Adding to the debate
In a major speech the Prime Minister reflected on the role of multiculturalism in a modern and evolving society.
In preparation for his lecture, the fifth in the Our Nation's Future series, Tony Blair considered the following paper - one of those written by a range of experts in the field.
The authors are independent, and all views and opinions are their own. They do not necessarily agree with Government policy, but each makes an interesting contribution to the debate.
About the expert
Lord Bhiku Parekh is a Britain-based political scientist and a member of the House of Lords.
Read the paper
Where is Britain Going?
The Race Relations Act 1976 and the CRE that it created were the products of their time. They reflected a particular way of describing, explaining and dealing with the prevailing racial situation, and advocated a particular vision of Britain. Basically their underlying philosophy was correct and has served Britain well. Considerable improvements that we have registered in this area, and which have rightly earned the country its reputation as a society at ease with its diversity, are a proof of this.
Several important changes have occurred in British society since 1976. Since we have not yet grasped their full significance, there is considerable confusion concerning the direction in which we need to move. I shall comment on four of them.
First, unlike in 1976 we now have more ethnic minority M.P. s and Peers, and even a few ministers including one and earlier two in the Cabinet. Ethnic minorities are accepted as part of society and are good at using the political system. The media are generally more sensitive, and include ethnic minority reporters and columnists. The CRE is therefore neither the sole focus of national attention, nor the only agency in charge of race relations.
We also have the Human Rights Act, which provides basic protection to ethnic minorities and lays down the minimum standards around which to unite the country. The new Commission on Equality and Human Rights is expected to tackle all forms of discrimination within a common conceptual and institutional framework. This can be a source of considerable help to ethnic minorities, but it can also create problems. Race will lose its specificity. Racial discrimination will not enjoy the focal position it has enjoyed so far, and will lack a distinct organised constituency. Concern with human rights could also easily eclipse that with equality. We therefore need to explore how race issues can be best conceptualised and pursued in the new context.
Second, the past two decades have brought home to us that race relations in Britain cannot be insulated from the larger global context. The Rushdie affair, in which Ayatollah Khomeini issued his notorious fatwa, showed that local issues can acquire a global dimension. Conversely, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that global issues have a profound impact on domestic race relations. They radicalised a large section of our Muslim population, and even encouraged a small group to engage in terrorist activities at home and abroad. It is odd that while the Prime Minister rightly exhorts us to change our economic thinking in the context of globalisation, he fails to acknowledge that the impact of globalisation cannot be limited to the economy. Our foreign policy, what we do to and in other countries, has domestic consequences, and is a legitimate object of concern to those struggling to promote better community relations at home.
The third change which is closely related to the second raises important questions about the nature of citizenship. Citizenship implies a basic commitment to the country and a sense of loyalty. One may rightly protest against government policies, but as a loyal citizen. The question of loyalty never arose before 1976 and sometime afterwards. Race riots occurred, but they never cast doubt on the political loyalty of immigrants. All agreed, including many of those who condemned the riots, that they were born out of frustration caused by systematic discrimination and exclusion, and reflected a desire to belong to Britain.
In the aftermath of 7, July bombing in London and the alleged plot to blow up planes uncovered last August, there is a widespread feeling that the loyalty of some, albeit a small group of young Muslims can no longer be taken for granted. The rhetoric of some Muslim leaders reinforces this feeling. They privilege religious identity, and argue that obligations to the Islamic ummah trump those to Britain. A political community is based on the opposite assumption that in normal circumstances loyalty to it should override other loyalties. Not surprisingly irresponsible utterances and actions of a small section of Muslims have aroused deep fears among the rest of their fellow citizens.
A multicultural society is easy to accept and run if its citizens can trust each other to discharge their basic obligations and wish their shared community well. Once this basic trust is weakened, the willingness to accept the strains of multicultural society declines. We need to find ways of restoring that trust. The onus lies as much on the Muslim community as on the wider society. The former needs to put its house in order, and the latter to find ways of tackling the legitimate causes of its alienation. The CRE and other official bodies can do little in this area.
Fourthly, in 1976 we held up integration as our model. We contrasted it with assimilation, and took it to imply that ethnic minorities should play their full part in the economic and political life of the country while retaining such differences as they cared for. Our ideas on integration were vague, and subsequent years have revealed their ambiguities and tensions. Can minorities be said to refuse to integrate if they bring spouses from their homelands, demand faith schools, choose to live together, or confine their cultural lives to themselves? Some answer the question in the affirmative, and virtually equate integration with assimilation. In many circles today the vital distinction between the two is more or less ignored, and integration has become a vehicle of narrow cultural nationalism.
Take the recent controversy surrounding the veil. The veil is not new, and was worn in the 1970s and 1980s. No one minded it. Many were unhappy with it, but thought it harmed no one and is best left to the Muslim community to tackle. Today all manner of specious objections are raised against it. It is said to imply a refusal to integrate. Why? Some of those wearing it were born here, speak fluent English in local accent, vote in elections, and are gainfully employed. How can the veil by itself gainsay the reality of their integration? And why must integration extend to dress? Is the sari a symbol of refusal to integrate? Sometimes it is argued that the veil is a symbol of patriarchy and gender subordination. It could be, but it might also be an act of choice, a protest against our sexually obsessed culture, or a way of scoring political points or establishing one's religious superiority. Even when it signifies patriarchy, the latter is not going to disappear simply by removing the veil. It could easily find less visible forms of expression.
If we are not careful, we might generate a moral hysteria that could have disastrous consequences for all of us. Large sections of Muslims could feel deeply stigmatised, unfairly targeted, alienated and turn inward or worse. Other communities might wonder what differences would be picked on and whether it is their turn next time. And the wider society might build up an insatiable and destructive spirit of intolerance.
While building on the valid elements of the 1976 settlement, we need to revise it in the light of the changes occurring in our society. We need to appreciate and applaud the remarkable efforts large sections of our ethnic minorities have made to integrate, and build up the trust and goodwill that entitles us to urge them to make greater efforts in directions where we think they have not done enough.
