2..

The following paper by Christine Inglis examines how specificmulticultural policies have operated and assesses their potentialfor coping with diversity. It focuses on three countries -Australia, Canada and Sweden - where multiculturalism hasbeen in practice for quite some time. Despite the complexity ofthe issues, the differences between these three countries and thevery specific cases of the “first nations” or indigenous populations,their policies are founded on the respect of individual humanrights and a civic and contractual definition of citizenship, ratherthan on ethnic and cultural communitarianism. This is probablya fundamental feature which distinguishes multiculturalism inits modern guise, from the traditional cases of the more orless conflictual co-existence of self-centred ethnic and religiouscommunities.

This probably is the fundamental feature which distinguishesdemocratic multicultural policies (also minimizing the risk ofinter-ethnic conflicts) from the community-based managementof diversity. This type of policy is less compatible with demo-cracy, and likely to induce authoritarian and differentialistpractices, as well as conflicts between self-centred communities.

1. (I am necessarily a man...and I am French only bychance.) The antinomic stanceis the one formulated by the

seen in my life French, Italians,Russians, etc...; as regards theman, however, I declare nothaving met him throughout mylifetime...)

2. These projects are:New migrations and growingethno-cultural diversity in theAsia-Pacific region;- Research and monitoring ofethnicity and conflict in post-Soviet States;- Multicultural and multi-ethnic societies: terminologicaland conceptual clarification;- Comparative studies,monitoring and evaluation ofethnic conflict and socio -cultural change in Africa;Multicultural policies andmodes of citizenship inEuropean cities.


.3. The following contributionswere prepared:-Michael Banton, ‘Multi-cultural and Multi-ethnicSocieties” (unpublished);- Christine Inglis, “Multi-culturalism: its Significance,Operation and Future withSpecial Significance theAsia-Pacific Region”(unpublished);-Atieno Odhiambo, “AfricanPerspectives on CulturalDiversity and Multiculturalism”(unpublished);- William Safran, “CulturalPluralism andMulticulturalism: Problems,Prospects and Solutions(unpublished);- Garcia Canclini, “The Futureof Multi-cultural Societies”(unpublished).- Stephen Castles providedmany thoughtful comments andsuggestions.

The remarkable analyses of Christine Inglis that we are pleasedto publish in this MOST Policy Paper, are the outcome of a longmaturation. First and foremost, they are the products of thescholarship and experience of the author. They were supportedby an earlier, collective effort by several specialists, includingC. Inglis herself, as well as Nadia Auriat from the MOST programstaff, towards a MOST paper entitled “Multiculturalism: A PolicyResponse to Diversity”, which was presented at the “1995Global Cultural Diversity Conference”, that took place in April1995, in Sydney, Australia3. We are grateful to Christine Inglisand to all other scholars who contributed to further the work of theMOST program in the area of the management of multiculturaland multi-ethnic societies,

Ali Kazancigil

Executive Secretary, MOST Program

Director, Division of Social Sciences,

Research and Policy, UNESCO


Multiculturalism:New Policy Responsesto Diversity

Introduction

E thnic and racial diversity is not a new phenomenon evenif there has been considerable variation in the termsused to describe societies which include within their

boundaries diverse ethnic groups4. Historically, the patterns ofethnic relations and the extent to which they are associated withincidence of inter-ethnic conflict have been extremely varied.Many schema have been developed to explain the emergenceof inter-ethnic conflict and the part played in it by specificcontextual factors and institutional patterns ranging from impe-rial expansion and colonisation to contract labour and settlerimmigration (e.g. Banton 1967; Blalock 1967; van den Berghe1967; Schermerhorn 1970; Richmond 1994). Despite theirtheoretical differences, the schema highlight how frequentlyinter-ethnic relations are associated with considerable differen-tials in the access to power and material resources of dominantand minority ethnic groups. Furthermore, patterns of ethnicrelationship are rarely static, but evolve and change. As a conse-quence, peaceful coexistence may be fragile and problematic.

The inclusion of the study of multi-ethnic and multicultural5

societies within UNESCO’S MOST (Management of SocialTransformation) Program attests to the contemporary nationaland international importance attached to ethnicity and pluralism.There are two dimensions to this focus on ethnicity. The first,more positive, concern is related to the rapid expansion oftourism, international student exchanges and new patterns ofglobal financial and commercial relationships. Through theserelationships increasing numbers of people from diverse ethnicbackgrounds now comeimportance is attached by

into regular contact. Considerablethe participants to ensuring that these

4. Ethnic groups are treated inthis paper as socially constructedcategories which refer to socialgroupings with a shared sense

of peoplehood based on nationalidentity, language, religion,physical characteristics or acombination of these attributes.The inclusion of racial groupsas a subset of ethnic groupsreflects the way attributions ofdifferences in physical appearance,and its social significance, tendsto be highly problematic acrosssocieties. Furthermore, theterminology of ‘racism’ is nolonger restricted in commonusage to groups which arenecessarily distinguishable on thebasis of physical characteristics.

.5. Multi-ethnic’ societies refersto those societies which containmultiple ethnic groups. 'Multi-cultural’ also refers to the sametype of societies. While it issometimes used in an extendedsense to refer to the culturaldifferences associated with avariety of alternative life-stylesnot linked to ethnicity but togender or sexual preferences thisis not a primary usage nor is it

followed in this paper (cf alsoKymlicka 1995, p. 18)


educational, economic and cultural relationships develop ami-cably and constructively, and that ethnic differences in culturalpatterns, customs and expectations do not become a hindrancein the development of the relationships.

In contrast, the second focus is on more negative aspects ofinter-ethnic contact. Here, the widespread interest in ethnicity is,regrettably, largely a reflection of the graphic images of ethnicconflict and violence which daily are brought into our homes bytelevision, radio and newspapers. Although representing only afraction of the daily contacts between individuals from differentethnic backgrounds, these images have come to typify for manyacademics, policy-makers and members of the general publicthe reality, and the dangers, associated with the existence ofethnic diversity.

The impact of these images is all the more striking becauseof the influence throughout this century of social theoristsas diverse as Durkheim, Weber and Marx who argued that,as a concomitant of the 19th century emergence of modern-industrial society, ethnic groups had lost their saliency in thelives of individuals. Along with kinship and other status-basedforms of social differentiation, ethnicity was to be replaced byclass as the driving force in social organisation. Ethnicity andracial differences were viewed as anachronisms restricted to pre-modern or traditional societies. This orthodoxy was shared bysocial commentators and policy-makers who believed that assi-milation of ethnic minority groups had either occurred or was inprogress. World cultural homogenisation typified in the ‘globalvillage’ presaged a quickening of this type of development, Evenin those industrial nations such as Australia, Canada or theUSA which continued to receive large numbers of immigrants,assimilation was viewed as the inevitable process.

The ‘rediscovery’ of ethnicity over the last decade has beenaccompanied by an increasing awareness among decision-makers of the need to develop policies which will contributeto the development of harmonious relations between diverseethnic groups. This paper is concerned with the potentialof multiculturalism to constitute such a policy response.Multiculturalism provides for some a way forward in addressingthe challenges posed by the growth of conflict and violenceassociated with ethnic differences. For others it portrays thedangerous divisiveness associated with ethnic and cultural


diversity. These contrasting perspectives on multiculturalismreflect very different assessments of contemporary trends invol-ving ethnic diversity and the outcomes of strategies designed toaddress them.

Much of the debate about multiculturalism and the emergenceof conflictual and socially divisive ethnic groupings has addressedethical and philosophical concerns. In contrast, this paperfocuses on the level of policy initiatives and the outcomesassociated with attempts by policy makers to address the dailychallenges not only of policy-making but of policy implementation.Policy-makers do not, however, work in a vacuum insulatedfrom international concerns about basic principles of justice,equality and democracy. The United Nations and otherinternational organisations have established a number ofConventions and other instruments to guide policy-makers inmulti-ethnic societies.


The United Nations and Ethnic Diversity

T he founders of the United Nations, half a century ago, inthe aftermath of the Second World War were motivatedby a desire for international co-operation to ensure

peace, development and respect for the rights of individuals,Based on the stark evidence of the experiences of Jews, Gypsiesand other ethnic minorities who had been victims of genocidein the Second World War they were also aware of the need toaddress the situation of ethnic minorities,

A brief listing of certain instruments of the United Nations andits Specialized Agencies concerned with non-discrimination andthe rights of minority groups, highlights some of the morepressing issues the organisations have addressed in consideringthe situation of members of indigenous people and personsbelonging to ethnic minorities (see Box 1). From their inception,both organisations emphasised the importance of culture andcultural rights. The Charter of the United Nations referred inArticle 1 to the importance of culture and the Constitution ofUNESCO also refers to the ‘fruitful diversity of cultures’. In 1948the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provided for thefirst time for the respect of cultural rights when Article 22stated that everyone is entitled to realisation of the culturalrights indispensable for dignity and the free development ofpersonality. Of special importance is Article 27 of the 1966International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights whichstates that:

In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minoritiesexist, persons belonging to such minorities should not be denied thetight, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoytheir own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or touse their own language.

The 1992 Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging toNational or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities extendedthese rights to also include the rights of persons belonging tominorities to participate effectively in cultural, religious, social,

concerning the minority to whichmonitor their own associations;without any discrimination, free

they belong; to establish andto establish and maintain,and peaceful contacts with


other members of their group or other citizens of other Statesto whom they are related by national or ethnic, religious orlinguistic ties (MOSTr, 1995 Annex I).

The importance of the rights of ethnic minorities has alsobeen recognised by other international organisations. TheConference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) in1991, for example, adopted a declaration on the Rights ofNational Minorities. The Council of Europe has also been veryconcerned with these issues. In 1992 it adopted the EuropeanCharter for Regional or Minority Languages, and in 1994, theFramework Convention for the Protection of NationalMinorities.

The designation of 1995 as the Year of Tolerance was evidenceof the ongoing complexity involved in seeking to obtain peacefulcoexistence among those from different ethnic groups. Yet itsimportance is highlighted in the following quote from Kymlicka(1995, pp. 194-5)6. 6. In Multicultural

Citizenship, Kymlicka (199.5)

In many countries of the world -including the emerging democracies undertakes the task of developinga liberal theory of minority

in Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia - the status of national rights as a basis for addressingminorities and indigenous peoples is perhaps the most pressing issue. the needs of ethnic and national

minorities.

People in these countries are looking to the works of Westernliberals for guidance regarding the principles of liberal constitutio-nalism in a multinational state. But a liberal tradition offers onlyconfused and contradictor advice on this question . . . This is reflectedin the wide range of policies liberal states have historically adoptedregarding ethnic and national groups, ranging from coerciveassimilation to coercive segregation, from conquest and colonisationto federalism and sef-government.

. . .If liberalism is to have any chance of taking hold in thesecountries, it must explicity address the needs and aspirations ofethnic and national minorities.


Source: UNESCO, HumanRights: Major InternationalInstruments, Status as at31 May 1996 (prepared byJ. Symonides, V. Volodineand S. Rivet)

Box 1

Major Instruments of the United NationsSystem on Non-Discrimination,

Rights of Minorities and the Rightsof Indigenous People

Universal Declaration on Human RightsInternational Covenant on Economic, Social and CulturalRightsInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsOptional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civiland Political RightsVienna Declaration and Program of ActionUnited Nations Declaration on the Elimination of AllForms of Racial DiscriminationInternational Convention on the Elimination of All Formsof Racial DiscriminationConvention on the Prevention and Punishment of theCrime of GenocideInternational Convention on the Suppression andPunishment of the Crime of ApartheidInternational Convention against Apartheid in SportsDiscrimination (Employment and Occupation:) ConventionConvention against Discrimination in EducationProtocol Instituting a Conciliation and Good OfficesCommission to be responsible for seeking a settlement ofany disputes which may arise between States Parties tothe Convention against Discrimination in EducationEqual Remuneration ConventionDeclaration on the Elimination of AU Forms of Intoleranceand of Discrimination Based on Religion or BeliefDeclaration on Race and Racial PrejudiceDeclaration on Fundamental Principles concerning theContribution to the Mass Media to Strengthening Peaceand International Understanding, to the Promotion ofHuman Rights and to countering Racialism, Apartheidand Incitement to WarDeclaration on the Principles of International CulturalCo-operation


Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging toNational or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic MinoritiesFramework Convention for the Protection of nationalMinoritiesConvention (N” 169) concerning Indigenous and TribalPeoples in Independent CountriesDraft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeopleDeclaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who arenot Nationals of the Country in which they LiveInternational Convention on the Protection of the Rightsof All Migrant Workers and Members of Their FamiliesDeclaration on the Elimination of Discrimination againstWomenConvention on the Elimination of All Forms ofDiscrimination against WomenDeclaration on the Elimination of Violence Against WomenDeclaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded PersonsPrinciples for the Protection of Persons with MentalIllness and the Improvement of Mental Health CareConvention on the Rights of the Child

Multiculturalism and the Need for NewPolicy Responses to Ethnic Diversity

I n less than three decades ‘multiculturalism’ has become aword immediately recognised by policy makers, socialcommentators, academics and the general public in

Western industrial countries, if not elsewhere. The rapidadoption of the term ‘multiculturalism’ has occurred in asituation where there is increasing international concern aboutthe limitations of existing policies to address changing patternsof inter-ethnic relations. Recognition does not, however, ensureuniformity in usage. Three major levels of usage are distinguishedhere, as a means of bringing some clarity into the debate overthe relevance of ‘multiculturalism’ to policy development inmulti-ethnic societies7.

7. The MOST program issupporting a project onMulticultural and multi-ethnicsocieties: terminological andconceptual clarification whichwill examine the complexitiesin greater depth.


❑ Multiculturalism: A Clarificationof the Concept

Three interrelated, but nevertheless distinctive, referents of‘multiculturalism’ and its related adjective ‘multicultural’ whichcan be distinguished in public debate and discussion are: thedemographic-descriptive, the ideological-normative and theprogrammatic-political.

The demographic-descriptive usage occurs where ‘multi-cultural’ is used to refer to the existence of ethnically or raciallydiverse segments in the population of a society or State. Itrepresents a perception that such differences have some socialsignificance-primarily because of perceived cultural differencesthough these are frequently associated with forms of structuraldifferentiation. The precise ethnic groupings which exist in a State,the significance of ethnicity for social participation in societalinstitutions and the processes through which ethnic differentiationis constructed and maintained may vary considerably betweenindividual States, and over time.

In the programmatic-political usage ‘multiculturalism’ refersto specific types of programs and policy initiatives designed torespond to and manage ethnic diversity. It was in this usage that‘multiculturalism’ first gained currency after it was recommendedin the 1965 Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualismand Biculturalism. This Report recommended that multi-culturalism replace the bicultural policy based on the Britishand French Charter groups around whom policies for ethnicdiversity in Canadian society had been organised for over a cen-tury. Since then, its usage has extended rapidly to encompassthe demographic-descriptive’ and the ‘ideological-normative’usage.

The ideological-normative usage of multiculturalism is thatwhich generates the greatest level of debate since it constitutesa slogan and model for political action based on sociologicaltheorising and ethical-philosophical consideration about theplace of those with culturally distinct identities in contemporarysociety. Multiculturalism emphasises that acknowledging theexistence of ethnic diversity and ensuring the rights of indivi-duals to retain their culture should go hand in hand with

enjoying full access to, participation in, and adherence to,


constitutional principles and commonly shared values prevailingin the society. By acknowledging the rights of individuals andgroups and ensuring their equitable access to society, advocatesof multiculturalism also maintain that such a policy benefitsboth individuals and the larger society by reducing pressures forsocial conflict based on disadvantage and inequality, They alsoargue that multiculturalism is an enrichment for the society asa whole. The close parallels between this ideological-normativeusage of multiculturalism and the United Nations’ views on cul-tural diversity are clear.

■ Critiques of Multiculturalism

Such a positive assessment of cultural diversity is not, however,universal. Critics argue that positive support of cultural diversity, ormulticulturalism, has the potential to foster highly divisive socialconflicts. In support of this position they cite the internationalresurgence of ethnic conflict. One of the strongest statements ofthe dangers inherent in cultural diversity is Huntington’s highlycontentious thesis on the clash of civilisations in which religionis argued to play a crucial role8, The theoretical support for thisand similar expressions of fear about the continuing threats tosocial cohesion posed by ethnic and cultural diversity derivesfrom one strand of theorising about modernity. Contrary to theearlier theories on the declining importance of ethnicity, it isargued that the contemporary processes of modernisation andglobalisation are actively contributing to the growing importanceof ethnicity and the increased significance of communitarianties9. What is frequently under-theorised in this type of analysisis the role of the State and the capacities of social policy tointervene in this process so as to reduce the potential forconflict.

For some critics of multiculturalism, however, their critiqueis directed at what they perceive to be the outcome of theimplementation of multicultural policies. Thus assertions thateducational reforms in the USA which allow for the inclusion ofalternative perspectives into the history or literature curriculumare leading to the disuniting of American society, or the under-mining of the foundations of Western civilisation, are clearly aresponse to shifts in educational programs and practice (e.g.Schlesinger 1992). It is also true that advocates of such changesfrequently justify their appeals by reference to multiculturalism.

8. The orginal statement ofthe thesis was contained inForeign Affairs, vol 72 n031993. The next issue, ForeignAffairs, vol 72 no. 4 1993contains the first of manycritical discussions.

9. An eloquent outline of thechanging theoretical accounts iscontained in Alain Touraine,1992 (translated 199.5)


10. The link between In doing so they highlight its potential to provide an alternativemulticulturalism andoppositional policies and

policy model to redress perceived ethnic disadvantage and

politics is explicit in Charles injustice 10. However, because there are only limited examples ofTaylor, et al. (1994). States where explicit multicultural programs and policies have

been implemented, the debates on the actual effects of a policyof multiculturalism all too often proceed with little reference toempirical evidence.

The objective of this paper is to redress the imbalance byexamining how specific multicultural programs and policieshave operated and to assess multiculturalism’s potential toprovide the much sought after new policy response to ethnicdiversity. Before this can be done a number of questions mustbe answered.

What are the social changes which are driving the search fornew policy responses to diversity?

How have such changes affected contemporary forms of multi-ethnic societies?

What are the existing policy models used by States in managingethnic diversity?

T


Contemporary Influences on Patternsof Ethnic Diversity

T he last half century has been characterised by dramaticpolitical and economic changes, The emergence of newStates, the end of the Cold War, the crisis of the Welfare

State, economic and cultural globalisation and massive increasesin all forms of international population movements are amongthe most prominent developments affecting opportunities forinter-ethnic contact and resultant patterns of ethnic relations.The impact on ethnic relations of the increased momentum ofthese changes over the last decade has been a driving force inthe search for new policy responses.

❑ Political Change

The emergence of new States which have to confront issues ofethnicity on a daily basis has been one of the most visiblepolitical developments over the last half century. Decolonisationand the collapse of communist regimes have been the majorreasons for the formation of new States. The extent of thesechanges is indicated by the growth in the membership of theUnited Nations from the original 50 countries in 1945 to thepresent 185 member States.

The Second World War marks a watershed in the history ofEuropean colonisation. By 1984, 85 former colonies hadbecome independent States (United Nations 1984). The processstill continues albeit at a slightly slower pace with, for example,the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Namibia gainingindependence in 1990. An enduring gee-political legacy ofcolonisation are the boundaries of the contemporary stateswhich are based on those of the former colonial powers andencompass often diverse, regionally-based ethnic groups. Inaddition these States often include the descendants of migrantlabourers brought in to work on the European plantations,mines and other economic ventures. In Asia and the Pacific,Chinese and Indians played an important part in this labourmigration which in Africa also involved significant numbers oflabourers from elsewhere in Africa. In many cases these labourersbecame the middleman trading minorities who played animportant role in commerce and the economy.


11. He pointed to the potentialof what he termed ‘pluralsocieties” to breakup in the faceof bitter ethnic rivalries once thestabilizing influence of thecolonial power was removed(Furnivall 1939; 1948).

After decolonisation nation-building was a critical task for thenew political leadership and involved not only establishing theireconomic viability but constructing a stable and viable Statethrough incorporation of these diverse ethnic groups. None ofthese States shared the illusion underlying the formation of theEuropean nation-states that they were reuniting an ethnicallyhomogeneous population. The alliances forged in the anti-colonial struggle provided a starting point for the establishmentof the new regimes. Regionally-based separatist movements andconcerns about the economic power of the middleman groups,who rarely were accorded political power in the immediatepost-independence period, nevertheless were major issuesconfronting new States. Those Asian countries with extensiveoverseas Chinese populations were also concerned about theintentions of the new communist regime in China and thepotential of the local Chinese population to be a focus forcommunist China’s expansionist political aspirations.

Given the many difficulties confronting countries in the post-independence period it is somewhat surprising that the colonialadministrator Furnivall’s predictions concerning the fragility ofpost-colonial States did not result in greater ethnic turmoil andinstability in governments11. Successful breakaway movementssuch as those which led to the creation of Bangladesh have beenrelatively rare. Yet, the continuation of such movements in manycountries attests to the strength of divisive pressures, especiallywhere exacerbated by differential regional development. Armedresistance by separatist ethnic groups is the norm, rather thanthe exception, in many parts of Africa and Asia. Yet, in Asia,the position of the Chinese and other non-indigenous minoritieshas become less significant as a source of conflict as a result ofthe economic and social changes associated with economicdevelopment and political changes within China.

The collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe and thebreak-up of the former USSR has, as with decolonisation, led tothe emergence of new States many of which contain withintheir boundaries significant ethnic minorities. Some minoritieshave been resident in specific regions for centuries. Others,including Russians, settled or were deported to now indepen-dent States during Soviet rule. In these new States an extensionof Furnivall’s theory to include the destabilizing effects of theremoval of the old regime is particularly relevant given theviolent ethnically linked conflicts between contending political


leaderships. The situation in ex-Yugoslavia is the clearestexample of the intractability of such conflicts when ethnic loyal-ties have been mobilised in support of competing territorialclaims and where the former institutional supports promotingintegration and coexistence have collapsed. But such conflict isnot inevitable, as the negotiated division of Czechoslovakia intothe separate Czech and Slovak Republics shows.

The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet-ledpower bloc has been associated with a further element of politicaluncertainty potentially affecting the incidence of ethnic conflict.The two super powers no longer have the same interest, orability in the case of Russia, to control or direct the expressionof internal conflicts within former client States or States withintheir sphere of political influence. In this vacuum the externalinfluences towards moderation which might once have beenexercised are no longer operative. This creates opportunities forambitious political groups and leaders to pursue their quest forpower by often violent means as is especially evident in Somaliaand other parts of Africa.

A more optimistic example of the ability of States to survive amajor change in their political regimes without major ethnicviolence is provided by the Republic of South Africa. At thetime of the 1994 elections which led to the replacement of theWhite government by the multi-racial government of nationalunity led by Nelson Mandela widespread predictions were madeabout the likelihood of violence between the various ethnicgroups. While South Africa still experiences extremely highlevels of violence and killing, even in the region of Kwazulu-Natal inter-ethnic rivalries can only partially account for theongoing violence involving supporters of the African NationalCongress and the Inkatha Freedom Party since Zulus supportboth Inkatha and the ANC. Elsewhere, the violence and killingsare indiscriminate and motivated by criminal intent rather thana result of attempts by Africans to target individuals who belongto other African ethnic groups or to other races such as theColoureds, Indians or Europeans. The ability of the new regimeto survive such highly destabilizing events indicates the potentialof appropriate policies to reduce the damaging effects ofethnically-linked political rivalry. It also confirms how ‘SouthAfricans defied the logic of their past, and broke all the rulesof political theory, to forge a powerful spirit of unity from ashattered nation’ (Magubane, 1995 p.3).


Less obvious than the political changes associated with theemergence of new States and political regimes are changes inthe specific objectives and ideologies guiding government policy-making. The demise of communist regimes in Eastern Europeand the consequent moves to establish free market economieshave reduced the potential for new successor governments toadopt policies to redress structural disadvantage and inequalitiesamong ethnic groups. At the same time, the legitimation crisisconfronting the Welfare State in many Western industrial societiesis also calling into question the ability, and willingness, of theirgovernments to commit expenditure to address inequalityespecially when such expenditure may be viewed as benefitingminority interests. The contemporary significance of reductionsin governmental capacity to address issues of ethnic inequalityand disadvantage has not been extensively explored, but suchloss of capacity has the potential to be an important constrainton the development of policies which may ameliorate ethnictensions where these are linked to structural inequalities insociety.

■ Globalisation

Globalisation, the word which has rapidly gained currency asdescribing the processes characterizing the growing inter-connection and interdependence in the world has three readilyidentifiable dimensions (Waters, 1994). The primary economicdimension involves those changes associated with the expansionand restructuring of international economic relations. Thesedramatic changes in economic flows of goods, services, labourand capital have been associated with the post-World War Twoemergence of major new economic bases outside the Westernindustrial economies of Europe and North America. The role ofthe oil-producing countries of the Middle East in the 1970s oilcrisis and the emergence of Japan and the newly industrialisingeconomies of Asia including Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore andTaiwan as major independent economic actors has involvedsignificant economic, social and political changes in thesesocieties. The effects have also been felt in the older Westernindustrial societies whose economies have undergone majorrestructuring with consequent social change and dislocationresulting from the decline of the traditional manufacturingindustries on which their economies were based.


Another important dimension of globalisation involves thedevelopment of a homogeneous world-wide culture such as wasfirst foreshadowed by McLuhan when he wrote of the ‘globalvillage’ (1964). With the extensive and rapid innovations intelecommunications and the increasing ease, speed and afford-ability of international travel, cultural products and forms nowcan be disseminated globally with great effectiveness.

The third, political dimension, is a product of the economic andcultural dimensions. It involves a perception that the autonomyand policy making capability of the State is being underminedby the moves to economic and cultural internationalisation 12.For the individual, the technological revolution in communicationsmeans that social networks readily cross national boundarieswith the aid of cheap speedy travel, the telephone, fax andinternet. Another trend which further constrains the power ofindividual States is the development of supra-national politicalgroupings, often growing out of a desire for closer economicties, as with the European Union. The existence of these supra-national entities also is seen as providing opportunities for regionalpolitical entities to bypass the nation State and so assume greatersignificance.

Inevitably, there is dispute about the precise extent to whichthese trends, such as the loss of power of the State, have occurred.The significance of such a disappearance has been put drama-tically by one commentator (Waters, 1994 p.234) who notedthat a consequence would be the disappearance of our presentinstitutions of citizenship, welfare rights and liberal democracy.While such a development may not be imminent, neverthelessthe comments highlight the ways in which globalisation isrendering problematic many key political institutions whichhave hitherto played an important role in the management ofmulti-ethnic societies.

Agreement about the scope of changes associated with globali-sation does not ensure agreement, however, on the desirabilityof the outcomes or how they may be theorised (Waters, 1994).While an emphasis on the integrating and cultural homogenizing

12. Sassen's work on theemergence of global cities is anexample of a critique whichpoints to a declining significancefor the State associated withthese global cities taking aleading role in the developmentof international finance.(1991; 1994)

effect of globalisation suggests a positive contribution towardsovercoming conflict between ethnic groups, there are many indi-cations that this is outweighed by more negative developmentsinvolving the breakdown of the older nexus between nation,state, societal community and territory (Waters 1994, p.232).


Often the processes of globalisation involve tensions. What mayappear as a relatively isolated minority group in a multi-ethnicsociety must also be understood as part of an international network(McLellan and Richmond 1994 pp.665-6). As a consequencethere may be tensions between membership in a nation-stateand participation in an international diasporic community.

As McLellan and Richmond (1994, p.666) also note, frequentlythere are contradictions within the processes of globalisation.The logic of free movement in labour, goods, services and capitalmay be countered by protectionism and by the gatekeepersresponsible under State policies for protecting borders from illegalimmigrants and asylum seekers. Similarly, while the processes ofregionalisation may be conducive to separatist movements inScotland or Catalonia, whether such regions will establish theirown political independence may involve considerations somewhatdifferent from those which have resulted in the break-up of theUSSR or the former Yugoslavia.

While bearing in mind the contradictions inherent in globalisa-tion, one of its most frequently cited concomitants is the rise ofethno-nationalist movements. Such movements which involve adevelopment out of ethnic communities, or ethnies (Smith 1994,p.382), speak to the material or other advantages which theirsupporters seek to achieve through gaining independence. Oftensuch movements are viewed as compensating for the alienationof modern society thereby linking them not to ‘class’ politics butto the politics of ‘identity’ in which cultural factors predominate.

Implicit in much of the writing about the replacement of “class”by “identity” or “cultural” politics is the belief that these newmovements have a strong irrational component. While thiscontributes to their potency, it also makes them less susceptibleto political compromise or acceptance of the rights of othercultural groups. Such a view predisposes critics to grouptogether as highly dangerous to the stability of the State manyvery different forms of ethnic mobilisation extending fromfundamentalist religious groups and militant nationalists to thoseworking to achieve much more limited objectives involvingaccess to education, health or other institutions for their co-ethnics. Just as the earlier acceptance of simple theories ofmodern society led to an overly unquestioning acceptance of thedecline of ethnicity, their replacement may equally inappropriately

see ethnic minorities, and what has been referred to as the politics


of recognition associated with ‘multiculturalism’ (Taylor, 1994),as inevitably producing ethnic conflict and the disruption of thesociety and State,

Whereas much of the consideration of globalisation’s effects hasaddressed its impact on ethnic minorities, a somewhat differentperspective considers its impact on the development of racism.Wieviorka and his colleagues thus write of the ways in whichthe decline of what he refers to as the national industrial statein selected European countries has been associated with newforms of racism among the dominant population (e.g. 1992;1993; 1994). The targets of this new racism are the immigrantswho now constitute a significant segment of the population inmany European countries.

❑ The Increase in International PopulationMovements

One of the most significant factors directly affecting the contem-porary ethnic composition of many societies is the exponentialincrease in international population movements whichcommenced in the 1980s. These movements are one of themajor features of globalisation. The political and economicchanges which underlie these movements differ from theprevious major wave of international migration in the 19th and20th centuries which saw an exodus of voluntary emigrantsfrom Europe to the New World. There was also the less wellknown labour migration from Asia, especially China, to theAmericas and Australasia as well as to South East Asia. Thenumbers involved in the contemporary migrations are now farlarger. One estimate which excluded the former USSR and ex-Yugoslavia was that some 80 million people now live in foreignlands (Stalker 1994, p.3). They also involve flows from, and to,a much wider range of countries. In Europe, former sendingcountries are now major receiving countries; the Middle Eastreceives large numbers of workers from Asia and North Africawhile within Asia the expanding economies in many countrieshave been associated with extensive labour immigration13.Refugees now comprise a significant number of those moving inAfrica, Asia and Europe.

13., Detailed discussion ofthe changes in internationalpopulation movements arebeyond the scope of this paperwhere the primary focus is ontheir implications for ethnicrelations. However, recentaccounts of these movements canbe found in Appleyard (1991)Castles & Miller (1993),Kritz, Lim & Zlotnik (1992),Stahl et al (199.3)and Stalker (1994).

The characteristics of the migrants are now more varied withwomen becoming increasingly involved in labour migration and


refugee movements. There is also a growing movement of highly

14. The 1951 United NationsConvention and its 1967Protocol define as a refugee‘any person who.. owing towell-founded fear of beingpersecuted for reasons of race,religion, nationality, membership

of a particular social group orpolitical opinion, is outside thecountry of his nationality andis unable or.. unwilling to availhimself of the protection of thatcountry’

skilled technical, professional and managerial workers. At thesame time, the actual forms of movement are also becomingmore diversified. Permanent immigration and short-term labourmigration now existare also increasingwithout legal statustoo are a significantpeople and tourists.

alongside refugee movements while theremovements by asylum seekers or thoseor documentation. International studentscomponent in movements as are business

A final significant change in recent international populationmovements is the involvement of the State. Governmentalregulations now govern criteria for entry and residence andtheir operation is an important political issue. The regime ofcontrol which surrounds international population movementshas also come to involve increasing international co-operationas individual States realise that individual policies of selectionand control are only of limited effect in the face of the pressuresfor more extensive immigration, Well known examples includethe Schengen agreement involving European Union memberstates and the Comprehensive Plan of Action agreed in 1988-89. The latter plan developed to address extensive Vietnameseemigration involved countries of first asylum, other countriesin Southeast Asia, and resettlement countries as well, mostsignificantly, as the source country of the boat people, Vietnam.

1. Refugee movements: Refugee movements are one type ofinternational population movement which has continued toexpand. Despite difficulties of defining refugees and othersinvolved in forced migrations it is clear that there has been amassive increase in the numbers of those colloquially describedas ‘refugees’. Whereas in the early 1970s the estimated numberof refugees was 2.5 million, by 1994 the total populationdescribed as being ‘of concern’ to the United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had increased to some27.4 million. A year earlier the figure had been 23 million(UNHCR 1995, p.9). An even higher estimate of 40 million maybe necessary to include all those involved in forced migration,whether as refugees, or in refugee-like situations or as displacedpersons (Rogers 1992, p. 11 12).

Included in the UNHCR figure of 27.4 million were some 14.4million individuals who fitted the restricted UN Convention

, together with 5.4 million persons whodefinition of refugee 14


were internally displaced in their own countries and 7.5 millionother persons including war victims, asylum seekers and returnees.The majority (43 per cent) was located in Africa, with most ofthe remainder being located in Asia (29 per cent) and Europe(24 per cent) (UNHCR 1995, p.9).

The rapid increase in individuals involved in forced migrationsis dramatic testimony to the impact of political instability oninternational population movements. Not all the instability hasan ethnic dimension as a central feature, but, once individualsbecome involved in international population movements, theirown presence can contribute to changes in the ethnic compositionof countries where they seek refuge or are resettled. However,the impact of refugees is more limited than their numbers wouldsuggest because of the international management system whichhas been developed for handling refugees and those in refugee-like situations15. The ultimate aim of this system is return andonly a small proportion of those classified as refugees accordingto the UN Convention are actually resettled in third countriesusually in North America, Australasia and Europe.

2. Asylum seekers: Far more numerous than these ‘official’refugees are those seeking to gain residence in these regionsthrough claims for asylum. Their numbers have increasinglypresented major political challenges for governments, especiallythose in the Western democracies. On the one hand govern-ments wish to maintain the impression that they are in controlof population movements yet they also experience pressures toshow compassion towards the victims of political instability andpersecution. Where they accept refugees for resettlement underschemes organised by the UNHCR, or where they maintain animmigration program which provides some flexibility for acceptingindividual immigrants, they then have some way of satisfyingboth these pressures. However, in many cases, the absence ofsuch schemes, in association with high levels of demand forasylum from individuals arriving at their borders, have placedconsiderable pressure on governments.

The issue of asylum seekers is especially significant in Europewhere the numbers have increased dramatically to be 680,000in 1992 two-thirds of whom sought asylum on arrival inGermany. Since the asylum seekers are often from ethnic groupsnew in a country, issues relating to theirmay also become linked to hostility

appropriate treatmentdirected to them as

15. The international systemis, however, under considerablestrain because of the increasingnumbers of refugees and,especially, concerns about theadequacy of the restrictedConvention definition of refugeewhich is applied to thoseseeking asylum. In October1995 the UN- HighCommissioner for Refugees,Ms Sadako Ogata, told aconference that the UN asylum

apparatus was threatened withcollapse. Besides the expandingscope of the UNHCR'Sactivities she also identified asa major difficulty the decreasingwillingness of host nations toaccommodate refugees seekingasylum.


16. For many observers they thusare viewed as little different to theillegal immigrants who existwithout legal permission in manycountries, and in often large numbers.Their illegal and undocumentedstatus ensures that estimates of theirnumbers are often unsatisfactory.

17. The Dublin Convention whichset up procedures for handlingasylum applications and theSchengen Treaty which commenced

operation in 1995 are examplesof such initiatives.

18. A more positive strategy isthat designed to assist in theeconomic development of majorsource regions in Eastern Europe,Africa, Latin America and Asiathereby limiting the economic factorswhich may encourage individualsto emigrate. However, as theReport, of the US PresidentialCommission for the Study ofInternational Migration andCooperative Economic Developmentconcluded in 1990 this is a verylong term strategy and its immediateeffects may actually be to encourage

flows of emigrants (United States,1990 p.xiv).

19. A similar pattern of permanentimmigration but one for whichdetailed statistics are notavailable involves nationals ofmember States of the EuropeanUnion who can now move freelywithin the European Union.

20. Much Mexican immigrationto the USA has been illegal butwith the 1986 Immigration andReform Control Act provisionswere created which allowed manylong resident Mexicans to gainlegal residency. This has accounted

for the very large numbers ofMexicans appearing in recentUS immigration statistics whichinclude these legalisations.

‘strangers’. Fuelling this hostility as the numbers of asylumseekers increased has been the perception that many aremotivated more by hopes for economic gain than by directpolitical persecutionl16. Against this background of fear andsuspicion, the appeal of a Fortress Europe to keep out the newhordes has been strong. While the large influxes from EasternEurope and the former USSR have not arrived on the borders ofWestern Europe (Coleman, 1994, p.6; OECD 1995, p.58) govern-ments have nevertheless increasingly supplemented strict entryrequirements for asylum seekers and other immigrants fromoutside the European Union by bilateral and multilateral initia-tives 17., ‘Fortress Europe’ however represents more an aspirationthan an easily achievable goal. Outside Europe, especially inAfrica and Asia the dimensions of the refugee problem are evengreater while the resources to respond to it are far smaller18.

3. Permanent immigration: While the growth in refugeenumbers and those seeking asylum have increased dramatically,they constitute only one part of the international populationflows. In sharp contrast to these flows are those where Statesactively encourage and facilitate the entry and settlement ofimmigrants, including relatively easy access to citizenship.Examples of such States are Australia, Canada, New Zealandand the United States where the national ethos and identityis very much based on European settlement and subsequentdevelopment. Another major immigrant nation is Israel whoseidentity derives from being the homeland of the Jewishpeople 19. Each of these States has experienced major changesin immigration over the last decade. For Israel, the collapse ofthe former USSR and Eastern European communist regimes hasbeen associated with major inflows of immigrants. In the otherfour States, a common feature has been the increasing diversi-fication in the countries of origins of the immigrants with Asianand Pacific countries becoming increasingly important through-out the 1980s. The US has also experienced significant inflowsfrom Mexicoz20.

The actual numbers of immigrants to each of the countries hasvaried as a result of governmental administrative decisions andlegislation. In all the countries the size of the immigration pro-gram, especially in a time of recession, has become a politicalissue. While Australia reduced its intake of immigrants after the1989 peak because of its economic recession, Canada pursuedan expansionary policy to achieve its aim of one-quarter of a


million immigrants by 1992. The United States has most recentlyexperienced immigration numbers in excess of one million witha peak of 1.82 million in 1992 largely as a result of the way inwhich the annual immigration figures included the large numbersof already resident persons who were able to legalise theirresidence status under the 1986 Immigration and ReformControl Act.

4. Contract labour: Immigration is not, however, confined tocountries of permanent settlement. With the rapid expansion ofthe global economy many economies are experiencing labourmarket shortages which are filled by use of short term, contractlabour. Most OECD countries now have positive net migration(OECD 1995, p. 11) but the need for migrant labour is not confinedto them. The preference for short term contract labour evidentin the post-war economic reconstruction of Europe is alsoevident in Middle-Eastern and many Asian countries. Thispreference is associated with the greater economic flexibilitywhich is perceived to be associated with such labour, especiallywhere the labour migrants are from a different ethnic or religiousbackground. Not only does the ‘foreignness’ of such labourfacilitate their separation from the local population but theabsence of family or other ties is perceived to make them easierto remove from the society when they are no longer needed.The experience of Germany and other European countries withtheir guest worker immigration is, however, that the believedflexibility in the labour force is often illusory.

5. Future developments: The variety and extent of interna-tional population movements shows little evidence of ending ofits own volition given the range of economic and politicalpressures encouraging movement. International networks ofimmigrants are also creating an additional momentum andopportunity for movement. Yet, there is continuing evidencethat a stabilisation of population movements evident in OECD

countries in 1992 had continued into 1993 and 1994 (OECD,1995, p. 13). The major reason for this is attributed to the effectsof recent measures to control immigration by host countriesrather than a fall in the potential for migration (OECD, 1995p. 11). As the OECD report notes, the effectiveness of suchinstitutional controls may be only partial in the absence of thedevelopment of employment opportunities in the countries ofemigration (OECD, 1995 p.absence of political stability.

1) or, it might be added, in the


The increasing international importance of immigration as adomestic political issue and the associated efforts of governmentsto control the population flows may often be seen as a responseto both the size of the flows and, also, to the increasing diversityof source countries which has continued in the case of Asianmovements for over a decade. In Australia, Canada and the USAthe major increase in the percentage of immigrants from Asiaand the Pacific has also been associated with a decline inEuropean immigration only partially offset by those arrivingfrom Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union since 1990.Japan too has become a major destination of migrants fromelsewhere in Asia and there has been increasing intra-Asianmovement affecting other industrializing economies in Asiaincluding Singapore, Korea, Taiwan and Malaysia as well asHong Kong. In European countries earlier patterns of migrationcontinued with Switzerland receiving migrants from SouthernEurope, France from North Africa and the United Kingdomfrom South Asia. But there were also newer patterns associatedwith East-West flows which especially affected Germany, Austriaand Sweden. While in Germany, Poles and Romaniansdominated, in the other two countries those from the formerYugoslavia were more numerous among the new migrants(OECD 1995, p.16).

A final significant change in the patterns of immigration is thatmigrants from the one source area now may enter a country onthe basis of increasingly diverse criteria. Of especial interest isthe growth in temporary workers and highly-skilled migrantsand the decrease in the numbers of asylum seekers which arean outgrowth of host country policies for selection and control(OECD, 1995). Such changes have the potential to increase thediversity within migrant, ethnic minorities. In particular, theycan minimise the extent to which migrant minorities are neces-sarily viewed as an undifferentiated mass of disadvantaged orexploitable workers. In many countries there is a growing poolof the non-citizen population, business people, students andskilled workers who may share with members of the localtechnical and professional middle classes common educationaland occupational experiences.


The Changing Natureof Multi-ethnic Societies

A s a result of the political, economic and demographicchanges which have occurred over the last 50 years,diversity in patterns of ethnic relations and in the range

of ethnic identities, is a hallmark of the great majority ofsocieties in all regions of the world. Indeed, only 10 to 15 percent of countries can be reasonably described as ethnicallyhomogeneous (Connor, 1994; Väryinen, 1994). States whichhad lacked substantial ethnic minorities now find that they arehaving to address issues of ethnic diversity and determineappropriate policy responses. In those States with longer historiesof ethnic diversity, recent developments have been associatedwith changing relations between their long-standing minorities.At the same time, there is a need to incorporate newer ethnicgroups as a result of new international population flows, someencouraged, others unwanted, by the individual governments.

The patterns of ethnic relations are most fluid, and oftenviolent, in those new States which have recently gained theirindependence as a result of the break-up of former States andfederations in Europe or where former colonies are still tryingto establish a stable government structure. Where former colonieshave been able to establish a viable political structure newrelationships have been forged among the native-born ethnicgroups who have been able to negotiate access to legal citizenship.

In those cases where the countries have experienced economicgrowth and development such as has occurred in the Asianregion, the additional labour market needs have been satisfiedthrough a process involving contract labour or illegal migrationrather than settler immigration, In these instances, immigrantethnic group membership has become associated with dis-advantage since the new immigrant ethnic groups lack citizenshipand other rights to full social participation usually associatedwith permanent residence and enjoyed by long-establishedethnic minorities. In the Middle East, Japan and Korea wherecontract labour has also been used, the difference in legalstatus is further compounded by marked social divisionsbetween the migrant labour force and the dominant ethnicgroup with a strong sense of its homogeneity.


Nowhere is the range of variation in the co-existing patternsof ethnic relations more marked than in western Europeancountries. The growth of diverse patterns has occurred since theSecond World War and reflects the way these countries, withthe exception of Ireland, have become de facto countries ofimmigration. When these newer immigrant ethnic groups areconsidered in addition to the long established regional ethnicminorities existing in many European countries, the complexityof the European patterns of ethnic diversity is evident both interms of the specific ethnic groups involved and their legal status.

The first pattern of European immigrant relations involvescontract or ‘guest worker’ labour which until the 1970’s wasused extensively by Germany, Switzerland and other Europeancountries. Renewed needs for labour have seen a reintroductionof the practice. In 1993, for example, Germany introduced181,000 such workers from Central and Eastern Europe, andthere were 72,000 in Switzerland, 16,000 in Austria and 11,000in France (OECD 1995, p.21 ). With the ending of the first waveof extensive contract labour in the 1970’s European countriesrapidly discovered that the departure of the workers and theirfamilies was not inevitable. Indeed, in Germany an importantcomponent of the population are the 1.9 million Turkish nationals(OECD 1995, p.202), guest workers and their children who,although recent changes to make German citizenship moreaccessible, still do not have German citizenship, despite manyhaving been born there. Similar groups of non-citizens exist inmany other European countries.

Another, important European source of international migrantlabour are nationals from European Union member States who,since January 1992, have been able to move and work freelywithin the EU without the restrictions affecting non-EU contractlabour. A third category of immigrants are those who came toEuropean countries, especially immediately after the SecondWorld War, and who had citizenship by virtue of being fromthe former colonies of countries such as the United Kingdomand France. On a similar basis Germany also accepted largenumbers of Germans from the German Democratic Republicand Eastern Europe who also immediately acquired Germancitizenship. European countries also have populations ofstudents, businessmen and refugees with a range of rights toresidence. Further compounding the patterns of ethnic diversityin Europe are the numerous asylum seekers, illegal entrants and


others who remain in individual countries under various legalrestrictions.

Even in Australia, Canada and the USA, which have a longhistory of settler immigration, the new forms of immigrationand the new source regions have introduced significant newdimensions in the relationships between existing ethnic minorities.The overlay of different institutional patterns of ethnic relationsincludes not only those of immigrant background but indigenousgroups and, especially in the USA, an ethnic group, the African-Americans, whose relationship with other groups is influencedby their historical experience of slavery. Where these countriesdiffer from many others is, however, an acceptance of immi-gration and permanent settlement for newer ethnic groups. Thishas a legal expression in relatively easy access to citizenshipas in Australia where the basic requirement is two years ofpermanent residence.

Recurring Policy Issuesin Multi-ethnic Societies

T he diversity of multi-ethnic states in their institutionalstructures, patterns of ethnic relations and their constituentethnic groupings ensures that the form of policy debates,

and their outcomes, are highly varied. Nevertheless, certainthemes are continually identified by those able to influence theformulation of policy as issues to be addressed and managed incontemporary multi-ethnic societies 21. Before examining these,there are certain policy issues which relate directly to theexisting general patterns of institutional relations between theconstituent ethnic groups.

The most urgent issue in States experiencing ongoing ethnicallyrelated political instability, or striving to re-establish a modusvivendi between ethnic groups in the wake of conflict involvingphysical violence, is the establishment of communication andcontacts across ethnic boundaries which will allow for negotiationsbetween groups and, for individuals, the regaining of a sense ofpersonal security. Where genocide has been widespread as in

21. The ability of ethnicminorities to participate in thisprocess varies considerablydepending on the extent towhich they enjoy full citizenshiprights. However, even wheregroups may not participatedirectly in the process, theirviews may be represented byintermediaries and supportgroups.


22. The importance ofcomplementing legal citizenshipby a broader concept of socialcitizenship was identified byMarshall (1964) in hisdiscussion of the evolution ofcitizenship from a conceptemphasizing duties to a focuson right where he argued thatsocial citizenship played acrucial role in the attainmentof equality.

the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda the task is especiallydifficult. When this is achieved the need then exists to addressthe causes which underlay the ethno-nationalist mobilisation.

The prime policy issue for States where a proportion of theirethnic minorities include contract or guest worker labour,asylum seekers or those without legal entrance status concernsthe relationship of these groups to others who are citizens orenjoy permanent resident status. What is their access to socialand welfare services, housing, health, education and employ-ment? What rights do they have to participate in decision-making or to gain access to the legal system for redress ofwrongs? What is the situation of their family members anddependants with regard to entry and residence status? WhereStates have long-term residents denied access to citizenshipmany of the same issues may apply to them and their familymembers, often including locally born children. The regularisa-tion of resident status or opportunities to be naturalised becomeimportant issues. This is especially so where such changes removeethnic minority members from a situation where they becomecaught in a web of exploitative labour and criminal activitiescontributing to the development of a disaffected and marginalisedunderclass.

States which have taken decisions in favour of regularisationand the further step of granting citizenship22 to resident ethnicminorities face issues similar to States which have long-establishedethnic minorities who have legal citizenship. These concern theintegration of the minority group members and their relation-ship to the dominant ethnic group and other minorities. Policyissues which arise include opportunities to express, and tomaintain distinctive elements of the ethnic culture, especiallylanguage and religion where these are associated with ethnicdistinctiveness; the absence of ethnically linked social andeconomic disadvantage; opportunities to participate in politicaldecision-making and the avoidance of racism and discrimination.An important symbolic issue is the involvement of minoritygroups in the formulation and expression of the nationalidentity. Where a minority group has a distinctive territorialbase the issue of the extent of its political independence maybecome an important issue.

A list of some common concerns from the perspective of theethnic minorities are contained in Box 2. The importance of


these issues may vary between groups and also over time. Whileit is apparent that often the ethnic minority and the State maybe concerned about the same issue, the nature of their concernmay differ. In the area of housing, for example, the State maybe concerned to avoid the development of segregated housingareas while for members of the ethnic minority their concernmay be focused on the availability of adequate quality housingwithout discrimination.

How the State responds to the policy issues of concern toethnic minority groups depends very much on the type of modeladopted to manage ethnic diversity.

Box 2

Selected Policy Issues

Ethnic Minority Languages- Freedom to use the language- The teaching of the ethnic language and its use as

a medium of instruction in schools- The existence of radio, television and print media

in the ethnic language.- The use of the ethnic minority language in other

institutional areas including health, welfare services,and the legal system

- The availability of interpreters and the provision ofinformation in translation in the ethnic minoritylanguage

National Language- Access to instruction in the national language for

children and adults

Religion. Freedom of worship and ability to observe religious

rituals and practices- Institutional structures which are compatible with a

religion’s tenets e.g. in the legal system, education


Legal Status- Situation of non-citizen residents- Access to nationality of the country of permanent

residence- Availability of dual nationality- Existence of a special status for ethnic minority group- Freedom of association among ethnic group members

and the right to form their own social organisations- Freedom of cultural expression

Education- Equality in educational attainment- Curriculum which incorporates the perspectives

and experiences of ethnic minority students

Employment- Access to employment without discrimination- Recognition of existing qualifications and experience- Access to training opportunities

Health & Welfare Services- Access to information on the operation of the health

and welfare system- The delivery of these services in a way which takes

account of the ethnic minority’s cultural patterns

Housing- Access to appropriate housing without discrimination

Racism/Discrimination- An absence of racism- An absence of discriminatory practices

National Identity- The place of the ethnic minority in the national

identity

Political Representation & Autonomy- Involvement of ethnic minority group in policy

making- The opportunity for the minority to take responsi-

bility for making decisions relevant to its concerns


The Policy Models of Multi-ethnic States

T he growing international recognition of the importanceof ethnic diversity ensures that States have sharedconcerns about the need to address this diversity in their

policies and programs. While all have the objective of preventingethnically-based conflict becoming destabilizing the policymodels favoured to achieve this objective, often referred to as‘integration’, may be diametrically opposed (Baubock, 1995). Thethree policy models discussed below are abstract, ideal typesbased on specific ideological-normative statements concerningthe relationship between ethnic groups in a society 23. Later inthis paper, another level of policy will be identified - the pro-grammatic-political-which involves actual policy initiatives andprograms which have direct, and indirect, implications for ethnicrelations. While there is the expectation of a close link betweenthe ideological-normative and the programmatic-political levels ofpolicy, the process of decision-making and implementation canresult in a lack of congruence between the two levels.

At one extreme are policies based on an assimilationist modelwhich envisages that ethnic minorities will be incorporated fullyinto the society and State through a process of individual changein which individuals abandon their distinctive linguistic, culturaland social characteristics and takes on those of the dominantgroup. In this model there is no place envisaged for the retentionof distinctive cultural, linguistic or social practices. By beingcompletely absorbed into the mainstream society it is arguedthat the bases for ethnically based conflict cease to exist. Therole of the State in this model is limited since change is viewedas the individual’s responsibility. No change is required by Statelegal, educational, welfare or health institutions although practicesand institutions associated with separatism may be proscribed.

At the other extreme are policies based on a differentialistmodel whereby conflict is avoided through a process whicheliminates or minimises contacts with ethnic minorities. Anextreme version of this model involves the expulsion or ‘ethniccleansing’ of ethnic minorities. Far more common forms, however,are policies which substantially restrict the participation of ethnicminority members in the mainstream society. The institutionsof the State are not required to accommodate members of theethnic minorities. The State, in contrast with the assimilationist

.23. Such a set of ideal typescan always be expanded intoa more complex taxonomy.Indeed, as discussed below,fitting a specific society into oneof these models may presentchallenges, especially where thestate policy is ambiguous orwhere the state plays a limitedrole in determining domesticpolicy.


model, may however allow, or in some cases sponsor, thedevelopment of parallel institutions catering in a minimalfashion for the educational, health or cultural needs of theethnic minorities which they are excluded from satisfying withinthe mainstream institutions.

A third major approach to policies accepts the potential, andlegitimacy, of ethnic minorities’ cultural and social distinctiveness.The multiculturalism model envisages that individuals andgroups can be fully incorporated into the society without eitherlosing their distinctiveness or being denied full participation.This process of full participation is the key to the absence ofethnic conflict. In order to achieve this goal of full participation,the State institutions may need to be extensively modified so asto provide equally for those from different cultural and socialbackgrounds. In this process the State plays an active role ofsponsoring institutional change which may extend from therestructuring of mainstream institutions to the support of parallelinstitutions. These parallel institutions are integral to the societyin contrast to the marginalised status of the parallel institutionalstructures associated with the differentialist model.

Multiculturalism alone of these three models acknowledges thelegitimacy and need for equality of ethnic groups in the expressionof their diverse cultures. In doing so it comes closest to a modelwhich has the potential to address the aspirations contained inthe various United Nations instruments on cultural, linguisticand religious diversity.

Each of these three models of how States manage and organisetheir policy responses to ethnic diversity is abstract and containslittle in the way of specific policy prescriptions or programs.This abstraction derives from the way they are actuallyideological-normative statements with a moral and ethical force.As such, they constitute slogans and supports for political actionbased on beliefs about the nature of ethnicity and the waysin which society should operate. Such beliefs are a criticaldimension of each of the models and contribute to the strongcommitment which they arouse in their supporters whetherpoliticians, social commentators or members of the generalpublic.

Intersecting with these models are national mythologies aboutthe origins and characteristics of the State and the national


identity. The State may view itself as a ‘nation of immigrants’or the guardian of important revolutionary principles or, yetagain, the embodiment of a people or ‘volk’. Together themodels and myths define the abstract notions of whom constitutethe nation’s citizenry. This is why when States are classified intoone or other of the models, reference is frequently made to howthey legally define citizenship and assign nationality.

France 24 is the obvious example of a contemporary State whichaddresses ethnic diversity with an assimilationist model. Specialforce is given to the French assimilationist model by the way inwhich it is grounded in the Jacobin ideology of the FrenchRevolution. Nationality, although based on ius sanguinis, hasstrong elements of ius solis with French born children acquiringcitizenship if they had a French born parent or by declarationmade between the ages of 16 and 21 (OECD 199.5, p. 159).Immigrants may also apply for naturalisation after five yearsand in 1993 over 60,000 were naturalised (OECD 1995, p.225).Citizenship is viewed as a contract between the individual andthe State without the mediation of other entities. It is also basedon the strict separation of the private from the public space(Birnbaum, 1995). Minority groups in France frequently use theLaw of 1901 which approves associations (Giordan, 1992) as avehicle permitting citizens (regardless of their origin) to organisethe development of the minority cultures and languagesto which they are attached. Yet the institutional frameworksguaranteeing the real practice of this recognised right are lacking,

The differentialist model of addressing ethnic diversity, leavingaside the extreme forms of ethnic cleansing, is associatedespecially with States where citizenship is based on principles ofius sanguinis. The effect of this is that native born members ofethnic minorities such as Turks in Germany or Koreans inJapan do not enjoy a natural right to citizenship in their countriesof birth. While provisions exist for naturalisation the proceduresoften make it extremely difficult, even for permanent residentsand their locally born children, to apply successfully. The exclusionof such ‘outsiders’ is further reinforced by national mythologieswhich emphasise the cultural homogeneity of the nation.

The multi-cultural model is the most recent having beendeveloped only within the last three decades25. Australia,Canada and Sweden are the three States which have explicitlyadopted a national multicultural model to guide them in

24. This section draws onmaterial from Multiculturalism:A Policy Response toDiversity, MOST & UNESCO1995 pp. 1-2.

25. Much longer establishedare other pluralist models whichhowever are based on differentassumptions to the multiculturalmodel. The 'plural society'model described by Furnivallis typical of colonial societieswhere cohesion and lack ofethnic conflict was dependenton the operation of the marketplace buttressed ultimatelyby the force which could bebrought to bear by the colonialadministration. It is thus closerinform to the differentialistmodel than the multiculturalistmodel where there is a consensualcommitment to the nationalbenefits of pluralism rather thanan enforcement of it by theState.


managing ethnic diversity. Nationality in Canada and Australiais based primarily on ius solis and there is easy access tonaturalisation procedures and citizenship for immigrants. WhileSweden adheres to principles of ius sanguinis it too, in practice,has procedures which favour relatively easy naturalisation. In1993, 8.5 per cent of the foreign population acquired Swedishcitizenship, a rate which was far higher than in other EuropeanOECD countries with the Netherlands at 5.7 per cent having thesecond highest rate (OECD 1995, p. 158).

Complicating the illustration of the various models is the waythat, within specific States, the favoured policy models mayhave changed over time. The official adoption by Canada andAustralia of multiculturalism involved the abandonment of earlierofficial models of biculturalism and assimilation respectively. InFrance there have been moves away from the assimilationistmodel to address the needs of ethnic minorities (Castles 1995,p.301). Similarly, Germany has begun moves away from thedifferentialist model (Castles 1995, p.296).

Within the one society different models may also exist for thosefrom different ethnic minorities. In Australia, for example, adifferentialist model for the Aboriginal population coexistedwith an assimilationist model for the immigrant population until1967 when full citizenship rights were granted to Aborigines. InGermany and Japan at the present time, those of German andJapanese origin from their respective diasporic communities inEastern Europe and South America have citizenship whilenative born members of ethnic minorities such as the Turks orKoreans are excluded under ius sanguinis citizenship provisions.

Even when based on the criteria for citizenship, attempts toclassify States according to particular models may give only apartial indication of their actual policy initiatives and programs.The reason is the need to translate the slogans and models intospecific action and programs. It is through this process that theideological-normative models acquire their programmatic-political reality. This process of translation is critical to appreciatein any discussion of both the reality and the potential for changein policy responses in multi-ethnic societies. To the extent thatthere is indeterminacy or slippage in the translation from modelto practice, the potential for change is thereby increased.


Many factors influence the complex translation process but theoutcomes provide the bases for evaluating the claims of thecompeting ideological-normative policy models. Given theclaims and counter-claims made concerning the model ofmulticulturalism and its potential for enhancing, rather thanminimising, ethnic divisions and conflict, it is useful to examinebriefly the experience of those States who have adopted it astheir ideological-normative policy model and then sought totranslate it into specific programs.

Multiculturalism in Practice:Australia, Canada and Sweden

Z Origins and Developments

anada was the first of the three States to adopt anofficial policy of multiculturalism in 1971. This it didafter the 1965 Report of the Royal Commission on

Bilingualism and Biculturalism recommended the replacementof the bicultural policy, based on the long-established Britishand French Charter groups, which had operated for over acentury. The impetus for the change was concern among otherimmigrant, non-Charter groups about their place in relation tothese two dominant ethnic groups. The initial focus in thepolicy was on the right to preservation of one’s culture andethnicity as a part of Canadian national identity. Subsequently,the focus of policy shifted to issues of equality, social participa-tion and national unity (Dorais, Foster & Stockley 1994, p.375).

Supporting the policy is a range of legislation. In particular,there is the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms whichexplicitly forbade discrimination on the basis of race, nationalor ethnic origin, colour or religion. However it did not containa specific guarantee to preserve and develop one’s own specificancestral language or culture, although it noted that the Chartershould be interpreted in a manner consistent with Canadians’multicultural heritage (Dorais, Foster & Stockley 1994 p.387).The 1988 Multiculturalism Act complemented the Charter withits two main provisions which were that:


1. All members of Canadian society are free to preserve andshare their cultural heritages; their cultures and ancestrallanguages should be protected and enhanced.

2. All federal institutions should promote policies, programs andpractices that ensure that Canadians of all origins have an equalopportunity to obtain employment and advancement in thoseinstitutions. Such policies etc. should also enhance the under-standing of and respect for the diversity of the members ofCanadian society.

By 1994, the Annual Report on the operation of theMulticulturalism Act identified three main areas of governmentactivity (Canada 1993-94, p.5) These were the need to eliminateracism and discrimination, to overcome problems of integrationfaced by ethno-cultural and visible minorities and to promotethe shared values upon which the nation is based. Accessiblegovernmental institutions and community education were seenas playing a key role in achieving these objectives.

Australia like Canada viewed itself as an immigrant nation.However, lacking a major ethnic group to compete with theBritish, a model of assimilation to the dominant Angle-Celticwas strongly entrenched as the way of achieving social integration.A major impetus for the adoption of a multicultural model wasa growing awareness of the ineffectiveness of the assimilationmodel. This awareness was spurred by the emergence of anethnic rights movement including articulate and politically activeimmigrants from non-English speaking backgrounds togetherwith predominantly Anglo-Celtic workers in a range of welfareareas, education, health and social services who were concernedby the disadvantages faced by many non-English speaking back-ground immigrants with whom they daily came in contact. The1972 election of a socialist-oriented government committed toovercoming social disadvantage provided opportunities for ashift in policy but it was not until 1978 under a conservativegovernment that multiculturalism became the official policy.

In this first phase the policy was seen as serving the needs ofnewly arrived immigrants of non-English speaking backgroundvia the provision of linguistically and culturally appropriatesettlement services. It was also accepted that cultural mainte-nance, especially involving language diversity, should besupported. As in Canada, the policy evolved with a shift in focus


Ethnic Group Number Percent

Multiple Origin 7,794,250 28.87

Single Origin 19,199,790 71.13

French 6,146,600 22.77German 911,560 3.38

Scottish 893,124 3.31

Italian 750,055 2.78Irish 725,660 2.69

Chinese 586,645 2.17

Ukranian 406,645 1.51

N. American Indian 365,375 1.35

Dutch 358,180 1.33

South Asian 324,840 1.20

Polish 272,810 1.01

Jewish 245,840 0.91

Scandinavian 174,370 0.65

Metis 75,150 0.28

Inuit 30,085 0,11 Source: Statistics Canada(adapted)

1991 Census

from cultural maintenance to address issues of inequity andsocial disadvantage and, subsequently. community relations andracism (see Castles 1992: Dorais, Foster & Stockley 1994).Contributing to this shift was the perception that culturalmaintenance and cultural pluralism were insufficient to overcomestructural inequities confronting many of those from non-Englishspeaking background ethnic groups.

Reflecting differences to Canada in its less legalistic, moreadministratively oriented political culture, the Australian policyon multiculturalism is embodied not in an Act nor as part of aCharter of Rights, but in the 1989 National Agenda for aMulticultural Australia. This was clearly stated as being applicablenot just to immigrants but to all Australians, including theindigenous Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population.The National Agenda, and its recent restatement (NMAC: 1995),identified three dimensions of multiculturalism for allAustralians. These were the right to cultural identity, the right


26. Through this focus theAustralian policy showed thatethnic minority members of thesociety,, instead of merely havingthe potential to produce sociallydisruptive conflict, had thecapacity to contribute to thesociety's ability to gain(economic) advantage fromencounters with business people,tourists, students and otherswho were encountered in thepursuit of economic interests.In doing this it brought togetherboth the negative and thepositive dimensions of therenewed focus on ethnicitywhich were identified at thebeginning of this paper..

27. More details are containedin Alund and Schierup 1991,1993.

to social justice and the need for economic efficiency whichinvolved the effective development and utilisation of the talentsand skills of all Australians. Balancing these rights were, however,a series of explicit obligations which included a primarycommitment to Australia; an acceptance of the basic structuresand principles of Australian society including the Constitutionand rule of law, tolerance and equality, parliamentary demo-cracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the nationallanguage and equality of the sexes; and the obligation to acceptthe rights of others to express their views and values.

One distinctive Australian feature of the policy model outlinedin the 1989 National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia wasan emphasis on the economic benefits which would be derivedfrom recognizing and using fully the professional, linguistic andcultural resources of all Australians. This extension linkedindividual economic opportunities to government moves torestructure the Australian economy by using the resources of itsmulticultural population to develop international trade and todevelop a more flexible and highly skilled labour force. Byemphasizing the economic advantages which would accrue fromthe policy, government was legitimating its claim that multicul-turalism was a policy for all Australians and not just those fromminority backgrounds26.

In Sweden, the origins of multiculturalism as a policy, differedyet again. In contrast to Australia and Canada its nationalidentity was not based on a view of itself as a nation of immi-grants. Nevertheless, after the Second World War, it receivednumbers of refugees and, through the free movement establishedin the Nordic labour market after 1954, substantial numbers ofFinnish workers. As elsewhere in Europe the needs of theexpanding economy were also met by the use of contractworkers27 from the Mediterranean, especially Yugoslavia.Although extensive labour migration was discontinued after therecession beginning in the early 1970’s Sweden continued toreceive considerable numbers of refugees and asylum seekers. In1993, Sweden received almost 59,000 immigrants nearly two-thirds of whom were refugees while one-third entered on thebasis of family reunion. Over half were from non-Nordiccountries with 40 per cent being from outside Europe (OECD)1995, p. 119). In addition to these immigrants are the asylumseekers whose numbers peaked in 1992 at 84,000 prior to theintroduction of a series of visa and administrative restrictions


(OECD) 1995, p. 195). Individuals from ex-Yugoslavia have beena major part of this inflow but it has also included substantialnumbers from Africa, Asia and other non-European regionswhich has introduced new sources of cultural diversity into thepopulation. Despite these extensive inflows Sweden’s 1993 foreign-born population of 869,000 (9.9 per cent) was still substantiallybelow those of Canada (16.2 per cent) and Australia (23.2 percent). The Finnish were the largest overseas born groupconstituting two-thirds of the 300,000 persons born in Nordiccountries. Iran, ex-Yugoslavia and Turkey are other majorbirthplaces of the foreign born (OECD 1995, p. 119, 209).

The Finnish minority has been seen as especially important inSweden’s replacement of its earlier policy of assimilation bymulticulturalism (Skutnabb-Kangas 1983, p. 136). Their freeaccess to Sweden and their ability to bring their families,including children, together with guaranteed educational rightsin the Nordic cultural treaty, gave them a secure basis fromwhich to demand greater cultural rights. Once such rights weregranted to them, it laid the basis for similar claims from otherimmigrant groups whose families were in Sweden and who hadbeen able to organise to pursue such rights. A recognition of theshort-comings of the strict assimilationist policy also co-existedwith Sweden’s extensive welfare system which already was involvedin extensive government policy initiatives to redress disadvantagewhich could be extended to the immigrant groups.

The 1975 adoption of the Swedish policy of multiculturalismwas based on three key principles ‘equality’, ‘freedom of choice’and ‘partnership’. Hammar (1985, p.33) has described theintent of these principles as follows:

The goal of equality implies the continued efforts to give immi-grants the same living standards as the rest of the population.The goal of freedom of choice implies that public initiatives areto be taken to assure members of ethnic and linguistic minoritiesdomiciled in Sweden a genuine choice between retaining anddeveloping their cultural identity and assuming a Swedish culturalidentity. The goal of partnership implies that the different immi-grant and minority groups on the one hand and the nativepopulation on the other both benefits from working together.

As in Australia and Canada, the policy has developed over thelast two decades. In Sweden, however, the policy is more


frequently referred to as ‘integration’ where this is seen as being

28. More information onprograms can be found in theAnnual Reports of governmentagencies and evaluation studiesof particular Programs andareas. Box 3 summarises somerecent Australian initiatives asan example of the diversity ofthe programs involved in apolicy of multiculturalism.

T

in opposition to ‘assimilation’. Even though not always referredto as a ‘multiculturalism’ policy, the Swedish policy does sharesignificant similarities with the Australian and Canadian models.Many of these policy developments result from strategies toaddress the needs of the extensive refugee population andinvolved changing degrees of involvement of local communities,as in 1985 when those throughout Sweden were asked to becomeinvolved in accommodating and settling the refugee populations(Alund & Schierup, 1991). At the present time the whole policyon integration is under examination as to its ability to cope withthe large population inflows at a time of major fiscal constraintand increasing concerns about racism and xenophobia (Castles1995, p.301). In November 1994 the government replaced anearlier Parliamentary Commission to review immigration andrefugee policy with two new commissions. One was to reviewimmigration and refugee policy while the other, due to reportin the first half of 1996, was to review integration policy.Among the issues to which special attention is being paid in thisreview is the role of immigrants in the labour market, and howtheir knowledge of Swedish language affects their opportunitiesto work and participate in society. Housing and the range ofthe groups to be covered by the policy are other issues to beexamined by the review (Sweden, Ministry of Labour, 1995 p.40).

■ Policy Initiatives

The most important point to make about the detailed policiesand programs which have been undertaken by these threecountries which have officially adopted multiculturalism astheir model for managing cultural diversity is that the overalleffectiveness of multiculturalism as a policy model depends noton any one program or policy initiative but on their cumulativeeffect. Within that framework, certain policy directions andinitiatives are evident28.

Language and related educational policies have been a majorfocus of Australian, Canadian and Swedish policies of multi-culturalism. All have sought to develop programs which ensurethat children have opportunities to learn to a reasonable levelof competence both the national language(s) and their mothertongue. This distinguishes their policies from either the assimi-lationist focus only on the national language or the isolatio-


nist/differentialist focus on only the mother tongue (Skutnabb-Kangas 1983, p. 130). All three countries emphasise the need toequip students to be fluent in the national language and to this

end have been to the forefront in developing teaching pedagoguesand programs to facilitate the learning of that language as asecond language by adults as well as children.

An important feature of the government support for minoritylanguage initiatives is that they are not important solely as ameans for cultural maintenance but, also, as a way of incorpo-rating individuals equitably into the society. This rationale isevident in the operation in Australia of the Translating andInterpreting Service (TIS) and the Special Broadcasting Service(SBS). The 24 hour a day, 7 days a week Translating andInterpreting Service (TIS) provides a nation-wide telephone ser-vice which assists non-English speakers to receive emergencyhelp as well as non-emergency access to an interpreter. SBSprovides regular multilingual radio programs. In the two largestcentres, Sydney and Melbourne, 63 and 59 different languageprograms are provided respectively (NMAC 1995, p.65) whichprovide an important source of information about communityand mainstream activities and services. In addition the SBSnational television channel (which reaches 75 per cent of thepopulation) broadcasts international news and features in arange of languages as well as providing a series of Englishlanguage news and other programs addressing issues pertinentto Australian cultural diversity.

Despite their commitment to religious freedom, Australia,Canada and Sweden all have strong Christian traditions. As inother areas of cultural diversity schools, workplaces and welfareservices are now becoming aware of the need for greater know-ledge and understanding of these differences. Responding to thisneed have been a range of public and privately provided cross-cultural training programs. In addition there is increasingemployment by organisations of professional and managerialstaff who are from diverse ethnic backgrounds and therebybring additional skills into these organisations.

The experience which has accumulated in Australia, Canadaand Sweden shows, however, that neither special language servicesnor educational courses may, in themselves, be sufficient toensure equality in participation and access to a range of socialservices. What has become increasingly clear from a range of


evaluation studies of social justice initiatives is that there is aneed to also change the way in which the organisation (and itsstaff) relate to the client/patient/student/citizen. What thiscultural, and sometimes structural, change requires is a focusnot on the way the system operates but on the needs of theindividual which it is serving. The importance of suchinstitutional change as a way of achieving greater social justiceand equity which is now emphasised in Australia and Canadais more radical than proposals which argue for the setting up ofparallel cultural institutions. Such a thoroughgoing reconsidera-tion of the operation of service delivery organisations hasimplications which extend beyond ethnic minorities to all users.

The nexus between employment and education and traininghas been one of general concern in all three societies whichhave experienced historically high levels of unemployment thathave particularly affected the immigrant and ethnic minoritypopulations. The need to overcome inequities in employmenthas been viewed as a key to avoiding the growth of structuraldisadvantage among ethnic minority groups. While accessto language training and increased flexibility in recognizingtraining and experience gained in other countries have beenimportant initiatives, the issues of discrimination in employmentand other areas have also needed to be addressed. Australiaand Canada have long had anti-discrimination legislation andSweden passed a similar law in 1994,

Access to affordable and suitable housing is a frequent concernamong ethnic minorities and to those from other groups whofear the invasion of their neighbourhood. Australia, Canadaand Sweden have been fortunate in largely avoiding thedevelopment of dense, sub-standard and over-crowded urbanghettos found in other parts of Europe and North America.Dense, single ethnic group concentrations are rare althoughclass is an important determinant of residential patterns. Thepotential for housing to become a political issue neverthelessexists as the Vancouver, Canada debate over the ‘monster’homes which Asian immigrants were accused of favouring in amiddle class suburb clearly shows (Li, 1994).

Racism, both of an institutional and an individual kind, hasreceived increasing attention in policy initiatives. In addition tolegislative and administrative action, there has been increasing

attention paid to the need for community relations and education


strategies which target various groups such as the police forceand media. Canada, where the term ‘visible minority’ officiallydescribes one cluster of ethnic minority groups, has devotedconsiderable attention to this area. Again, this area of policydevelopment with its focus primarily on the majority communityand institutions has been developed after initiatives designed toensure greater social equity. As such, it involves a recognition ofthe need for complementary policy initiatives to achieve theobjectives espoused in the statements of the respective multi-cultural policies.

Box 3

Australian MulticulturalPolicy Initiatives

An indication of the breadth of focus of the Australianpolicy of multiculturalism is contained in the 1995 Reviewof the progress achieved in implementing the 1989National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia (NationalMulticultural Advisory Council, 1995 vol.2), Listed beloware the key areas examined in the Review of Federalgovernment initiatives with select examples of specificprograms and initiatives.

Participation- Participation in Policy Making Institutions- Participation in the Judiciary, Police Force and

Defence Force- Participation in Senior Management and Unions- Participation in the Arts, Media and Sport- Citizenship

Affirmative action measures were not proposed as a meansof increasing participation. Among initiatives to increaserepresentation on advisory bodies was the establishmentof a Register containing the names and qualifications ofpeople from indigenous and non-English speaking back-grounds interested in appointment to such bodies.


Basic Rights- Multiculturalism and the Law- Administrative Review Procedures- Use of Interpreters- Access to Justice- Racial Discrimination

A review was undertaken by the Australian Law ReformCommission on the appropriateness of Australiancontract, criminal and family law for a society made upof people from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds.Recommendations for change included amendments toexisting legislation, enhanced community education,improved access and uselegal system and improvedfor people working in the

Social Justice

of interpreters throughout thecross-cultural sensitivity traininglegal system.

Access and EquityCommunity Services and HealthLocal Government Development ProgramMigrant Access Projects SchemeConsumer EducationWomen

The Commonwealth Government’s Strategy to improveaccess to and equity in the delivery of government servicesincluded extending the scope of the Strategy from onlyimmigrants to include all those who may face barriers ofrace, culture, or language including indigenes and secondgeneration Australians of non-English speaking back-ground. Priority was given to health and community servicesand involved the development of awareness campaignsand the monitoring of participation by target groups as abasis for identifying where there was a need to improvethe delivery of services to under-represented groups.

Human Resources- Recognition of Overseas Qualifications- Employment Services- Productive Diversity- Training Reform- Industrial Relations

I


The provision of free bridging courses with financialallowances to participants to assist overseas trainedprofessionals to undertake the additional study necessaryto facilitate re-entry to the profession in Australia.Grants to unions for the employment of ethnic liaisonofficers and specific projects to increase the effectiveparticipation of migrant workers in the workplace andunions.

Language and Communication- Opportunities for Learning English- Opportunities for Learning Languages Other than

English- Use of Language Skills in the Australian Public Service- Education for Cross-cultural Understanding

The provision of a range of English as a Second Languageprograms for school children and adults, including newarrivals and job seekers and funding for workplaceEnglish programs.Funding to support languages other than English classesboth in primary and secondary schools as well as in classesheld outside normal school hours by ethnic organisations.In addition to multicultural education policies in individualAustralian states, the 1994 national curriculum frameworkincluded promotion of cultural education, cultural diversityand multiculturalism as cross-curriculum perspectives inall areas, but especially in the arts and studies of societyand the environment.Funding was provided for curriculum reform in thetraining of professionals in higher education to preparethem for working in a multicultural society.

Community Relations- Multicultural Legislation- Community Attitudes Towards Multiculturalism- Community Relations- Media and Communication Services- Collecting Institutions- Policies for the Arts

The establishment of the Special Broadcasting Service toprovide television and radio services in a wide range ofcommunity languages


■ Evaluation

29. Sweden in 1976 extendedvoting rights in local elections toforeign nationals and all threecountries have adopted extensiveprogram of consultation withrepresentatives of ethnic groupings.

As the comparison of Australia, Canada and Sweden indicates,multiculturalism as a national policy model has so far beendeveloped in only a small number of societies, albeit ones inwhich it grew out of somewhat different historical circum-stances. In all instances though, the initial reason for the adop-tion of the policy was a perception that previous models ofaddressing ethnic diversity were not achieving their objectivesand/or were not addressing the interests and needs of theethnic minority groups. While ethnic minority groups were notalone in advocating change, the ability of minority group membersto influence political decision making was important29.Significantly in all three countries the policy has not beenrestricted to citizens but incorporates also those described byHammar (1990, p. 15) as ‘denizens’ that is foreign citizens witha legal and permanent resident status.

While the specific policy initiatives and programs developed ineach country varied, there was a significant shift from an initialfocus on programs directed to addressing concerns about culturalmaintenance to those concerned with equality and the removalof disadvantage. This shift in emphasis indicates how thoseparticipants in the policy-making process, including members ofthe ethnic minorities, are as alert to the importance of overcomingeconomic and social disadvantage as a basis for improving thestatus of ethnic minorities as they are to seeking to maintain atraditional culture. It clearly suggests that ethnic minoritygroups may be far more pragmatic about the importance ofsocial equality than is sometimes implied in the culturalistcritiques of the multiculturalist model.

Australian and Canadian statements on multiculturalism takeconsiderable effort to emphasise that it is a policy for ‘managing’ethnic diversity. Implicit in this is the view that its purpose isnot solely to ‘maintain’ ethnic diversity. As an examination ofthe statements and policies make plain its aim is to provide ameaningful ‘choice’ for individuals from diverse ethnic back-grounds so that they are neither excluded in separatist sectorsof the society nor forced to assimilate to the mainstream society.Both strategies may marginalise individuals so creating pre-conditions for the emergence of ethnic conflict and violence.

’


Consistent with the view that the multicultural model is notconcerned solely with the maintenance of a specific culture isthe emphasis, which is most clearly stated in the AustralianNational Agenda, summarised above, that the policy involvesnot only rights but, also, obligations to the whole society.

One striking feature of the implementation of the multiculturalmodel is that the practices associated with the policy have, againin contradiction of the critiques of multiculturalism, resulted inextremely limited evidence of either inter-ethnic violence orconflict. Furthermore this has occurred at a time when all threecountries have experienced major economic recessions andconstraints on their finances which have affected the State’sability to undertake a variety of social programs. In suchcircumstances, the potential for identifying scapegoats amongminority groups is considerable, specially if they are perceivedas having received more than a fair share of society’s resources.That racism and discrimination have not been more markedspeaks to the effectiveness of the policy model for managingethnic diversity. From the perspective of members of ethnicminorities, the opportunities which have existed for them toparticipate fully in society without needing to reject their ethnicidentity has clearly been a factor encouraging a high level ofcommitment to the Australian, Canadian or Swedish societyand State. From the perspective of the dominant ethnic groupthere has clearly been a high level of tolerance and acceptancenot only of diversity but, also, of the advantages which allmembers of the society can gain from it.

While the strong role of the State in all three countries hasprovided important opportunities for State-initiated interventions,a critical issue is the extent to which these initiatives have beenaccepted by the majority populations. Incidence of racism anddiscrimination highlight the limitations in achieving completeacceptance. The need for improved community relations betweenmajority and minority groups and among minority groups arewidely recognised. The removal of structural disadvantageassociated with ethnic minority status has been an importantstrategy in all the societies. Complementing it has been theexistence of legislation restricting discrimination and racistviolence. Community education has also been an importantstrategy for overcoming potential hostilities.


Both Canada and Australia have made, extensive use of thepowers of Federal governments to influence Federal governmentdepartments and agencies as well as state or provincial andmunicipal authorities to adopt multiculturalism as a policy.While the extent to which state or provincial authorities haveadopted multicultural policies in the areas of their own juris-diction has varied, there is far greater uniformity in Australiathan in Canada where Quebec has seen multiculturalism as apolicy which may interfere with the special status of Quebecand the francophone culture.

A major feature of the multicultural policy model is that theState and government institutions have played a leading role inpolicy formulation and implementation. However, if the policyis to become pervasive it also requires the involvement ofprivate organisations and institutions. With the increasingreductions in government budgets and a clear pattern ofgovernment withdrawal from service provision this involvementbecomes especially critical. In contrast to their use of fundingallocations and reporting requirements to influence other publicsector organisations the ability of Federal authorities to enforceco-operation from the private sector is much more limited. Theattempt to encourage adoption of multiculturalism in theoperation of private organisations has relied extensively onadvocating the economic advantages which may be derivedfrom it in terms of expanding their markets or being able tobetter utilise the skills of their employees. This willingness toappeal to economic motivation highlights the pragmatism whichunderlines the implementation of the policy and the way inwhich it is argued of being of benefit to all in the society, notjust those from ethnic minority backgrounds.

The ultimate test of the policies of multiculturalism is theiracceptance by the general public. In all three societies thepolicies have been subject to criticism from academics andothers. Common criticisms concern perceived threats to existingsocial traditions and the national culture as well as the costsassociated with what are perceived to be ‘special’ programs.Attempts to refute such claims by reference to the way in whichspecial expenditure may be cost effective in the long term areonly partially effective in responding to the critics. However,evidence from public opinion polls in both Canada andAustralia suggests that in general there is considerable support

for multiculturalism (see Box 4). Perhaps more significantly for


the future of the policy is the extent to which in elections thereis public support for political parties supportive of programsassociated with the policy. While anti-immigration candidateshave achieved some success in recent elections in Australia, thefar more significant outcome of recent election experiences isthat both major political parties now appreciate that multicul-tural programs have considerable appeal to voters.

Box 4

Public Opinion on Multiculturalismin Australia and Canada

A recent comparative survey of Australian and Canadianpublic opinion concluded that in both countries there hadbeen a hardening of attitudes against immigrants, withAustralian data especially indicating that in the early1990’s there was a hostility to high levels of immigration(Holton & Lanphier, 1994, p. 130). This hardening ofattitudes has coincided with a prolonged economicrecession in both countries.

How this hardening of attitudes towards immigrationaffects individuals attitudes towards multiculturalism isdifficult to asses, in part because surveys of attitudestowards multiculturalism yield sometimes inconsistentresults (Goot, 1993; Holton & Lanphier, 1994, p. 145).

In Canada, a 1991 national survey for the governmentfound that 61 per cent of the sample supported multi-culturalism, with support strongest among the young, thebetter educated and women. However, only 43 per centbelieved that minorities should preserve their culturalheritage. While 79 per cent of respondents felt that multi-culturalism was essential to uniting Canada, in practice,only 47 per cent believed that it would, in fact, help uniteCanada. While there were a range of negative assessmentsof multiculturalism’s impact, these were apparently lessstrongly held than more positive assessments as can be


seen in the following summary of multicuturalism’s effects(as reported in Holton & Lanphier, 1994, pp.145-6):

It will ‘enrich’ CanadaIt will provide greater equalityIt gives all cultural groups a sense of belongingIt promotes foreign tradeSome groups will ultimately gain more than othersThere will be increased conflictThe changes brought about will be too rapidIt will eliminate the ‘Canadian’ way of life

6255554827231412

That a somewhat similar pattern of diverse views exists inAustralia towards the effects of multiculturalism is evidentfrom a major survey undertaken in 1988 (as reported inGoot, 1993, p.238):

MulticulturalismPromotes a fair go for all members of the communityIs necessary if people from different countriesare to live in harmonyHelps tourism and trade with other countriesProvides a greater variety of food, music and danceIs a fact of life in Australia todayIs the basis of Australia’s immigration policyDeprives Australians of jobsMeans that migrants get too much helpfrom the governmentUndermines loyalty to AustraliaCreates suburbs with high concentrationsof ethnic groups

%

62

778593958244

5143

87

Although there is a consistently higher number of thosewho are pro, rather than anti, multiculturalism, on thesemeasures the largest number of individuals lay in betweeneither extreme (Goot, 1993, p.240).Those born in Asiaand Europe were more supportive of multiculturalismthan those born in Australia or the United Kingdomwhile support was strongest among those aged 20 to 39(Goot, 1993, p.240).


A smaller, more recent survey suggests that there may notbe so much difference between the Australian and overseas born, although it does not distinguish between thoseborn in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The June1994 survey of 1000 persons throughout Australia (IrvingSaulWick & Associates, 1994) indicated that:

- about two-thirds of both groups thought that ‘Australiais a better place to live now that people from so manycountries live here’.

- about 60 per cent of both groups thought that ‘migrantsshould learn to live and behave like the majority ofAustralians do’. A similar proportion also agreed ‘that ifpeople from a particular ethnic background want to mixmainly with themselves, they should not be criticised fordoing so’ although the overseas born were slightly lesslikely to support this position than the Australian born.

- three quarters considered that Australia was a tolerantsociety although the overseas born were slightly more likelyto do so than the Australian born.

In this more recent survey, as in the Canadian survey,women, young people and the better educated tended tohave more liberal views.

The adoption of multicultural policy models was initially inspiredby a desire to address the issue of how to integrate immigrantethnic minorities. Even where, as in Australia, the concern toextend the policy to apply to all Australians explicitly includedthe indigenous population, the relationship of multiculturalismto both indigenous groups or a long-established group such asthe Francophone Quebecois remains highly problematic. Suchgroups see dangers in a policy which they fear may reduce theirown status to that of simply being one of many ethnic minorities.They also fear that their” specificland and identity with a particular

needs, often associated withterritory, may be overlooked.

.


In all three countries, indigenous groups have a unique legal-administrative status with associated entitlements. Australia hasgone furthest in seeking to include Aborigines and Torres StraitIslander groups within the policy of multiculturalism but thishas only been done while retaining an extensive set of distinctpolicies and programs for the indigenous population. WhileAustralian indigenous groups do not appear to share theextensive hostility to ‘multiculturalism’ which is evident amongNew Zealand Maoris, the issue of their relation to non-Aboriginal society is a sensitive one and the existing policy ofmulticulturalism clearly would not be seen by them as andequate way of addressing their situation and needs.

The near success of the 1995 Quebec referendum which wouldhave authorised the provincial government to negotiatesecession from Canada is evidence of the strength of separatistfeeling which exists in that Province. However, the roots of thisseparatism lie more in long held concerns about the relationshipbetween French and British Charter groups than they do withthe policy of multiculturalism as such. Indeed, under Canada’sFederal system Quebec has been able to develop its own policyon ‘interculturalism’ in such a way as not to limit the specialposition of Quebec Francophone culture (Leman 1995).

As a dynamic policy model the future development of multi-culturalism in these three States is clearly an important issue. Asindicated above there are indications that Sweden is in factreconsidering its commitment to the policy model whichdeveloped within the context of that country’s highly developedstate welfare system unlike Australia and Canada wherethe policy has had a higher, more independent profile. Thefinancial costs of any interventionist policy are clearly a matterof considerable debate at a time of economic recession andCanada’s current review of the policy must be seen against thisbackground. Even entrenched and strongly institutionalisedpolicies may find it difficult to withstand attack. Despiteconcerns for the future of multiculturalism as a policy model inAustralia and Canada a recent assessment suggested that theircontinuation was likely (Dorais, Foster & Stockley 1994, p.394).

Both nations are currently re examining their national identityand their national integrity and multicultural policies willinevitably be affected by these reviews. In Canada, the primequestion is how Quebec’s regional ethno-nationalist aspirations


may be accommodated. For Australia, the task is less immediate-ly challenging and revolves around government-led initiatives tofurther reduce its links with Britain through becoming a repu-blic. Clearly, the extensive multicultural character of Australiansociety makes this a project which enjoys much public supportalthough there are many questions remaining about how thisdiversity will be encompassed and symbolised in the newidentity. The replacement in March 1996 of the thirteen yearold Federal Labour Government by a conservative Liberal-National Party coalition Government has already seen the issue ofthe move to a republic placed lower on the list of governmentpolicy priorities. Less obvious is the new Government’s attitudeto a range of programs associated with multiculturalism,although it is already evident that in the Government’s move tocut its expenditure by US$ 6.3 billion in 3 years, no areas ofpolicy will be protected from large-scale cuts.

The Broader Applicability ofMulticulturalism as a Policy Response

A s the end of the twentieth century approaches, thereis an urgent need to find durable policy models formanaging multi-ethnic societies so as to obviate ethnic

conflict and violence in a manner acceptable within a demo-cratic society. The political instability, economic changes andever-increasing levels of international migration which havecontributed to the increasing range and extent of inter-ethniccontacts show little sign of abating. Even were they to do so, thenew ethnic diversity which they have introduced into States willnot disappear overnight.

The sense of concern is evident in a recent OECD publication(OECD 1995, p.46) which posed the question: “Integrationproblems: a failure of integration models or a reflection ofeconomic crisis?” In fact, the choice is false, Clearly high levelsof unemployment and strains in the welfare system are contri-buting to ethnic conflict in many European and other industrialsocieties. But as we have just seen they are not the only factorsincreasing diversity and introducing tensions.


There is also a sense that existing policy models are failing. Theassimilationist model is being questioned as it becomes increa-singly evident that assimilation is not occurring as intended andthat, indeed, there is a growing sense of alienation among manyof those from ethnic minority backgrounds. At the extreme, thisis associated with a retreat into a fundamentalist reassertion ofa culturally-based distinctiveness. A further concern with theassimilation model is that the growing levels of internationalmobility question one of the key premises of the model. This isthat after arrival in a new society the individual will locate therepermanently. Increasingly we know that this does not happen inthe short-term, or even the longer-term. From an individualperspective assimilation hence increasingly represents an un-realistic model even in those ‘immigrant’ societies which haveused immigration as a means of nation-building. Where Stateshave resorted to differentialist models as a way of managing eth-nic diversity the difficulties of ensuring a ‘separate but equal’outcome for ethnic minorities are all too evident. Failure toapproach this objective generates increasingly pressing demandsfor social justice often associated with a strengthening ofminority group solidarity.

9 Does Multiculturalism Provide a ViableAlternative?

The experiences of those limited number of States which haveexplicitly espoused multiculturalism as a policy response toethnic diversity have indicated that while the policy is certainlycontested it has, nevertheless, shown considerable durability.Contrary to many of its critics, where it has been adoptedas official State policy it is not necessarily associated with awidening and deepening of the divide between ethnic groups.However where, as in the United States, there is no suchpolicy at a national level and multiculturalism is advocated byethnic minority groups and their supporters as an oppositionalpolicy, then it should not be surprising that many of thepolicies they propose reflect the existence of a deep dividebetween ethnic groups. That this is so should not be blamed onmulticulturalism. Rather, it reflects how the existence of assimi-lation as the dominant ideological-normative model, even whensupplemented by programmatic-political models which havesought to redress social disadvantage and inequality, has onlybeen partially successful. In a society such as the United States


where the scope for extensive State intervention is limited by astrong tradition of individualism and a focus on societal regulatorymechanisms, including those of the market, mechanisms foralleviating deeply entrenched social disadvantage and injusticeare limited.

The application of any policy model will obviously be affectedby the characteristics of the society in which it operates as isevident in the comparison of Australia, Canada and Sweden.While it is true that Sweden may be retreating from multicul-turalism as an explicit policy of integration, its adoption bySweden indicates that its utility was not confined only to Stateswhich have been built on extensive settler immigration. Theattraction of multiculturalism for all three States was its perceivedability to address policy issues associated with immigrant minoritygroups in a way that was consistent with their democratic ideals.

Given the significance of immigrant minority groups in manymulti-ethnic societies, multiculturalism has considerable poten-tial as an alternative policy model. By comparison with theassimilationist and differentialist models it does, however, requireand benefit from a much more interventionist role by the State,especially in the early phases when the struggle for legitimacyand resources are greatest. Such a tradition of State involvementand active engagement in policy making and implementation is,however, compatible with the political traditions in manyEuropean nations as well as in many States in Asia and otherregions of the world.

The adoption of multiculturalism as the replacement for anexisting national model of integration involves difficulties. Thefinancial constraints on State expenditure and the high levels ofunemployment which have already exacerbated existing inter-ethnic relations cannot be ignored. There is also the need toidentify the specific strategies to be followed in implementingthe policy. As the case studies showed, a feature of the multi-cultural model is that, as a model which involves ultimatelyinstitutional and personal change, the strategies appropriate andfeasible vary from one stage of implementation to the next.Hence, evaluation of the policy should ideally take a long termperspective. Such a luxury may not be possible in the presentsituation where policy makers seek urgent solutions.

Yet, the difficulties are not perhaps insuperable nor the task so


daunting as may at first appear. Many European countries intheir current attempts to facilitate integration have already inplace many programs and strategies which are compatible witha multicultural policy model. Acceptance of dual citizenship andmoves towards ius solis are two examples where apparentlystrong legal barriers to less discriminatory treatment of ethnicminorities are weakening. The fact that the Council of Europehas a Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in PublicLife at Local Level is a further indication that many relevantissues have already received considerable attention. The variousforums and agencies associated with the European Union andthe Council of Europe have been extremely active in not onlyidentifying issues but examining and evaluating a variety ofprograms and solutions (e.g. Baubock 1995; Council of Europe1994; European Foundation for the Improvement of Living andWorking Conditions 1994). There is thus already in place inEurope an important set of knowledge concerning possiblestrategies and programs. The challenge in adopting a multi-cultural policy model thus lies in the way these programs areutilised.

The point was made in the context of the case studies thatmulticulturalism does not consist of one specific type of programor strategy. Instead, its effectiveness depends on the cumulativeeffect of various strategies which together ensure that culturaldiversity is encouraged at the same time that its connection withdisadvantage is severed and becomes seen by the entire popu-lation as a positive contribution to society, rather than merelysomething to be tolerated. This is not to imply that tolerationin some circumstances represents an advance on existingcommunity attitudes. Rather it is to emphasise that theimportant contribution of a multicultural model lies not merelyin the way it involves specific programs and practices. Instead,its significance is that it enjoins a re-conceptualisation of how tomanage integration by replacing the often paternalistic provisionof services to minorities by a more participatory and consultativeprocess. Such a shift represents a major advance in the democraticprocess in multi-ethnic societies,

Despite the way in which many of the existing ideological-normative models are already being bypassed in the search forprogrammatic-political policies to address integration, someStateswould

may feel that overt support for a multicultural modelbe politically unacceptable. Experience has shown that


this, while it deprives many local programs of legitimacy andresources, need not preclude the development at a lower policylevel of programs with objectives compatible with a multiculturalmodel. While such programs face difficulties in becominginstitutionalised, their existence is valuable as a model for othersinvolved in policy development and implementation.

In societies where sub-national regions have a considerable rolein policy-making and implementation, multicultural initiativesat this level are of particular significance. Especially whereminorities are concentrated in certain regions, local initiativesare extremely valuable as examples of what can be achievedthrough an explicitly multicultural policy. The case of Frankfurt,which in 1989 established an Office for Multicultural Affairs tomediate between migrants and the municipal bureaucracy andto reduce conflict at the source before it has a chance to escalate,shows that the potential for change exists even in societies seento be far from supportive of policies of multiculturalism(Friedmann, 1995; Friedmann & Lehrer, forthcoming). Althoughsusceptible to changes in political control and the departure ofkey figures such cases provide further support for questioningthe validity of the negative predictions by the critics of multi-culturalism.

Given the strong hostilities which have been aroused to multi-culturalism by the often rabid reactions to those seekinggreater acknowledgement of the rights of cultural and ethnicminorities, policy makers may feel that another less contentiousterm would be desirable. The lack of specificity of a term suchas ‘integration’, which is no doubt the reason for its popularity,is clearly inadequate for the task. Whatever word is chosen asan alternative to multiculturalism it is critical that it shouldclearly indicate that diversity is not merely tolerated butwelcomed as a benefit for the whole society. It is precisely thisacknowledgement that gives the term multiculturalism its powerand efficacy to bring together majority and minority ethnicgroups.


■ How Widely Applicable is Multiculturalismas a Policy Model?

So far this discussion has considered the relevance of multi-culturalism as a policy model involving immigrant ethnicminority groups and predominantly in Europe. The growingimportance of immigration elsewhere in the world raises thepossibility of the model being applied in other regions. Certainlyin many countries the existence of a strong State may becompatible with the introduction of multiculturalism but theterm itself has so far gained little currency outside the Westernindustrialised countries. Many States have policies to manageethnic diversity which resemble the differentialist or, lessfrequently, the assimilationist model. To the extent that problemsof managing ethnic diversity have not yet engendered the soul-searching now evident in the industrial countries there may beas yet little willingness to consider the potential utility of a multi-culturalist model. This should not be seen though as necessarilyindicating the inappropriateness of the model. Nevertheless,the adoption of multiculturalism as a model would involveconsiderable institutional change, not least where States haveonly partially adopted a commitment to democratic processes.

The policy situation where doubt does exist concerning theutility of the multiculturalist model is where the ethnic minoritygroup involved is what Kymlicka has termed a ‘national minority’that is a previously self-governing, territorially concentratedculture. Clear examples are many indigenous populations, orthose groups previously associated in federations such as ex-Yugoslavia or the former USSR. In contrast to ‘ethnic groups’ heargues that these national minorities typically wish to maintainthemselves as distinct societies alongside the majority culture, anddemand various forms of autonomy or sef-government to ensure theirsurvival as distinct entities (1995 p. 10). As we know from the casestudies, the situation of such groups has largely been attended tooutside the policy framework of multiculturalism. Whether thisis inevitable, or always appropriate, may need to be left as anopen question not least because many individuals with linksto these national minorities live outside the home territoriesamong the rest of society and other ethnic minorities. For theseindividuals multiculturalism may constitutes an attractive policymodel.


Ultimately, however, it is necessary to acknowledge that thereare limits as to what a multiculturalist model can be expectedto achieve. In situations characterised by extended and violentconflict any attempt at reconciliation will inevitably be proble-matic. Similarly where there is a long history of inter ethnichostility and a failure of alternative policy models to result inintegration, the task facing a multiculturalist model in seeking to‘turn around’ the existing situation is immense. While theabsence of an alternative may recommend a multiculturalpolicy, the expectations attached to its adoption should berealistic and acknowledge the difficulty of the task involved andthe issues to be worked through. That said, a commitment todiversity carries a powerful positive message to minority groupswhich can counter their perceived need to argue in terms ofbroad ambit claims or to retreat into a fundamentalist isolationand resistance to integration.


Conclusion

T he transformation of multi-ethnic, demographically multi-cultural societies has created a major challenge for policymakers seeking to manage ethnic diversity without

exacerbating violence and conflict and in a manner beneficialto all. This paper has examined the potential of multicultura-lism as a policy model. In so doing it has sought to complementexisting philosophical discussions (e.g. Kymlicka 1995; Taylor1994) by shifting the focus to actual policy decision-making andimplementation. Contrary to commonly expressed fears, it hasbeen argued that an examination of States which have adoptedthe model fails to justify concerns that its long term effects areto heighten ethnic divisions and tensions. This is because whencombined, as it is in the case studies, with a strong emphasis onpolicies of social justice, it removes much of the bases for resistanceamong ethnic minority groups. The focus on social justice alsocounters criticisms that multiculturalism simply serves to continuethe exploited, powerlessness of these minority groups.

It may be argued that this is because such societies are not, infact, really applying multicultural policies. Such a criticism over-looks the actual stated commitment to do so. It also overlooksthe reality of the policy-making process which requires conside-rable translation in the move from abstract policy models todecision-making and then implementation. In this process oftranslation, the uniqueness of each State’s historical contextcannot be overlooked. The institutions, the nature of diversity,the role of governments in formulation of policies as well as thescope for inputs by relevant stake-holders all play a part in thedecision making process as well as in the implementation ofspecific programs and strategies. Additional indeterminacy isrelated to the need for such policies to be implemented by indivi-duals whose own actions can affect the policy outcomes.

A final feature of the multicultural model is its ability to addressissues democratically. In so doing it counters the often pessimisticassertion that the democratic majority is inherently opposed tothe rights of minority groups. The task for those using multi-culturalism as a policy model to achieve such consensus on thevalue of diversity is considerable. It need not be unobtainable.It does require a“ struggle againstwithin a democratic polity.

social inequalities and exclusion


multiculturalism: new policy responses to diversity; most policy

Documents