To what extent does multiculturalism in developed liberal democracies adequately address the issue of religious diversity?

Résumé du document

In recent years diversity in developed liberal democracies has deeply increased. Indeed, in European countries, as in America or in Australia many migrants came to work. Whereas the first migration movements happened within Western countries (e.g. many Italians and Poles came to France to work in the mines), new migrants arriving from the 1950s were mainly from other continents, generally coming from former colonies of Western countries. Contrary to the first wave of migrants, those one are marked by very different cultures, way of life and religion. For example, Great Britain welcomed Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs coming from its former colonies, India and Pakistan. As a result, developed liberal democracies had to find political responses to address this diversity and in particular the religious diversity. Each country adopted its own model and strategy. In this context, the discourse of multiculturalism has focused the intention of many politicians. As Radtke notices, multiculturalism is a "diffused concept" that has traveled the world over from its North American origins in Canada and the United States in the early 1970s, to Western and eventually Eastern Europe, and to Australia and India (Radtke, 2001).

Extraits

[...] Later, growing numbers of political refugees and asylum seekers with sometimes different religious faith increased the religious diversity in Western Europe. As a result, since the 1990s, religious movements of immigrants but also the presence of ‘non-traditional' sects, cults and other are real challenges for the nation, one state' model in Western countries (Madeley p.2). Three basic European responses to the arrival of immigrant ethnic minorities in the post-1945 period were to be observed. The first assimilationism was most strongly affirmed in France and aimed at transforming the immigrants in citizens sharing the values of the states. [...]

[...] Multiculturalism an adequate address to the issue of religious diversity A. Origin, definition and goals of multiculturalism Multiculturalism, both as an ideology and as a political and educational program has arisen in North America in the 1980s. It took different forms in the US and in Canada. In Canada, it was an expansion of the narrow notion that Canada was a bilingual and bicultural country, made up of Anglophones and Francophones. Multiculturalism had to include as well the Indigenes as the immigrants who felt excluded from the definition of Canada as bicultural. [...]

[...] However, it is also important to underline, that it would neither be a good solution to completely reform the French assmilationist system into a pure multiculturalist one because French people are very attached to the secularity of their country. Actually, each state must evaluate what are the best solutions to deal with the religious diversity. Thus, France, whereas keeping its assimilationist model, has adopted some multicultural policies to satisfy some of the demands of its Muslim population (the biggest one in Europe with almost 4 millions). For example, an exception has been made to the principle of the law of the separation of the State and the Church, due to the financing of Mosques by the state. [...]

[...] These ‘parallel societies' have been seen as the reason for the lack of social cohesion and for the tensions in the developed democracies and some have even seen them as the basis where terrorist organisations has flourished in Western countries. As a result one should wonder to what extent does multiculturalism in developed liberal democracies adequately address the issue of religious diversity. In a first part, I will analyse the evolution of the societies in liberal democracies which have become multicultural and what are the challenges resulting from this change. Then, I will describe how multiculturalism has until yet adequately address the religious diversity and its limits. [...]

[...] This also shows that a state is never purely multiculturalist, assimilationist or differentialist, it adopts a set of policies more or less close from the model it is following. As a result, I would argue that, religious diversity must be addressed state by state and not only at the state level but also at the local level as the success of the “Leicester model” suggests (Singh, 2003). I would also recommend that policies try to promote a more intercultural citizen to find a real equilibrium in the society. [...]