Multiculturalism has failed

We need a new politics devoted to bringing people together.

Rakib Ehsan
Columnist

Share
Topics Politics UK

Over the years more and more mainstream European politicians have woken up to the failures of multiculturalism in their respective countries.

Back in 2010, at a meeting with young members of her Christian Democratic Union party, German chancellor Angela Merkel conceded that Germany’s multicultural approach – known as multikultihad utterly failed. In Germany, as in so many other European countries, culturally disparate communities are living side by side, but with minimal cross-group interaction and meaningful contact.

Many of Merkel’s colleagues, such as Horst Seehofer, have long declared that the concept of Leitkultur (a ‘leading German culture’) and a more regimented immigration system are needed to create a more cohesive Germany.

But although Merkel has had the courage at points to talk about the problems of multiculturalism, her actions more recently have only exacerbated them, and undermined her reputation as a steady, sensible and responsible leader in the process.

Her decision in 2015 to allow in approximately one million refugees from unstable Muslim-majority countries, such as Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, placed considerable strain on Germany’s social fabric. This decision was all the more mind-boggling in light of the fact that Germany had already struggled to integrate migrants of Turkish Muslim origin – and even their German-born children.

When it comes to the issue of multiculturalism, many countries across Europe are in need of robust political leadership. We need leaders who acknowledge the drawbacks of multiculturalism and are willing to confront deeply concerning cultural practices and norms within migrant communities. On this front, there are reasons to be hopeful.

Under the thoughtful leadership of Mette Frederiksen, the Danish Social Democrats are seeking to create a national culture based on shared identity, common purpose and mutual obligations. The party has also adopted a mature approach to public concerns over immigration and social cohesion. The Danish premier has openly criticised problematic attitudes within her Danish Muslim communities – including a lack of respect for Denmark’s judicial system and embedded forms of patriarchal coercion.

It is not racist to have reservations about multiculturalism. Nor is it racist to be concerned about the social impact of allowing into your country a great number of people from unstable countries, in which prevailing cultural and legal norms vastly differ from those of your own. You can be comfortable with racial diversity and simultaneously anxious about religio-cultural diversity. This is by no means a contradictory position.

We here in Britain need to grasp this issue. Multiculturalism here has led to a similarly divided society, and we desperately need to foster more integration. But to do so requires us to pose the question: what are we asking migrants to ‘integrate’ into? When we ask people to adopt ‘British values’, what are we referring to? Because all is not well within mainstream British culture.

The UK has established itself as a world leader in family breakdown. We have among the highest rates of binge-drinking in the world. We have an unhealthy obsession with celebrity ‘icons’. The level of loneliness among the elderly is not only a social scourge, but also a national embarrassment. These features of modern British society and culture are not desirable by any stretch of the imagination.

What the UK requires, therefore, is moral and political leadership. We need someone brave enough to call out problematic behaviours and attitudes in society – both in the general public and less-integrated migrant communities. And we need to carve out a set of common values.

Multiculturalism is ultimately doomed to failure. In championing difference over cohesion, it fails to provide a central moral and cultural standard. Without this shared social framework, it is nigh-on impossible to cultivate the bonds of trust and mutual regard needed to tie together a multi-ethnic, religiously diverse society. This should be a particular concern for those who are supportive of a comprehensive welfare state, which can only be properly sustained by a high-trust, cohesive society.

The answer to all this is a brand of patriotism that is inclusive, community-spirited and family-oriented: one that understands the human desire for neighbourliness; that celebrates hard work and encourages social responsibility; that emphasises respect for the British rule of law; and that recognises the socially harmful effects of ‘parallel societies’, which particularly blight post-industrial northern towns.

Brexit could well be the catalyst for the social renewal that this country so desperately needs. As a self-governing nation state, we could develop a sensible immigration system that prioritises individuals with English-language skills and those from Commonwealth nations with similar political and legal systems. A post-Brexit Britain could strive to develop a model of cohesion that firmly rejects both an ethno-centric understanding of nationhood and the grievance narratives peddled by the identitarian left.

We should embrace a politics of mutuality, reciprocity and responsibility, and consign multiculturalism to the dustbin of history.

Rakib Ehsan is a spiked columnist and a research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society. Follow him on twitter: @rakibehsan

Picture by: Getty

Clarification: an earlier version of this article stated that Angela Merkel had discussed multiculturalism at a ‘recent’ meeting. This has now been changed to clarify that the meeting referred to was in 2010.

spiked needs your support

Defending liberty isn’t easy – especially in times of crisis, when freedom is so often traded away in search of security. But amid the coronavirus pandemic we at spiked have continued to speak up for our principles, calling for more scrutiny of the authoritarian measures being wielded over us and more debate on the best way forward. To continue to do that, we need your help. spiked is free and it always will be, because we want as many people to read us as possible. But to keep spiked free we rely on the generosity of our readers, particularly those who can give regularly. Even £5 per month can make a huge difference to us. We know it’s hard out there for many of you, now more than ever. But if you support what we do here and you can afford to contribute, to make sure we can continue to produce our free and fearless journalism for anyone who wants to read it, please do consider making a donation today.

Thank you! And stay safe.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Share
Topics Politics UK

Comments

Peter Gardner

9th November 2019 at 2:28 am

Rakib Ehsan, Sir Walter Scott would agree with you 100%. In his Scottish poetry and novels he attributed the success of the Scottish nation to the realisation among Scottish clan leaders that instead of dwelling on their rivalries they should dwell on and develop what they held in common: their country, their culture. Of course, the Left don’t read Scott. He was disgustingly patriotic and his English a tad difficult for those passing through the proliferation of necessarily second rate universities – everyone has a right to a degree. But they should they would learn the lessons of history. We’ve been here before and not only us. It’s the same story the world over. Nation states exist because of the human need for cultural identity and they develop in different ways. this is the diversity we need, not diversity within a society which inevitably divides it rendering it incoherent.
The degree of coherence necessary to support government by consent of the governed is stretch and broken by multi-culturalism. However, across different nations we can have a whole range of ideas about what rules we should live by. If they work in one culture others are free to adopt them or not as they wish. As in any biological system, that kind of diversity ensures survival in a dynamic environment.
If multi-culturalism is progressed ultimately all nations will be culturally identical. If a mistake is made, the entire world pays the price. If only one nation makes a mistake the others don’t suffer and can learn from it. That is how progress occurs naturally. Let’s keep it that way. It’s safer.
One world government is the product of the same political philosophy as the EU and the end result of multi-culturalism. Both are wrong and dangerous. Diversity among nations is far, far safer.

Marvin Jones

8th November 2019 at 2:05 pm

The campaign of Blair, Mandelson and Cambell etc, that went out and forcibly enticed a primitive dogma riddled third world illiterates, who would not integrate or assimilate for their total and utter allegiance to something so opposite to our way of thinking, living, culture and worship. Promised them that they would not have to change their medieval baggage but would enjoy all the benefits and protections of the citizens of this now cesspit of the world.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.