In: The Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, February 9th, 2011, page 12
“Multiculturalism has failed,” said David Cameron last weekend in
Munich. If anybody thought they had read those words before, it is because they have. Many times. Last October German Chancellor Angela Merkel (sitting onstage with Prime Minister Cameron when he gave his speech on Saturday) pronounced a similar epitaph. Finally even Europe’s mainstream party leaders seem too be realizing what others have long seen: that multiculturalism has been the most pernicious and divisive policy pursued by Western governments since World War II. Multiculturalism is a deeply misunderstood idea. That was one of the reasons for its political success. At the heart of that success was the fact that people were led to believe that “multiculturalism” meant multi-racialism , or pluralism. I did not. Nevertheless, for years anybody who criticized multiculturalism was immediately decried as a “racist”. As a silencing tactic it proved devastatingly effective. But the true character and effects of the policy could not be permanently hidden. State-sponsored multiculturalism treated European countries like hostelries – and pretty open ones at that. It judged that the state should not “impose” rules and values on new-comers. Rather, it should bend over backwards to accommodate the demands of immigrants. The resultant policy was that states treated and judged people by the criteria of whatever ”community” they found themselves born into. In Britain, for instance, this meant that if you were a white English girl born into a white English family and your family decided to marry you against your will to a randy old pervert, the state would intervene. But if you had the misfortune to be born into an “Asian-background” family and the same happened, then the state would look the other way. “That’s what these people do, don’t you know? It’s their custom.” In 1984 a British school principal in Bradford called Ray Honeyford politely suggested in an article in the Salisbury Review that it might be a good idea if students at his state-funded school were able to speak English and did not disappear to Pakistan for months at the time. The result was a siren of accusations of “racism”, which willfully ignored his arguments and precipitated the end of his career. The multicultural model may have continued a lot longer if it hadn’t been for radical Islam. The terrorist assaults and plots across Britain and the Continent – often from home-grown extremists – finally provided a breaking- point that few sentient people could ignore. The question now is what can be done. The elegies should be for a failed policy. But if they are not followed up with action, they will be eulogies of a failed society. In his speech in Munich, Mr. Cameron rightly focused on the problem of home-grown Islamic extremism of the violent and non-violent kind. He stressed several preliminary steps – among them that groups whose values are opposed to those of the state will no longer bestowed with taxpayer money. It is a symptom of how low we have sunk that ceasing to fund our societies’ opponents would constitute an improvement. But this is a first, not a final policy. The fact is that Britain, Germany, Holland and many other European countries have nurtured more than one generation of citizens who seem to feel no loyalty toward their country and who, on the contrary, often seem do despise it. Reversing this will require political guts. The way forward is two-pronged. The first is that from school-age upward our society must reassert a shared national narrative – including a common national culture. Some years ago the German Muslim writer Bassam Tibi coined the term “Leitkultur” – core culture – to describe this. It is the most decent and properly liberal antidote to multiculturalism. It concedes that in societies that have had high immigration there are all sorts of different cultures and ideas that can contribute to a society, but it will only work if they are united under a common theme. The second solution will be harder to enact because many people will portray it negatively. The Muslim communities that Mr. Cameron focused on will not reform themselves. The response of just about every allegedly “moderate” Muslim group in Britain to the prime minister’s speech was to angrily deny his claims and then change the subject. This means the British government will have to step in to provide clear guideline as to what our society will and will not accept. It will have to shut down and prosecute terrorist and extremist organizations, and charities. There are groups that are banned in the U.S. but can do still operate with charitable status in the U.K. Clerics and other individuals who come from abroad to preach hate and division should be deported – whether Strasbourg approves or not. Meanwhile, organizations and individuals who work actively against the state should be prosecuted. Sedition and treason against Britain has practically been encouraged in recent years. This will have to change. Will David Cameron managed to do any of this? There is reason to be skeptical. In the wake of the 2005 tube and bus bombings in London – attacks carried out by British-born Muslims – Tony Blair announced that “the rules of the game are changing.” They proceeded to stay exactly the same. It is possible that Mr. Cameron will show more political courage. If he does he will undoubtedly be lambasted by the defenders of multiculturalism. He will also become a leader of significance. If he doesn’t, then future generations may well associate him with Munich. But it will not be for Saturday’s speech; it will be with a previous prime minister who also went to that city and who returned with an honor that proved deeply temporary.
Mr. Murray is the director of London’s Center for Social Cohesion.