Why is Paris burning?

Multiculturalism has been described as a policy of maintaining the cultural mosaic of various ethnic groups and though was initially conceived as an idea in Switzerland, really came into its own when countries with a large number of new immigrants, like Canada and Australia, adopted it after the 1960s. These countries wanted to make newly arrived groups feel comfortable and assured that their cultures would not be overwhelmed by the dominant  populations, which were mainly white, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant.

Gradually Britain and much of Europe also followed suit. But this “policy of unquestioning tolerance of cultural differences,” as it has also been called, also had a special resonance in the European context, where any suggestion of assimilation was deemed to imply a cultural superiority a la the Nazis, and therefore unacceptable.

Thus so-called “ethnic” immigrants, i.e. non-white and non-Anglo-Protestants, ranging from Chinese to Poles, Indians to Ukrainians were encouraged to celebrate their cultures with the state pitching in with subsidies. A kind of affirmative action was also institutionalised and employers were encouraged to go in for diversity, though of course this word takes in not only ethnicity, but also colour and sexual orientation. Despite right-wing criticism that such policies discourage merit and pander to minorities — shades of the pseudo-secular argument — countries such as Canada, Australia and Britain and persisted with official multiculturalism and declared it by and large successful.

Not all of Europe, where the idea of the nation-state was born, bought into this idea. In Germany, xenophobia is never far away from the surface, hundreds of thousands of even second generation Turks were never made citizens. German society always hoped that they would one day go away and their name for the Turks — gastarbeiters (guest workers) — reflected that.

The other country to desist from — indeed, detest — the multicultural model was France. For France, identity did not centre around keeping culture alive or assimilation into the national mainstream; it meant subscribing to certain French values embodied in the tenets of the Revolution — “Liberty, Fraternity and Equality”. Thus anybody could become French, as long as they believed in this notion of Republicanism. France took many immigrants from its former colonies, especially from Algeria and several African and Arab countries and refrained from providing any state help to uphold their unique cultures. Au contraire, it frowned on any display of cultural “separateness,” as was evident from the banning of the hijab (and, it may be pointed out, the turban, the crucifix and several other overt religious symbols) from state-run schools.

All of this sounds noble and egalitarian, but in practice, France’s non-white populations have found that they have the worst of both worlds. They have neither benefited from any affirmative action, which would guarantee them some jobs, nor managed to merge with the national social, cultural, political and most important, economic mainstream. Many of them live in high-rise ghettos with pathetic living conditions and high unemployment (though the underclass also includes poor whites).

It is in housing projects such as these that the present riots in France began about two weeks ago, following the deaths of two teenagers who got accidentally electrocuted. The suburbs and even the centre of Paris — and now many more cities in France — have been in the throes of continued violence which has seen property worth millions destroyed in fires.

France is trying to come to terms with this outburst, which is not only the culmination of years of frustration among the Arab and African poor, but is seriously testing the country’s integration model.

Britain, which has also been at a loss to balance its multiculturalism and its alienated minorities, appears to be asking itself some fundamental questions about identity. It has launched a drive to inculcate “Britishness” in its new citizens. From now on, aspirants for citizenship will have to answer questions ranging from women’s rights to regional accents — to qualify. This is presumably to make them feel part of a larger group, though how this will help in uplifting economic status is far from clear.

The challenge before France, Britain and other western countries is to first of all understand that no amount of good intentions by themselves will help “ethnic” minorities to break into the essentially tightly knit and parochial “mainstream”, where racism operates in sometimes subtle and often overt ways. Then there is the question of a cultural identity itself — does it deserve the importance accorded to it? It’s all very well to have a few exotic restaurants and cultural festivals, but can they become a substitute for the real thing — jobs, shelter and above all respect? Both the models are under threat because these basic issues have not been fully tackled. Even after the riots are controlled, those questions will not go away.