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).
While changes at the macrolevel of politics and economics can, in some conditions, come about very quickly (eg: Revolutions and coup d'etat that can bring about regime change and political transformation almost overnight), changes that happen in the microlevel (ie: Psychosocial transformation) are often much slower. The difference in the pace of changes came from in part through the influence of subtle cultural carriers (ie: The means by which styles of social thinking and doing are sustained and passed on from generation to generation), while the difficulty of achieving rapid identification shifts from smaller to larger groups can best be understood in evolutionary context, which would be elaborated further as follows:
The lives of our hunter-gatherer ancestors were spent in small bands, and the earliest settled communities consisted of relatively small populations. Although bipedalism began among our ancestors over 5 million years ago, it is only in the past few thousand years that settlements, nations, and empires with large populations have emerged. Thus, our evolutionary history has almost exclusively involved identifications with smaller groups. The shift to identification with groups numbering more than a few hundred is very recent when considered on the timescale of animal and human evolution, therefore due to this remnants of evolutionary experience, people often have a tendency to resist identification with a larger groups.
Thus, in order to successfully introduce democracy in societies with very different cultures (ie: Different from western cultures), traditional ideas of democracy must be developed into Contextualized Democracy (ie. The use of local cultural symbols and meaning systems as a way of strengthening democratic trends and bringing into place a democratic state), in other words, there must be considerable flexibility in how democracy takes shape in different societies. Mixing the culture of western societies embodied in the idea of democracy with the ideas from a very different culture to form an efficient democratic multicultural society which does not breach the said core of democracy in order to ensure that a society is not a democracy in name only (eg: Democratic Republic Of Korea a.k.a North Korea) and with this Contextualized Democracy, it enables the people to adjust with the change and identity shifts at their own pace.
In conclusion, the results of successful implementation of multiculturalism through mindful restrictions of cultural (and in some case religious) practice from transforming into hard multiculturalism from soft multiculturalism in western societies and both mindful restrictions and contextual democracy in societies with a very different culture from western societies will result in not only a likely stronger democracy but also a better, tolerant and more interesting world with great diversity.
References:
- Moghaddan, Fathali M. Multiculturalism and Intergroup Relations: Psychological Implications for Democracy in Global Context. Maple-Vail: New York. 2008
- Collins, Patricia H. & Solomons, John. The Sage Handbook of Race and Ethnic Studies. Sage: New Delhi. 2010
- Betts, Katherine. The Great Divide. Immigration Politics in Australia. Duffy and Snellgrove: Sydney. 1999
- Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press: Oxford. 1999
- Alesina et al. Harvard Institute of Economic Research Discussion Paper Number 1959 : Fractionalization. Massachusetts. Harvard University Press. 2002
- Andrew Guild, "The Menace of Multiculturalism: Dangerous, Divisive and Disatrous ( A-Summary), http://www.ironbarkresources.com/mc/index.html /Accessed on 29 October 2017.