Naila

Multiculturalism
"Ethnic diversity" redirects here. Thus some aspects of this article concern ethnic diversity.\
Multiculturalism is a public policy approach for managing cultural diversity in a multiethnic society, officially stressing mutual respect and tolerance for cultural differences within a country's borders.
As a policy, multiculturalism emphasizes the unique characteristics of different cultures, especially as they relate to one another in receiving nations. The word was first used in 1957 to describe Switzerland, but came into common currency in Canada in the late 1960s. It quickly spread to other English-speaking countries.
Official multiculturalism
Multiculturalism can also be a prescriptive term which describes government policy.
In dealing with immigrants groups and their cultures, there are essentially four approaches-
Monoculturalism: In most Old World nations, notably with the exception of the UK, culture is very closely linked to nationalism, thus government policy is to assimilate immigrants These countries have policies aiming at the social integration of immigrant groups to the national culture. This is typical of nations that define themselves as one and indivisible and do not recognize the existence of other nations within their midst.
Leading Culture (German: Leitkultur): This societal model has been developed in Germany by the orientalist Bassam Tibi. In his book 'Europa ohne Identität' ('Europe with no identity'), communities within a country can have an identity of their own, but they at least support the core concepts of the leading culture on which a society is based. In the West these concepts are democracy, separation of church and state, Enlightenment, civil society.

Melting Pot: In the United States the traditional view has been one of a melting pot where all the immigrant cultures are mixed and amalgamated without state intervention. However, many states have different language policies within the union. Immigrants maintain their own culture and family background while also becoming Americans.

Multiculturalism: In comparison to the above two approaches, multiculturalism is a view, or policy, that immigrants, and others, should preserve their cultures with the different cultures interacting peacefully within one nation. Today, this is the official policy of Canada, Australia and the UK. However, contrasting views on the Australian model articulate a fundamental shift that identifies a singular homogenised culture derived from a heterogenous society. Multiculturalism has been described as preserving a "cultural mosaic" of separate ethnic groups, and is contrasted to a "melting pot" that mixes them. This has also been described as the "salad bowl" model.

No country falls completely into one, or another, of these categories. For example, France has made efforts to adapt French culture to new immigrant groups, while Canada still has many policies that work to encourage assimilation.
Some, such as Diane Ravitch, use the term multiculturalism differently, describing both the melting pot, and Canada's cultural mosaic as being multicultural and refers to them as pluralistic and particularist multiculturalism. In her terminology, pluralistic multiculturalism views each culture or subculture in a society as contributing unique and valuable cultural aspects to the whole culture. Particularist multiculturalism is more concerned with preserving the distinctions between cultures.

Origins

Multiculturalism became incorporated into official policies in several nations in the 1970s for reasons that varied from country to country.

In Canada, it was adopted in 1971 following the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, a government body set up in response to the grievances of Canada's French-speaking minority (concentrated in the Province of Quebec). The report of the Commission advocated that the Canadian government recognize Canada as a bilingual and bicultural society and adopt policies to preserve this character. Biculturalism was attacked from many directions.
Progressive Conservative Party leader John Diefenbaker saw multiculturalism as an attack on his vision of unhyphenated Canadianism. It did not satisfy the growing number of young francophones who gravitated towards Quebec nationalism. While many Canadians of British descent disliked the new policies of biculturalism and official bilingualism, the strongest opposition to biculturalism came from Canadians of neither English nor French descent, the so-called "Third Force" Canadians. Biculturalism did not accord with local realities in the western provinces, where the French population was tiny compared to other groups such as the Ukrainian Canadians, the group that was arguably most important in modifying the policy of biculturalism. To accommodate these groups, the formula was changed from "bilingualism and biculturalism" to "bilingualism and multiculturalism."
The Liberal Party government of Pierre Trudeau promulgated the “Announcement of Implementation of Policy of Multiculturalism within Bilingual Framework” in the House of Commons on 8 October 1971, the precursor of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act which received Royal Assent on 21 July 1988. Symbolically, this legislation affirmed that Canada was a multicultural nation. On a more practical level, federal funds began to be distributed to ethnic groups to help them preserve their cultures. Projects typically funded included folk dancing competitions and the construction of community centres. This led to criticisms that the policy was actually motivated by electoral considerations. After its election in 1984, the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney did not reverse these policies, although they had earlier been criticized by Tories as inconsistent with "unhyphenated Canadianism." This policy has been supported by every subsequent government and was added to Canada's 1982 constitution, in section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Implementation
Around the world, important government multicultural policies can include:
• dual citizenship
• government support for newspapers, television, and radio in minority languages
• support for minority festivals, holidays, and celebrations
• acceptance of traditional and religious dress in schools, the military, and society in general support for arts from cultures around the world
• programs to encourage minority representation in politics, education, and the work force

While multiculturalist policies are sometimes seen as opposing cultural assimilation, the policies of countries such as Canada do support structural assimilation. Immigrant groups are encouraged to participate in the larger society, learn the majority languages, and enter the labour force.

Multiculturalism (or ethnic diversity) relates to communities containing multiple cultures. The term is used in two broad ways, either descriptively or normatively.[1] As a descriptive term, it usually refers to the simple fact of cultural diversity: it is generally applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place, sometime at the organizational level, e.g. schools, businesses, neighbourhoods, cities, or nations. As a normative term, it refers to ideologies or policies that promote this diversity or its institutionalisation; in this sense, multiculturalism is a society “at ease with the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit.”Such ideologies or policies vary widely, including country to country, ranging from the advocacy of equal respect to the various cultures in a society, to a policy of promoting the maintenance of cultural diversity, to policies in which people of various ethnic and religious groups are addressed by the authorities as defined by the group they belong to. However, two main different and seemingly inconsistent strategies have developed through different Government policies and strategies:The first focuses on interaction and communication between different cultures. Interactions of cultures provide opportunities for the cultural differences to communicate and interact to create multiculturalism. (Such approaches are also often known as interculturalism.) The second centers on diversity and cultural uniqueness. Cultural isolation can protect the uniqueness of the local culture of a nation or area and also contribute to global cultural diversity.[citation needed] A common aspect of many policies following the second approach is that they avoid presenting any specific ethnic, religious, or cultural community values as central.
Multiculturalism is often contrasted with the concepts of assimilationism and has been described as a "salad bowl" or "cultural mosaic" rather than a "melting pot".
Multiculturalism is often contrasted with the concepts of assimilationism and has been described as a "salad bowl" or "cultural mosaic" rather than a "melting pot". Multiculturalism...is a theory (albeit vague) about the foundations of a culture rather than a practice which subsumes cultural ideas. (Harrison, 1984)

Looked at broadly, the term is often used to describe societies (especially nations) which have many distinct cultural groups, usually as a result of immigration. This can lead to anxiety about the stability of national identity, yet can also lead to cultural exchanges that benefit the cultural groups. Such exchanges range from major accomplishments in literature, art and philosophy to relatively token appreciation of variations in music, dress and new foods.

On a smaller scale, the term can also be used to refer to specific districts in cities where people of different cultures co-exist. The actions of city planners can result in some areas remaining monocultural, often due to pressure groups active in the local political arena, or indeed the direct actions of these pressure groups or societies general prejudices such as racism or homophobia. Monocultural districts can often be referred to, positively or negatively, as ghettos. Gay ghettos may be a positive force for some, but quite obviously, other forms of ghetto like those created by the Nazis or those in South Africa during the Apartheid Era are not.
Criticisms
There have been many criticisms of official multiculturalism from both the left and right. Criticisms come from a variety of perspectives, including the democratic, feminist, capitalist, nationalist, chauvinist, separatist, racialist and xenophobic.
Criticisms of multiculturalism in general
Critics charge that one of the dangers of pursuing multicultural social policies is that social integration and cultural assimilation can be held back. This can potentially encourage economic disparities and an exclusion of minority groups from mainstream politics. However, policies that facilitate racially proportional representation, district as opposed to at-large local elections, and the accommodation of bilingualism in the voting both are claimed to do precisely the opposite: they may encourage political participation and increase minority representation in local and national political life. On the other hand, democracy can only work if there is a public debate. The fragmentation of society in several linguistic factions would ultimately lead to the loss of public debate and democratic unity. It is exactly this fragmentation that makes many doubt the viability of a democratic European Union.

One of the most forceful critics of multiculturalism was Ayn Rand, who feared the world-wide ethnic revival of the late 1960s would lead to an ethnic Balkanization destructive to modern industrial societies. Her philosophy considered multiculturalism and monoculturalism to be culturally determinist collectivism (i.e., that individual human beings have no free choice in how they act and are conditioned irreversibly by society). Philosophically, Rand rejected this form of collectivism on the grounds that: 1) it undermines the concept of free will, and 2) the human mind (according to her philosophy) is a tabula rasa at birth. But it is also true that the human mind is born without any culture, and that in nearly all societies attempt to condition their citizens culturally. What is distinct about multiculturalism is the assertion of an identity, aside from the nationally imposed identity, allowing for individuals within minority cultures to exercise more free choice than they otherwise would in a universalist society.
In her 1999 essay, later expanded into an anthology, "Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?" the feminist and political theorist Susan M. Okin argues that a concern for the preservation of cultural diversity should not overshadow the discriminatory nature of gender roles in many traditional minority cultures, that, at the very least, "culture" should not be used as an excuse for rolling back the women's rights movement. Literature by prominent minority women authors such as Toni Morrison and Maxine Hong Kingston can be both critiques of the traditional majority and minority cultures, as well as articulate exponents of a multicultural vision.

One of the most articulate and careful recent critics of multiculturalism is the political theorist Brian Barry, who argues from the liberal left in his 2002 book "Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism" that some forms of multiculturalism can divide people when they need to unite in order to fight for social justice.

Another more recent and conservative criticism, based largely upon the Nordic and Canadian experience, is presented by the administrative scientist Gunnar K. A. Njalsson, who views multiculturalism as a utopian ideology with a simplistic and overly optimistic view of human nature, the same weakness he attributes to communism, anarchism, and many strains of liberalism. Some variants of multiculturalism, he believes, may equip non-egalitarian cultural groups with power and influence. This, in turn, may alter the values system of the larger society. This realist criticism of multiculturalism maintains that in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the US, multiculturalism may aggravate a situation where old-stock families do not consider themselves as English, French, Scandinavian, etc., while newer arrivals can claim two or more national identities. This is not borne out by the historical record. Fears that minorities in the US or Canada will have divided loyalties have been a canard, for example, to intern Japanese-Americans during World War II. In fact native-born ethnic and religious minorities in North America have high rates of out-marriage and participate fully in their country of birth. They tend to identify culturally but not politically with the home of their forbears. The potential struggle to alter societal values is a concern mainly in European countries with monocultural policies, where religious and ethnic minorities are politically and socially marginalized, a condition that can reinforce fundamentalist strains in any culture.

If, however, cultural communities do not support the basic values of multiculturalism, such as the pluralistic freedom of religion, and are merely interested in their particular exercition of that right, the multicultural system can blow up itself; orthodox Muslims in Europe may not accept freedom of religion when it comes to non-Muslims, but do call upon that freedom when they wish to build a mosque or when they desire to wear head-scarf’s in public service. Multiculturalism thus fails to consolidate its own values.

Multiculturalism as cooptation into structures of white power
Anti-racists of a Marxist theoretical perspective view white supremacy as a system that stems from an internalized form of imperialism—that is, exploitation of other races for the accumulation of capital in the homeland. When racism is thus analyzed as a problem of political economy, the logical response is to tear down its structural foundations—that is, imperialism.

Multiculturalism stands in the way of such agenda, because it implies that the grounds for racism in society are not economic, but cultural or ideological. Ironically, a contradictory view asserts that the pursuit of particularist multiculturalism is somehow apartheid by another name.

Karachi and the failure of Pakistan’s multi-culturalism

The martial tradition of the Pakistani Army failed and the ‘’Islamization’’ drive of Zia which was the martial tradition merging with clerical power also failed . What did these processes fail at? They failed at creating some coherent narrative of Pakistani citizenship that was pluralistic and open enough to absorb the different ethnic, linguistic and indeed tribal affiliations of the Pakistani citizenry.
State sponsored Islam (which in itself is quite unprecedented within the body of Islamic history and literature) has not created any form of universal Pakistani citizenship.
The Karachi conflict is the result of decades long alienation, mistrust and hatred towards different linguistic-ethnic groups that has never been resolved but brushed under the carpet. The martial tradition never engaged with it and there was a lazy and naive presumption that ‘’Islam’’ as instituted by Zia’s rule would quash any sort of quarrel.
Conflict arises not because there is diversity but when society is unable to deal with pluralism. Conflict arises not because people hold different opinions but because people are unable to tolerate different opinions. Difference itself is never the cause of conflict but the inability to reconcile difference, to respect it and to cherish it is the root cause of conflict.
The lazy slogans of the Islamist parties in Pakistan deliberately try to confuse these issues. They deliberately try to portray ‘difference’ itself, be it ethnic or religious as the cause of conflict and gain much support by talking of an imagined, mythic, homogeneous and utopian Islamic identity. The result has been that in the words of AbdolKarim Soroush the Iranian philosopher, “the Islam of identity” has overruled and quashed the, “Islam of truth”. Increasingly, appeals to an “Islamic identity” are becoming the normative justification for resistance to human rights legislation in Pakistan rather than reasoned debate on Scripture, ethics and theology.
But the Karachi conflict itself was always a time bomb waiting to happen.
Pakistan has never resolved the issue of pluralism and diversity. In essence, Pakistan suffers as much from a failure of ‘’multiculturalism’’ as it does from a failure of religious tolerance. We associate ‘’multiculturalism’’ as some sort of political development in Western societies but Pakistanis should also now grapple with this idea as a means to resolve conflict. Indeed multiculturalism is nowadays associated with the racial and religious tensions that engulf the main urban areas of European cities. It has become fashionable for European politicians to curry favour from the far right by smashing the idea of multiculturalism. Successively from David Cameron to Angela Merkel, European leaders have literally queued up to herald the failure of multiculturalism.
The European experience may not be encouraging but multiculturalism itself as an idea of coexistence and pluralism is worth defending. The policies and structural implementation can be debated of course but the idea itself is valid. Also critics of European multiculturalism fail to notice the other relative successes of the idea in fostering harmony. Pakistan needs its own distinct brand of multiculturalism now more than ever.
The choice of whether one is a “Pakistani” or a member of a particular ethnicity is a false choice. Having said that, in modern nation states, there is no one ‘’national community’’ instead we have many communities that are defined by the ties of faith, tradition, ethnicity or language. These differences can never be dismantled or eroded – this is the reality. But they can be resolved and you can foster an ethic of respect and pluralism, but politicians of each of the three political parties (MQM and ANP and to a certain extent the PPP) have to set an example. The underhand politics of each these parties have set fire to this deadly conflict.
This will require Pakistanis to radically rethink the role of the State. The State should not be ”large” in terms of imposing a particular code of morality, faith or identity. The State should now be reconsidered as a legal mediator that can broker agreement between different groups – this is one point of what it means to be a ”secular state”.
Then there is the issue of authority. Do the ethnic groups that form the bulk membership of the ANP, PPP and MQM believe that these parties represent their grievances and worries? Is it right that a political party should be the exclusive authority of representation for a particular cultural community? Are we not by assuming a single political party represents a particular community putting those people in a rigid ideological box and hence removing any possibility of dialogue?
We have become so obsessed with religion that we have forgotten cultural rivalries and cultural sectarianism that is politically mobilized by parties such as the MQM, PPP, and ANP. The collective cultural identity that encompasses ethnicity and language has become a political weapon that provides the underlying foundations for the logic of the ensuing political violence.
In my opinion the religious turmoil in Pakistan is a symptom, rather than a cause of the current crisis. Religious extremism and radicalism has been a response to the failure of developing a robust working democratic system that upholds liberal rights and abides by the parameters of the constitution. The constant interference of the Army has disrupted the political process and in many ways due to its action in Baluchistan merely fuel the ethnic roots of Pakistan’s crisis.
The Taliban according to the reading of some scholars purports to be a Pashtun nationalist movement although it should be said that many within that ethnic community have vehemently opposed the Taliban and have some have lost their lives as well in the process. It should be remembered that Pakistan’s crisis has always been the inability to resolve provincial and ethnic tensions and that religious extremism is merely a response to these failures.
The failure to create a platform or some sort of public space where members of different ethnic communities can discuss their issues without fear of retribution or with a sense of deep mistrust and hostility has created a state of paralysis in Karachi.
We need to hear the voices of sanity from the different ethnic and linguistic communities caught up amongst this ruthless political violence.
Multiculturalism in Pakistan

The threat of extremism in Pakistan is as old as the history of the country. Since the creation of Pakistan on August 14, 1947 till today, the country has been exposed to political, religious, sectarian, social class, language and gender extremism which over the years has grown and acquired a violent and radicalized character. As a result, the country has experienced the worst form of political violence and acts of terrorism in the last three decades.

The failure of the state of Pakistan in effectively dealing with the menace of extremism and militancy can be traced to lingual, ethnic, sectarian and religious controversies. These controversies have not only caused the deepening of societal polarization but also aggravated its economic predicament.

Pakistan can successfully cope with the challenge of controversies associated with multiculturalism and multilingualism if it follows a three pronged approach. First, purge the society of elements who propagate hate and intolerance based on language, ethnicity and religion. This would require the silent majority to wake up and play a proactive role in neutralizing groups who use religion, language or ethnicity for their vested interests. Second, state institutions, should also be purged of extremist elements among them with whose unspoken support of specific languages and ethnic groups lead to provincial (ethnic) and/or lingual biases. Third, social and economic issues which are based on language and cultural barriers must be seriously addressed by the state and society because an indifferent approach would only deepen frustration and anger. The sooner these challenges are understood and dealt with in a serious manner, the better it will be for the future generations of Pakistan.

The Pakistani nation as a whole need to encourage robust economic and commercial activities which discourage those elements who want to exploit ethnic, linguist and religious sentiments of people for the fulfilment of their ulterior motives. People need to have access to the basic necessities of life and at the same time encouraging talent, merit, enterprise, motivation and challenge to ensure productivity and growth. This approach will act as a deterrent against extremist groups because the bulk of the people enjoy quality of life and reject the notion of radicalization. Pakistan needs to embrace upon the politics of pluralism and the value of modern capitalism in its economic pursuits.

The State of Pakistan needs to encourage the process of nation-building by promoting language, ethnic and religious harmony. When all the citizens of a country are provided equal opportunities and there is no discrimination on the basis of race or religion, the task of nation-building becomes easier. State policies of Pakistan should provide no space to groups trying to promote extremism and chaos in society. In order to manage lingual, provincial, ethnic and religious harmony in the country; intelligence and security agencies need to embark on a policy of neutralizing elements by monitoring their activities and detaching them from the mainstream population.

Another important component of the fight against the divide of multiculturalism and multilingualism is education. Education enables people to liberate themselves from the trap of dogmas, intolerance and social divide. Relevant, quality education is the most effective instrument to improve quality of life and self-governance. Education seeks to focus on the mind to be discerning, able to decide what is right and what is needed for self and social improvement. Along with better education, social mobilization and community work to effectively and together to deal with extremism, intolerance and radicalization based on specific culture or language, pursuing an approach which encourages multiculturalism and multilingualismis also required.
Cross cultural, lingual and religious identities in Pakistan need to be used as a source of strength rather than a weakness so as to promote merit, multilingualism and multiculturalism. The success of the country in managing numerous challenges will be in its leadership and the policies which are aimed at the welfare of the people rather than the interests of a certain class, group or province.

The most important source to counter the controversies of multiculturalism and multilingualism is the existence of a strong, competent and honest leadership which can deal with fault lines in governance, economy and politics. Today, Pakistan needs a leadership which is clear, perceptive, courageous and focused to defeat the forces of extremism in the society with confidence. But if the leadership remains indifferent, insensitive, weak and confused on tackling the threat of multiculturalism and multilingualism, the outcome may be further radicalization of society.
The leadership has to encourage grass-root activities at the community level to promote tolerance and harmony which would greatly help marginalize extremist groups. The challenge of extremism in Pakistan can be effectively handled if the leadership is able to pursue a professional approach in dealing with the menace of extremism in multiculturalism and multilingualism