Written by: Quinn Lukman - Research and Development ISAFIS
In a globalizing world, where national boundaries are increasingly blurred, where distant location between people does not hinder social interaction and nations had reached a phase of interdependence the likes of which had never been reached before, it is now increasingly common for the citizens of a country to be distinct from one another (e.g. Culturally and ethnically). This distinction which used to be responded by the people belonging to the majority group of respective countries negatively is now gradually being accepted, supported and even celebrated as an achievement in diversity.
Countries whose majority citizens and governments holds this kind of view towards such differences are known as multicultural countries, in which Canada is it's prime example.
However, in a more heterogeneous society this means that there would be more variances of desire meaning that the implementation of government policy which usually appease most, if not all of the citizens in a homogenous society is very much likely unable to appease the diverse group of people. Therefore, from this explanation emerge a question, that is: "what would be the impact of this multicultural society where there's such difference in desire between the diverse group of people towards democracy?"
A paper published by the Harvard Institute of Economic Research gives an interesting answer
As it turns out, the research found that strong democracy actually correlates with ethnic homogeneity, therefore this correlation shows that multiculturalism might actually impact democracy negatively.
This possibility is supported by the argumentations brought forth in the thesis "The Disuniting of America" advanced by historian Arthur Schlesinger in which he states that "Multiculturalism is divisive and as such threatens national unity" and in Reginald Bibby's "Mosaic Madness" where he argues that multiculturalism serve to ghettoize marginalized population rather than assist them to enter the mainstream.
However, it should be noted that generally multiculturalism is distinguishable into two meanings, which Katherine Betts explained as soft multiculturalism (The idea that we should be tolerant) and hard multiculturalism (the idea that we should welcome cultural diversity, including support the provision of government funding and other forms of assistance to immigrant groups to facilitate cultural maintenance). It's practical explanation however, varies, which Professor Lauchlan Chipman illustrates by giving some examples, that is ethnic food and dancing for soft multiculturalism and ethnic separation, traditional hatreds and barbaric customs for the hard form of multiculturalism. The latter version understood from the illustration given by Prof Lauchlan is a threat towards democracy and therefore in order to ensure heterogeneity does not resulted in a weaker democracy, hard multiculturalism must not be implemented nor allowed.
From that elaboration, came forth another question: "What would be the indicator for when a cultural (and in some case religious) practice could be considered a threat towards democracy?"
To came up with the answers for this question, we must first find out the core of said democracy, in which Amartya Sen in his book "Development as Freedom" argues for the central place of choice in national development, which we can also interpret this as choice having a central place in democracy (eg: Having the choice to vote out a leader, to express an opinion in public, or to withdraw support from or add one's support for a cause), while another core feature of democracy is the rule of law, in the sense that everyone must be dealt with according to the law (Even though it may be that the law gives, in some respects, different rights and duties to different groups eg: Different rights and duties for young and for adults). Democracy needs not be uniform in shape (eg: A democracy can be direct and indirect, parliamentary or presidential, etc) however, it needed to have choice and rule of law as it's core and in it's relation with multiculturalism, this means that when a cultural (and in some case religious) practice have breached these principles, it means that such practice have harmed democracy and needed to be stopped.
With the rhetoric about democracy that seems to be influencing the political, economic, and social aspirations of people in different countries from both a top-down process, led by powerful politicians, particularly in the United States and United Kingdom, espousing the goal of exporting democracy around the world and also through a bottom-up process, arising from consumerism and the right to enjoy free choice in the marketplace, while this does indeed raise the expectations of hundreds of millions of people for changes in their country towards democracy or an improvement of it, at the same time another group of people are instead, disillusioned by it's increasingly widespread propagation and in turn, resort to tactics of differentiation, independence, and anti-globalization which, in it's extreme form include varieties of terrorism (ie. political and religious terrorism). This response came from in part, a deep sense of identity crisis which in turn, stems from a natural psychological limitation (ie: The speed of change and the shift from identification with smaller to larger groups).