Search

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00745.x Byline: Nasar Meer (1), Tariq Modood (1) Abstract: British multiculturalism is alleged to have buckled under various Muslim-related pressures. Indeed, some intellectuals, commentators and politicians of different political persuasions have pointed to evidence of a 'retreat' to be found in an increased governmental emphasis upon 'integration' and 'social cohesion'. One response to these developments, from defenders of diversity-related politics, has comprised a discursive reorientation of British multiculturalism to focus upon an anti-essentialist 'multiculture' that can transcend the alleged hitherto reification of British multiculturalism. This article offers an alternative appraisal of British multiculturalism. We contest the idea that British multiculturalism is subject to a wholesale 'retreat' and suggest instead that it has been, and continues to be, subject to a productive critique that is resulting in something best characterised as a 'civic re-balancing'. Simultaneously, and rather than seeking comfort in a depoliticised 'multiculture' view, we defend the ideal of a dynamic political multiculturalism, comprised of a body of discourses and policies originating from a racial equality paradigm inaugurated by the first Race Relations Act (1965). It is argued that this tradition has successfully and legislatively embedded a recognition of 'difference'- with the goal of promoting equality of access and opportunity - into Britain's self-image which has led to some significant accommodations for certain groups. Muslim minorities are currently appealing to this tradition as one means of achieving greater civic inclusion. Author Affiliation: (1)University of Bristol Article History: (Accepted: 5 December 2007)

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00838.x Byline: LIETTE GILBERT (1) Abstract: Abstract Small town governments in North America have, in recent years, posed the most aggressive challenge to national immigration policy and multiculturalism. Immigration-related municipal ordinances were introduced by local officials to defend the rights of local residents from the adverse effects of (unauthorized) immigration. Municipal measures proposed to control im/migrants not only present a constitutional challenge to the federal pre-emption in matters of immigration law (which ineptitude they purport to redress), they expand on what Didier Bigo called a 'governmentality of unease', where migration is increasingly rationalized as a security problem. Municipal measures are re-bordering the inclusion/exclusion of (unauthorized) migrants by expanding the territorial and political rationality of immigration control from the border to the interior, and by imposing and dispersing new mechanisms of control into the everyday spaces and practices of im/migrants regarded as 'illegal' and undesirable. This article examines two immigration-related municipal measures (Hazleton, PA and Herouxville, QC) which impose a logic of immigration control and identity protection through deterrence and incapacitation strategies, and thus erode civil rights of im/migrants. Resume Certaines petites municipalites nord-americaines ont recemment bouscule les politiques d'immigration nationales et le multiculturalisme. Les autorites locales en question ont fait voter des arretes municipaux lies a l'immigration afin de defendre les droits de leurs concitoyens contre les perceptions nefastes de l'immigration (irreguliere). Tout en representant un defi constitutionnel a l'egard de la preemption federale en matiere de legislation sur l'immigration (dont l'inadequation est censee etre corrigee), les propositions municipales de controler les (im)migrants prolongent ce que Didier Bigo a appele une 'gouvernementalite du malaise' qui voit de plus en plus la migration comme un probleme de securite. Les mesures municipales redessinent les limites de l'inclusion-exclusion des migrants (irreguliers) en amenant, de la frontiere jusqu'a l'interieur, la logique territoriale et politique propre au controle de l'immigration, tout en imposant et en diffusant de nouveaux mecanismes de controle dans les pratiques et espaces quotidiens des (im)migrants juges 'illegaux' et indesirables. L'article etudie deux mesures municipales liees a l'immigration (a Hazleton en Pennsylvanie et a Herouxville au Quebec), lesquelles dictent une logique de controle de l'immigration et de protection identitaire au travers de strategies de dissuasion et de creation d'incapacites; ce faisant, ces dispositions amoindrissent les droits civils des (im)migrants. Author Affiliation: (1)Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada Article note: Liette Gilbert (gilbertL@yorku.ca), Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3, Canada.

`Sport promotes integration': this idea seems to be commonly accepted both in France and in the UK, even though the authorities in each country see the issue of `ethnic minorities' very differently. This article draws on research based on interviews with the main actors of `socio-sports' policies in the cities of Lyon and Birmingham and on analysis of consultation procedures and official documents, to show that sport provides a set of symbolic markers that helps the authorities, professionals and `ethnic minorities' to get their bearings in an uncertain multicultural situation. Although `ethnic minorities' try to control the direction of sports policies in pursuit of their own objectives, their strategies tend to be `routinized' around markers legitimized by the authorities in response to the success of certain sporting practices. Sports policies, therefore, promote `security' of identity for these `minorities' by `mapping' their environment using the values and principles of sport.

In this article, I set out to explain cross-national variations between styles of ethnic minority incorporation in the conventional political systems of British and French cities. To this aim, I draw inspiration from, and refine, institutionalist approaches to minority participation. I focus on a comparison of two cases, Birmingham (England) and Lille (France). I construct a parsimonious explanatory framework focused on three institutional factors: central-local relations in each country and local party politics and styles of local government in each city. I argue that these elements combine in different ways in each country to produce different local political environments for the politics of ethnic minorities, thereby shaping patterns of participation and conditioning their success, or absence thereof, in the electoral process of cities. Because of local specificities, my two cases are not entirely representative of other cities, but they provide an illustration of the political processes at work in most cities. In Birmingham, minorities participate successfully in Labour party politics, while in Lille, they are submitted to persistent political exclusion at the hands of a powerful Socialist party machine.

This article discusses Bhikhu Parekh's theory on multicultural politics. The author argues Parekh's theory of multiculturalism, in which he states an open dialogue between the operative public values and the claims of minority groups will help break down the concentration of power, is dangerous in that the discourse could led to a distortion of information by the current power.

Political scientists do not value the importance of toleration and pluralism in modern politics. The history of liberal toleration began as an ecumenical movement among Protestant Christians and then spread to include Catholics and then other religions and cultures. This change needs to be recognized and examined.

The author explores models of citizenship and looks at problems in Europe, focusing on Germany, with liberal inclusion and ethnic-based exclusion.

Liberal commonwealth societies have the tendency to resort to authoritarianism to integrate radically diverse social groups. As such, it is imperative for these societies to conjure up the social conditions that will serve as preconditions for the success of their constitutions. They should try to accommodate social diversity by providing diverse groups with strong constitutional guarantees that will eliminate racial distrust.

A number of authors have recently suggested that cities are becoming increasingly important as sites for the negotiation of ethnic diversity. While multiculturalism has been declared 'dead' in many countries, cities are now experimenting with new ways to accommodate ethnic diversity. This article reports on research conducted in Amsterdam. In this city, a 'minority policy' has been replaced by a qualitatively different 'diversity policy'. Even though the diversity policy meets many of the criticisms that have been made against multiculturalism, the new policy also generates its own forms of exclusion. It is concluded that the stress on intercultural interaction and an emphasis on high-quality policies and projects can in practice produce results that run counter to the intentions of policymakers as well as critical theorists. Ironically, these two features of the diversity policy tend to depoliticize societal problems and frustrate political mobilization of some marginalized groups.

Alternative globalisation activists, who are opposed to cultural uniformity, promote respect for difference as one of their main values. In order to blend this appreciation of diversity with the various factions of the movement, activists have created a new ideal convergence model: the Social Forums. Three main characteristics apply: an inclusive atmosphere with respect for diversity, the organisation of 'open spaces', and the non-deliberative nature of meetings. Though activists aim to live by these principles, the model remains no less ideal, because this way of acting it out expresses the values of alternative globalisation utopias and is impossible to recreate in real-world meetings, which is a result both of the behaviour of the parties involved and of structural limitations inherent to the model. Rather than an organisation that encompasses all factions of the alternative globalisation movement, World Social Forums provide platforms for debate and flexible coordination allowing activists to work together in an environment respectful of differences. However, certain aspects of the expansion of these World Social Forums - their increasing size, the growing burden of their organisation, their institutionalisation or internal shortcomings in their democratic process - may pose a threat.

Ethnic diversity can fragment political communities, since in every multi-ethnic state conflicts arise that cannot be solved through a majority decision-making process. The issue of diversity is not only one of human tights, but in most cases an issue concerning the state and the classic majority principle of modern democracy. It is indispensable for the functioning of the state that it be legitimate for all communities. Diversity can be upheld in fragmented societies only on the basis of a trust among the different communities, in state institutions, state leaders, and institutional forms of power sharing. Federalism, regionalism, constitutions, governmental and electoral systems are institutions through which minorities and the majority are accepted as equal parts of the state and feel represented and protected, with consensus-driven democracy promoting diversity. Citizens' rights can promote diversity through affirmative action, through the `state-action doctrine', and through collective rights when an effective court system exists. The international community increasingly claims the right to enforce minority rights based on international law. However there is no known case until now, where the international community has succeeded in upholding existing diversity by enforcement.

Ethnic, linguistic, and religious identities have emerged during the past decade as major challenges to the institutional capacity of the modern state to cope with cultural diversity. As such, multilingualism, which formulates a response to this challenge, has emerged as a new focus of empirical research on federalism. This provides a contrast to classic studies of federalism, which concentrated on the institutional division of powers between a state and its constituent units. Language plays a double role in this: as a thin bond for communication and negotiation between political actors, and a thick system of meanings, carrying the burden of history, religion, culture, ritual, and memory. The article studies this ambivalence of language through a comparison of India and Switzerland, two quite different cases of relatively successful accommodation of linguistic diversity and discusses the constitutional means and policy measures that might enable a modern state to balance regional diversity and national unity in the face of the multi-ethnic challenge.

The central challenge facing countries of the developing world such as Sri Lanka is how to reconcile ethnic and cultural diversity with the concept of mature and cohesive nationhood. This is especially so where a federation is created not by the traditional pattern of independent entities coming together, but by devolution from a unitary state to one involving power sharing. In such situations there are always fears that federalism is a precursor of dismemberment or disintegration. What is needed is to reconcile competing objectives for a strong and effective centre and for recognition of cultural and ethnic diversity. This may require hybrid or quasi-federal structures that do not fit neatly into unitary or federal categories. In attempting to achieve this reconciliation practicalities may require asymmetrical devolution, but this in turn may provoke emotional resistance to special or disparate treatment of particular minorities. Nor is devolution by itself sufficient. To be viable there must be suitable mechanisms to resolve intergovernmental disputes. Particularly important if confrontation and polarisation are to be minimised is emphasis upon compromise and proportionality and a public respect for pluralism, secularism, and representative democracy.

Concurrent contemporary pressures for both larger and smaller political units have contributed to the appeal of federal political systems as a way of reconciling both these pressures and of accommodating social diversity within a polity. Among the major federal institutional models that have resulted have been unions, constitutionally decentralised unions, federations, confederations, federacies, associated states, condominiums, leagues, joint functional authorities, and hybrids. Furthermore, within each of these forms there has been considerable variation. Among federations, the issues in their design that have affected their operation have been: the number and character of the constituent units, the distribution of legislative and executive authority and financial resources, the degree of symmetry or asymmetry in the powers allocated to constituent units, the form and structure of the common federative institutions, the role of courts as adjudicative bodies, the constitutional recognition of individual and collective minority fights, and the processes for intergovernmental consultation, cooperation, and coordination. The successes and failures of federations during the past half-century point to four major lessons, which have a beating on the ability of federations and more broadly federal systems to reconcile and manage social diversity.

Many societies must confront the possibility that greater ethnic diversity will result in more ethnic tensions. Most approaches to ethnic identification either ignore the role of the state or treat it as either a leader or a pawn of the ruling ethnic group(s). This paper employs a rent-seeking approach to ethnic conflict. It leads to several testable determinants of ethnic conflict, as well as recommendations for decreasing it. It also allows analysis of the relation between multicultural policies and such conflict.

Cultural diversity has become a major source of social conflict and political debate. Contrary to the expectations of classical modernisation theories, we are witnessing a range of socio-political movements reaffirming, rediscovering or reconstructing ethnic, linguistic and religious identities. This article attempts to relate the formulation of multicultural policies to patterns of social integration in the nation-state and to international human rights law. It is argued that language policies that are `multicultural' in the sense of promoting a recognised participation of minority languages in the public sphere, are the ones most likely to respond to the structural dilemmas of contemporary nation-states while respecting international standards of human rights.

From a liberal perspective, policies designed to permit the participation of minorities in national institutions while retaining their cultural particularities are justified either on the grounds that culture has a particular importance or on the basis of equal treatment of individuals. This paper argues that such policies, while not without benefits, have at least the potential to compromise the perceived neutrality of an important state institution, It focuses on the Canadian decision to permit the use of religious symbols as part of the uniform of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Advocates of such policies focus only on their benefits and ignore the potential difficulties; the paper argues that a more balanced assessment is required, one which weights advantages and disadvantages.

How does the degree of political decentralization in a state affect the outcomes of economic reform programs? Economic and political theories--from Tiebout to Weingast--emphasize advantages of decentralization. Yet, recent experience--from Yugoslavia and Russia to Argentina and Brazil--suggests that decentralization may at times interact with economic liberalization to exacerbate fiscal, macroeconomic, or even territorial instability. This paper suggests a logic that can account for such cases. A simple, game-theoretic model is used to analyze interactions between central and local officials in a two-level state with significant cultural divisions. It finds that decentralization or local democratization increases the level of central redistribution required to prevent spirals of regional revolt. Consequences of economic reforms that have characteristics of public goods depend critically on the initial levels of cultural division and decentralization. In relatively centralized or homogeneous states, such reforms lead to virtuous cycles of growth and increased revenues and state capacity. In decentralized and deeply divided ones, the same reforms can lead to vicious cycles of higher redistribution, economic inefficiency, and political instability.

The article identifies a core dilemma in the debate on multiculturalism: although the politics of recognition aims at including cultural groups within the political community, it may inevitably have exclusive effects of its own. This dilemma is illuminated by an investigation of the attempts by Charles Taylor, Bhikhu Parekh and Will Kymlicka to develop a theory of multiculturalism. Using a typology of multiculturalist approaches, the paper identifies the exclusive consequences of each theory. Rather than seek an alternative non-exclusive politics of recognition, it argues for an approach that distinguishes between situations of multiculturalism.