How Far Can Liberal Democracy Embrace Diversity - Literature review Example

How far can liberal democracy embrace diversity? Diversity has become a typical fixture in modern societies now amid the backdrop of globalization. This phenomenon – globalization - has facilitated the exchange of culture as well the migration of people from around the world. For instance, according to Peter Kivisto, millions of people in the world are on the move, and more specifically, they have exhibited a willingness to leave their countries of origin for other places around the globe, whether they be in neighboring nations or in distant lands. (p. 2) The recent estimates on the figure of people migrating to other countries is somewhere between 80 million and 125 million people.1 Our point is that globalization impacts societies and culture. It is a major force behind the movement of people, the movement of ideas, the movement of images, and the movement of information. It allows local societies to engage in the wider world in ways that are entirely different from the past. People are linked and their struggles, which adds a new dimension to how we live within our society today. This entails both positive and negative developments. But when we talk about negative impacts or problems and concerns which arise from multiculturalism in our society, the question is if liberal democracy is indeed conducive to cultural diversity or if the institutions within the democratic system could address the problematic areas in this phenomenon. Democracy and Diversity It has been said by a number of sociologists, historians and political scientists that democracy and diversity reinforces each other. Perhaps this is true because democracy has the system that allows for the highest degree of tolerance and acceptance as the concept of diversity calls for the integration of people into the nation, without expecting them to lose their identities and to disengage from their ethnic ties. To borrow Gurpreet Mahajan words: Only democracy can reach out and explore formats of interaction that presume equality and respects. It is this concern for equality that precludes the possibility of democracy being ever associated with majoritarianism – either of the political or cultural type. Indeed, the Western liberal democracies are the recipient of the bulk of migration from other countries. The United States and European countries such as Britain and France spearhead this. As stated previously, there are drawbacks to the incidence of diversity brought about by the migration of people. For instance, Christina Gabriel and Yasmeen Abu-Laban suggested that struggles for equality in the incidence of transnational solidarity opens door to different kinds of concerns. (p. 178) We turn to Michael Humphrey’s account for specific example as he explored his assumption that the interaction between immigrant and the home culture articulates a broader cultural and political relationship: The cultural practice of immigrants is the medium of continuity and reinterpretation of tradition in radical ways, which are transmitted to communities of origin and work new interpretations at home. Reinterpretation and feedback of immigrant culture to home communities are interactive… Each end is itself a generative locus of difference, of identity, contributing new bits of warp and woof. (p. 9) Critics of diversity in societies argue that multiculturalism in societies would result to divisiveness and racial tensions marked by cultural ghettos which would allegedly undermine national solidarity. In Europe, there are people who raise questions regarding diversity’s negative impact on national identity as well as the wave of Muslim immigrants, which, for some, have semblance to a conspiracy to Islamize Europe.2 Historical Roots Ethnicity cannot be easily erased in the same way that the culture cannot be easily imposed upon the immigrants. It is not probable for an individual who originated from a different cultural background to completely forget his past and assimilate all of his tastes and present environment. Human nature will not permit a deracinated individual, unconstrained by previous loyalties and identities. 3 Charles Taylor (1994) in his “Politics of Recognition” places the cultural background of an individual as static, to be given a name, to be assumed worthy and accorded respect as an entity in its own right. He elaborates: “Consider what we mean by identity. It is who we are, ‘where we’re coming from.’ As such it is the background against which our tastes and desires and opinions and aspirations make sense.” (p. 33) Furthermore, I would like to highlight that the system of liberal democracy is not entirely enough to embrace the concept of diversity or multiculturalism. Tolerance alone is not enough for a society to say that it has embraced diversity. Acceptance is central for immigrants to really say that they belong to the society and not just mere outsiders who peacefully coexist with the original citizens. A society may say that immigrants are welcome but it is different from the willingness on their part to treat them as equals – a citizen of the nation with the same status, socially, politically and economically. And so we look at the respective histories of the societies as a major factor in the acceptance of diversity. Let us compare Britain and Germany: We can say that diversity is more freely embraced in Britain than in Germany because it has indigenous roots in the legacy of its multi-racial empire. As a matter of fact, multiculturalism is even a deliberate state strategy in the provision of social services and public education, offered as a remedy to Britain’s lingering, entirely immigration-based, race problem.4 Germany, on the other hand, writes David Jacobson (1998), experiences difficulty in embracing diversity because the multiculturalism debate is really a debate of a “protracted problem of nationhood after Nazism which led to the virtual absence of foreigners, who are even denied the very status of immigrants.” (p. 291) The difference is really distinct and this is beside the fact that the two nations are both liberal democratic societies. Limits to Liberal Democracy As we have stated elsewhere in this paper, diversity is ideally a more positive development in a society. Diversity and multiculturalism has captured the interest of political scholars as well as the public as evident in the increasing pressure on governments to formulate policies regarding race, discrimination and equality. These concepts are increasingly being used in the people’s attempt to make sense of some of the most fundamental and far-reaching changes which enabled the transformation in our society as it reconfigured economic arrangements, challenged political systems and recast issues in terms of cultural identities. But in the effort to accommodate diversity due to political pressures, liberal democracies have experienced certain pitfalls as limits of liberal democracies in the context of multiculturalism emerge. In The US, foremost of these limits is the exclusionary practices which is supposed to be part of the American heritage. According to Larry Naylor (1997), the severe tensions between the ideal and real still await resolution as illustrated by the founding father’s reference to equality among all human beings while slavery was then practiced with abandon prior and even after the Civil War. (p. 27) The case of the U.S. is greatly complicated because of the changing nature of majority and minority relations in recent decades. There are those who argue that diversity has taken the form of reverse discrimination. We cite the US government’s policy to draft a percentage of black employees and that there are opportunities where minorities were accepted not because of skills or credentials but simply because they are minorities. Also, we cite the concessionary tone of statutes in respect to the minorities’ ethnic values and beliefs. For example, an Indian may be exempt from wearing helmet when using motorcycle because he has to wear a turban. Furthermore, diversity itself - the concept, which breeds plurality - seem to muddle the issue on solidarity and justify the concerns of those who raise the issues of divisiveness and national identities. The amount of freedom that liberal societies give to its people, encourage the seemingly chaotic conduct of politics in the culturally pluralistic public. For instance, attitudes towards immigration and naturalization, education, the criminal law and the limits of freedom of expression have been endlessly scrutinized in the light of need, interests and opinions of different cultural groups, which according to Noel O’Sullivan (2000), have been true in the experiences of US, Britain and France. (p. 70) The upshot is groups have claimed entitlements specific to them in order rightfully to preserve their mores and identity. 5 The problem with liberal democracy in embracing diversity is consisted of the tensions and the conflicts that arise from the diverse culture that must coexist under one community. Sociologists and political scientists are not short in suggesting what to do in order to address the limitations of democracies in dealing with diversity-related problems. Charles Taylor, for one, believes in self-understanding as a key if constructed and perpetuated in common with others. His perspective insist on incorporating the private community into the universal: “My discovering my own identity doesn’t mean that I work it out in isolation, but that I negotiate it through dialogue, partly overt, partly internal, with others.” (p. 34) The future and what seemed like the ideal community that embraces diversity for John Perry Barlow is the cyber space or the Internet and its concept, where freedom is not subordinate to anything such as laws or bureaucracies. According to him, cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like standing wave in the web of communications: “We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force or station of birth. We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.” (1996) Bibliography Barlow, John Perry. A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace; Available from http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html; Internet; accessed 25 May 2007 Gabriel, Christina and Abu-Laban, Yasmeen. Selling Diversity: Immigration, Multiculturalism, Employment Equity & Globalization. Broadview Press, 2002. Mahajan, Gurpreet. “The Problem.” India Seminar; available from http://www.india-seminar.com/1999/484/484%20problem.htm; Internet; accessed 26 May 2007 Humphrey, Michael. Islam, Multiculturalism and Transnationalism. I.B. Tauris, 1998. Jacobson, David. The Immigration Reader: America in a Multidisciplinary Perspective. Blackwell Publishing, 1998. in Transition. UK: Routledge, 2000. Kivisto, Peter. Multiculturalism in a Global Society. Blackwell Publishing, 2002. Naylor, Larry. Cultural Diversity in the United States. Bergin Garvey/Greenwood, 1997. OSullivan, Noel. Political Theory in Transition. UK: Routledge, 2000. Parsons, Craig, and Smeeding, Timothy. Immigration and the Transformation of Europe. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Taylor, Charles. “The Politics of Recognition”. In ed. Amy Guttman, Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Read More