Significant difference? A comparative analysis of multicultural policies in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands 9789048521500

Citation preview

Significant Difference?

Significant Difference?

1

2

Significant Difference?



Significant Difference?

Significant Difference? A comparative analysis of multicultural policies in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands Laura Coello With an introduction by Baukje Prins

ant Amsterdam, 2010

3

4

Significant Difference?

ISBN 978 90 5260 385 8 © Copyright 2010 Laura Coello All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, by photoprint, microfilm or any other means, nor transmitted into a machine language without written permission from the publisher. Cover design: studio Frits van Hartingsveldt Typesetting: Ellen Bouma Amsterdam University Press, Herengracht 221, 1016 BG Amsterdam, The Netherlands. www.aup.nl



Significant Difference?

On either side of the Channel Introduction Baukje Prins

On the 4th of May 2002, The Economist published an extensive survey article on the Netherlands.1 Its findings were very positive. Regarding controversial issues like drugs, prostitution and euthanasia the Dutch approach had worked remarkably well. Its policies of toleration had resulted in quite effective programs of education, careful control and shared codes of conduct. The Dutch realized, the reporters of the British magazine approvingly observed, that ‘zero tolerance’ would only cause problematic practices to go underground, and that legalizing and regulating was a much wiser and prudent way of handling these contested issues. However, in spite of their ‘politically correct’ attitude towards ethnic minorities, the Dutch governing elite had never been prepared to acknowledge that the Netherlands had become an immigration country. Dutch society therefore was still at a loss when it came to dealing with the phenomenon of multiculturality. These observations were published at a time when a newcomer on the Dutch political scene, Pim Fortuyn, had reached the peak of his popularity. His warnings about the imminent danger of the ‘Islamization’ of the Netherlands and his insistence on the priority of freedom of speech over the principle of anti-discrimination fell on fertile ground. Only two days later Fortuyn was murdered, and the days of Dutch political correctness came to an abrupt standstill. In the next elections, the List Pim Fortuyn (LPF) received 17 percent of the votes, yielding 26 seats in parliament as well as participation in the new government coalition. Although the latter lasted only three months, since then a consistent part of the Dutch electorate sides with politicians who call for the revaluation Dutch identity and culture, and stricter measures regarding (Muslim) immigration and integration. Dutch rules and regulations are now among the most repressive in the EU, while the large following of Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party (PVV) is proof that the Dutch unease with the presence of Muslim immigrants has still not withered away.2

1 Peet (2002). 2 For an overview of this development in the Dutch public debate and policies, see Prins and Saharso (2010). pp. 72-91.

5

6

Significant Difference?

The Netherlands are surely not the only European country in which a backlash against multiculturalism has taken place. But nowhere did this turn seem to come more out of the blue than in the Netherlands. How did a country that seemed so relaxed and open suddenly turned into a nervous and inward-looking society? Many have attempted to unravel the Dutch enigma. Some argued that initially the Dutch were very willing to tolerate different ways of life even if they rejected them, but that the multiculturalist requirement to positively recognize these cultural practices was overdemanding.3 Another considered the shift to be the result of a conservative backlash against the liberal revolt of the sixties.4 A third claimed that the murders of Fortuyn and Van Gogh were social dramas’ that recalled painful moments in Dutch history accumulating into a cultural trauma.5 Or it was suggested that the Dutch suffered from ‘social hypochondria’, and that their obsessive talk about integration produced precisely that which it wished to undo, namely a gap between those who were already an (integrated) part of the social body, and those who were constituted as its ‘outside’.6 However interesting and thought provoking these various analyses may be, they focus exclusively on internal factors. But as ideologies and policies of multiculturalism have become the target of criticism in many Western immigration countries, it seems wise also to engage in some careful comparative research in order to solve the riddle why this global trend had such a different impact on different societies. The comparative research of long term developments in the UK and the Netherlands undertaken by Laura Coello in this book constitutes a fine example of such a project. Coello starts from the assumption that the (former) policies toward immigrant integration on either side of the Channel can be characterized as multiculturalist. But she refuses to take for granted the currently dominant claim that multiculturalism has failed. Instead she asks what the long term actual empirical effects of the British and Dutch policy lines have been. Her focus is on two areas in which both countries have been particularly active, i.e. the struggle against discrimination and the improvement of the position of immigrants on the labour market. Coello concludes that in the end the British have been more successful than the Dutch, mainly because British policy has remained quite coherent since the acceptance of the first Race Relations Act in 1965 and the introduction of affirmative action on the labour market 3 4 5 6

Sniderman and Hagendoorn (2007). Buruma (2006). Eyerman (2006). Schinkel (2008).



Significant Difference?

in the early 1980s. Dutch policies, on the other hand, were often short-term and short-lived because well-meaning initiatives were implemented in one period to be replaced by other measures in the next. Consequently, Dutch official policy lines were often not in accordance with what happened in everyday policy practices.7 This conclusion about the ambivalence of the Dutch approach is in remarkable resonance with the observation by The Economist eight years earlier that the Dutch did not know which way to turn when it came to handling multiculturality. For this, and many other reasons, Coello’s essay offers useful insights and food for discussion for all those in the Netherlands, the UK and elsewhere, who are seriously interested in empirical and normative questions concerning immigrant integration.

7 We noticed a similar discrepancy between the assimilatory tendency in the public debate on Muslim women and the pragmatic way in which practitioners in the field dealt with ethnic and cultural differences, see Prins and Saharso (2008).

7

8

Significant Difference?



Significant Difference?

Contents

Introduction.........................................................................................................11 1. The choice in policies: Assimilation, Integration and Multiculturalism....15 2. Multiculturalism........................................................................................... 21 2.1 Why Multiculturalism?........................................................................... 21 2.2 The ‘why nots’ of Multiculturalism....................................................... 23 3. Multiculturalism in practice........................................................................27 3.1 Multiculturalism in practice: United Kingdom ....................................27 3.2 Multiculturalism in practice: the Netherlands..................................... 34 4. Conclusion: Did Multiculturalism fail?.......................................................47 Bibliography.........................................................................................................51 Web sources..................................................................................................55 Appendices..........................................................................................................59 1: Main events in anti-discrimination legislation and policies..................59 2: Major Anti-Discrimination Agencies..................................................... 60 3: Legislation on Employment Equality...................................................... 61 4: Parties in government............................................................................. 61 Box 1: Description of UK Political Parties in government since the 1950s......62 Box 2: Description of Dutch Political Parties in government since the 1970s...63

9

10

Significant Difference?



Significant Difference?

Introduction

In Europe, nation-building has historically targeted national minorities, encouraging and sometimes forcing citizens of a territory to integrate into common institutions. But after the Second World War and especially in the 1970s, immigrants have become the target of these policies. Kymlicka differentiates between countries with minorities that have historically been part of the territory where a new state is formed (national minorities) and calls these countries multi-national states. Countries with diverse populations caused by foreign immigration are called poly-ethnic states. In reality, most multi-national states are also poly-ethnic states: the USA, Canada, Australia, Russia, Western European countries, along with countries which have recently experienced immigration. And while in the past there was a “link between the way European societies treat their immigrants and the way they treat their other minorities”,8 nowadays, the strategies chosen to deal with national minorities are generally different from those used for immigrants. This is due, in part, to the influence of Canada, Australia and the USA, where in the 1970s “under pressure from immigrant groups [the governments of these countries] rejected the assimilation model and adopted pluralistic policies that allowed and sometimes supported immigrants to maintain various aspects of their ethnic heritage.”9 In 1971, Canada was the first country to officially adopt multiculturalism10. Later on, some governments in Western Europe also adopted elements of this strategy, although most never officially. In most cases, multicultural ideology seeped into politics and became the normative view of politicians. In 1997 Nathan Glazer even suggested ‘we are all multiculturalists now’. Adopting multiculturalism would seem a natural choice for the governments of the Netherlands and the UK, as both countries were founded as national unions, acknowledging different communities as an integral part of the union. Yet with time, nation-building took place in both places: under the centralising tendencies of Henry VIII in the UK and through the revolts against Spanish rule in the Netherlands. But the effects of nation-building were diminished with and after empire, which saw both countries acquire territory alongside their present borders as well as overseas and then lose it 8 Runblom (1994). pp. 637. 9 Kymlicka (2000). pp. 152-153. 10 http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/multi/respect_e.cfm

11

12

Significant Difference?

again. It is therefore difficult to speak of nations, especially if we realise that only 40 years ago both countries had dominions and subjects of different ethnicities and places like Jamaica or India and Suriname or Indonesia with the right of citizenship (partial or full). Given this history, it is easy to see why in the 1990s the governments of both countries embraced multiculturalism. And it was during this period that both the Netherlands and the United Kingdom drafted specific legislation to outlaw (indirect or institutional) discrimination and instruments to increase equality between the native and foreign population in some socioeconomic areas, like the labour market. Today, multiculturalism seems to have been relegated to the past. With statements like “Multiculturalism suggests separateness and has ceased to be useful in modern Britain”11 in 2004 Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, the organisation responsible for overseeing multiculturalism, opened Pandora’s box and triggered a fierce debate on whether the UK should continue embracing multiculturalism as the preferred strategy to deal with diversity. Similarly, in the Netherlands the rise of politician Pim Fortuyn and the support won by his party in the 2002 elections resulted in a huge increase in anti-multicultural and assimilationist rhetoric. According to Veit Bader, “the retreat of Multicultural policies is neither an exclusively Dutch phenomenon (see Lithman for Norway, Bird for Denmark, Ricucci for Italy) nor an exclusively European one (Jakubowicz for Australia) though it might have happened here faster and, at least in political rhetoric, more drastically.”12 Yet, while in both countries anti-multicultural rhetoric is widespread, I doubt the legitimacy of the claim that multiculturalism failed. Even if multiculturalism has been declared dead, the manner in which it was embraced, its application and how it was judged may be very insightful and instructive in our present-day policies. A comparison between the strategies and policies chosen in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands seems relevant as, despite many common elements and choices taken in both countries, when analysing the strategies chosen to deal with diversity we see big differences in the choice of policies, their implementation and their outcomes. The different results are in part the reason why until recently the debate on multiculturalism was ongoing in the UK, with those arguing against multiculturalism, like David Goodhart, receiving many well-founded counter-arguments13. In the Netherlands, the few defenders of multiculturalism have been silenced 11 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3599925.stm 12 http://artsci.wustl.edu/~ppri/Workshop_Papers/BaderPaperonNetherlands.pdf 13 http://www.cceia.org/media/replies.pdf



Introduction

and many of the policies surviving the multicultural period14 replaced by an integrative strategy to deal with diversity. In view of the various interpretations of multiculturalism, I have chosen Will Kymlicka’s literature which initially (1995) proposes that, because of the effects of indirect discrimination, ‘strong’15 multiculturalism is needed for immigrants to have equal opportunities. However, I also refer to criticism on Kymlicka’s work, which is, I believe, at the core of the perception of the ‘failure’ of multiculturalism and of his shift from ‘strong’ to ‘weak’ multiculturalism. The main criticism is that, being a political philosopher, Kymlicka’s proposition and arguments for multiculturalism centre on the ideological and normative arguments behind multiculturalism. Most of the writings on the multiculturalism debate have focused on those two aspects of multiculturalism. It is the ideology and the normative choices of multiculturalism which formed the basis for various governments to choose multiculturalism as the preferred strategy for dealing with diversity. Yet the empirical side of the debate remains, in my view, unexplored: why did the governments choose this strategy? What aims and objectives did they want to achieve by implementing it? And based on those aims and objectives, did multiculturalism indeed fail? To answer these questions, the following structure will be used. Firstly, the concepts of assimilation, integration and multiculturalism will be presented and the differences between them will be explored. Other concepts used in this publication will also be addressed in this section. This theoretical introduction will be complemented by the historical background that enabled change from one strategy to the other. In section 2, the underlying premises of multiculturalism will be presented together with the main critiques for this strategy. In section 3, I will address the reasons why the UK and Dutch governments selected and implemented multiculturalism as well as the objectives they sought to achieve. Here the focus will be on antidiscrimination policies and labour market policies. On occasions, examples of other policies will be provided to complement an argument made, not as an additional area to be reviewed. In this section, I will also address the question: Did multiculturalism, based on the objectives set for this strategy, fail? The answer to this question, more than aiming to demonstrate that social changes result from specific policies, puts into play a set of arguments for public discussion on which further research could be done. To conclude, I 14 In his 2008 article “Nederland is nog volop multicultureel” Ruud Koopmans presents a series of practices that accommodate the identity of minorities in the public sphere and can, therefore, be categorised as multicultural. 15 Kukathas in http://economics.gmu.edu/pboettke/workshop/fall04/theoretical_foundations. pdf

13

14

Significant Difference?

will recapitulate the findings and provide reasons why this analysis is important in dealing with the challenges of diversity.



Significant Difference?

1. The choice in policies: Assimilation, Integration and Multiculturalism The definition of minority is not a simple one. Minorities can be defined in numerical terms or in the access of a group to economic and political power. The controversy is that in some cases when a group is officially defined ‘minority’, governments need to grant this group special attention, privileges, etc. Here, the term minority is used for immigrant groups (regardless of their number) and will therefore sometimes be replaced by the term ‘immigrants’. The ‘dominant’ group or society does not need to be native, as is the case in the USA, but in the case of the UK and the Netherlands it is. Therefore, the terms dominant, native or host society will be used. There is a wide array of methods that try to manage differences between groups, but the most cited ones are assimilation, integration and multiculturalism. Although obviously not a choice, neglect has had consequences, such as the alienation and separation of, in general, the minority groups. The differences are not eliminated, nor managed; newcomers are ignored and become (physically) separated groups. It has been practised in Germany and Spain, where it resulted in the development of parallel societies16. Often in debates, the differences between assimilation, integration and multiculturalism are vaguely understood. This blurred understanding is due to the fact that the strict application of one or the other strategy is virtually impossible and governments have often used assimilation but with many elements of integration or vice-versa. Theoretically, the difference lies in the possibility people have to manifest their differences in the private and the public sphere. The following table represents these 3 options more clearly. Table 1: Assimilation, Integration and Multiculturalism

Assimilation Integration Multiculturalism

Allowed to manifest different identities or cultures Private sphere Public sphere NO NO YES NO YES YES

Source: Bose, Sumantra. GV436 (National and Ethnic Conflict Regulation). Lecture, autumn 2007.

16 Gallis et al. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33166.pdf

15

16

Significant Difference?

Based on assimilation, which literally means “making alike”, policies are made to “try to erode the cultural differences between groups17” in the public and the private sphere. It aims to make the newcomer indistinguishable from the dominant host society. To try to achieve this, assimilation has sometimes been coercive as in the dealings of American newcomers with the Native Americans. In less coercive forms of assimilation, the use of a minority’s language and the expression of its culture in the public arena were either prohibited or frowned upon. In the public sphere, people had to manifest themselves according to the dominant culture. The natural result of well-enforced assimilation is acculturation: the newcomers or the minority assume the culture of the dominant ethnicity or group. Although assimilation was a widely used policy during the 20th century in the United States, Australia and France, it is increasingly seen as an unfeasible and unfair practice. The creation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which in “June 2004, all 191 Member States of the United Nations and one non Member State became party”,18 limited government’s powers over its citizens. By signing to it, governments commit themselves to ensure for “all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. [Additionally,] states in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language”.19 The UK adopted the ICCPR on 20 August 1976 and the Netherlands on 11 March 1979. By adhering to the ICCPR, both the UK and the Netherlands limited their choice of strategies to deal with diversity, integration and multiculturalism being two of the possible options. Policies of integration seek to bring people of various ethnic backgrounds closer by asserting one, common public identity or culture, yet allowing or tolerating manifestations of differences in the private sphere. The result of integration strongly depends on the policies used and the attitude of the host community. When the host community welcomes or allows the manifestations of differences, it can lead to fusion: the creation of a new identity emerging from the contact with elements from the various groups, but without purposely eliminating cultural differences. 17 Human Development Report (2004). pp. 48. 18 http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/report.pdf 19 ICCPR, Art. 4,1. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm



1. The choice in policies: Assimilation, Integration and Multiculturalism

However, in cases where these differences are only tolerated strictly in the private sphere, it may lead to acculturation, which will be needed for people to survive in the public spheres (be able to socialise, to get a job, to deal with authorities, to engage in politics, etc.). As the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union gave way to new states, minorities became a controversial issue in international relations. Around the same time, the European Economic Community started to redefine itself as a political union foreseeing enlargement. In the first five years of the 1990s, international and European organisations formulated important international standards which regulate the state’s conduct with regard to (national) minorities.20 In December 1992, the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. In 1994, the Council of Europe Framework adopted the Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. After discussing the Framework Convention for a decade, “the Netherlands eventually ratified the Framework Convention in December 2004”.21 It came into effect on 1 June 2005. The new agreements gave minorities increased visibility and enhanced people’s consciousness of human rights. By accepting that minorities had equal rights, policies which tried to keep the manifestation of differences outside the public sphere were discredited. Generally, legislation was reviewed to remove any ‘racist’ elements from it. But legal changes were not enough and scholars and human rights defenders went further. They tried to demonstrate how policies claiming to be colour-blind were implicitly serving the dominant group’s interest as they were “tilted towards the needs, interests and identities of the majority group; creating burdens, barriers, stigmatizations and exclusion for members of minority groups”.22 Adopting measures that address indirect discrimination, i.e. the unintentional results of majority dominated institutions, by actively compensating past disadvantages became accepted as fair and just. Some countries adopted policies which actively sought to eliminate provisions which might appear neutral, but in practice created disadvantages for minorities. With these schemes, the ideology of multiculturalism which acknowledges and supports the manifestation of different identities and cultural differences in both private and public spheres emerged. Despite the fact that multiculturalism had ‘been around’ since the 1970s, “in Europe, this term has no fixed definition, neither in daily political debate, 20 Jackson Preece (1997). pp. 345. 21 http://www.minbuza.nl/en/themes,human-rights/human-rights#a7 22 Kymlicka and Wayne (2000). pp. 4.

17

18

Significant Difference?

nor in cultural and scholarly discourse.”23 It is from 2000 onwards that attempts were made to understand multiculturalism not only as a normative concept, but as Gregor McLennan points out “as a full-fledged theoretical and evaluative perspective”.24 As a theoretical and evaluative perspective then, multiculturalism involves three aspects: an ideology, a normative aspect and what I propose to call the empirical application. The ideology proposes that diversity is both an individual right and a public good (more in Chapter 2). Normatively, it presupposes that a balance between the majority or dominant group and new communities will arise by making room for new communities and promoting solidarity to advance peaceful coexistence with people of different origins.25 Its empirical side − the choice of policies and instruments applied − aims at promoting this peaceful coexistence in practice (in some cases measured quantitatively in terms of equality) by eliminating discrimination that results from the operation of social structures and creates direct and indirect disadvantages for members of minority groups. The terminology chosen here is in line with that used in Patrick Simon’s ‘Comparative Study on the collection of data to measure the extent and impact of discrimination within the United States, Canada, Australia, GreatBritain and the Netherlands’. In his study, equality cannot be defined concretely as its content varies from country to country, but it presupposes that there is no significant difference in the distribution of resources and in the representation of minority groups in the labour market, education system, housing infrastructure, services, administrations, etc. when compared to the dominant group. Discrimination resulting from the spontaneous, unintended results of institutions and systems will be referred to as ‘indirect discrimination’. It is difficult for policy makers to choose one of the strategies available to them, more so since governments have responsibilities in both the national and international realm. While in theory a state is sovereign to choose rules and policies that reflect the will of its people, by voluntarily binding itself to treaties and agreements governments relinquish some of their powers to international institutions. By the 1990s most Western countries had consequently accepted diversity within their borders and by embracing the Copenhagen Criteria in 1993, the UK and the Netherlands had committed themselves to respecting and protecting minorities.26 Then, in the year 2000 the 23 Runblom (1994). pp. 624. 24 McLennan (2001). pp. 985. 25 Glazer (1997). pp. 159. 26 http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/enlargement_process/accession_process/criteria/index_ en.htm



1. The choice in policies: Assimilation, Integration and Multiculturalism

European Community enacted directives n° 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC which dictate that EU countries actively seek equal treatment of all persons by implementing a general framework that eliminates indirect discrimination and seeks equal treatment in employment and occupation.27 If multiculturalism is the strategy most in line with (inter)national agreements, why is it that nowadays only a few countries continue to embrace it as the main strategy to use when dealing with diversity, while many others reject it? The next section will answer this question by providing more insights into the ideology of multiculturalism, its normative interpretation and its empirical application, i.e. the policies that have been derived from it.

27 Simon (2004). pp. 6.

19

20

Significant Difference?



Significant Difference?

2. Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism was adopted gradually, providing policy makers with new instruments for dealing with diversity challenges. Only in some cases was multiculturalism adopted as an integral strategy resulting in a systematic review of legislation and followed up by a coherent set of policies and instruments. Even if it was not the official choice, by the end of the 1990s multiculturalism was a prominent strategy when dealing with diversity.

2.1 Why Multiculturalism? The ideology of multiculturalism is based on the Kantian principle of individual freedom to live by the rules and judgments of a person’s own conscience. The idea of individual freedom was developed further into theories of liberalism. Liberalism states that individuals have some fundamental freedoms and one of these is the liberty to explore and choose a concept of what is the ‘good life’. For this, two preconditions are needed: the freedoms and the resources. By freedom, it is meant that individuals should be able to choose between different concepts of the ‘good life’. They should be free to explore and adopt, leave and reconsider these different concepts. Hence, liberal governments should abstain from promoting a concept of ‘the good life’, restrain from enforcing morals and protect individual privacy. In many countries, these freedoms take the form of civil and human rights. By resources, it is meant that not only should different lifestyles and cultures exist. Governments should create the circumstances necessary for different cultures to exist so that individuals can explore, question and compare what they consider best for themselves in the light of other views. Protecting groups’ cultures, without allowing these groups to restrict individual’s choices even if they are part of the group,28 then becomes necessary. Both preconditions are equally important in an individual’s quest to find and adopt his/her own concept of the ‘good life’. Most liberal thinkers assume that those cultures that need to exist are those that develop within their own territory. Yet, immigration and increased exposure to foreign practices has widened the range of choices in which the ‘good life’ can be found and against which it can be evaluated “one could argue that a government 28 Kymlicka (1995). pp. 75.

21

22

Significant Difference?

policy which enabled (…) immigrants to re-create their own societal culture would benefit everyone, by enriching the whole society”.29 This is the main assertion of the ideology of multiculturalism and the reason why policy makers in liberal countries choose multiculturalism as the right strategy (the normative element) for dealing with diversity. This normative element has consequences for the empirical application. Kymlicka’s proposal links these two aspects by acknowledging that most liberal governments would not support the idea that immigrants should be allowed to recreate their own cultures in a foreign territory. One of the reasons for this is that when migrants leave their country voluntarily, they relinquish their cultural rights. Yet, Kymlicka argues, this does not mean that immigrants have no cultural or identity rights. These are recognised in the ICCPR and the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities and these rights should be respected by states party to these agreements. Therefore, in order to limit separateness but respect rights, Kymlicka argues, the common institutions into which migrants are to integrate need to provide the same respect and possibility to accommodate the identity of minorities as they provide to the majority group’s identity. “Otherwise, the insistence that immigrants integrate into the dominant group institutions is tantamount to privileging the interests and lifestyles of the descendants of the dominant group.”30 By adopting multiculturalism, measures are taken so that laws, institutions and organisations create equal opportunities for all members of society. The end result will be peaceful coexistence amongst diverse groups, as stressed by the normative side of multiculturalism. After identifying the different elements of multiculturalism, an operational definition needs to be given for the purpose of this analysis. Based on the ideology and the normative choices of ‘weak or integrative’ multiculturalism, multicultural policies in this analysis are those policies that respect the right of each individual to choose their own personal identity (be it cultural, religious, based on life-style, political convictions, etc), that explicitly recognise this individual right and that therefore provide space for individuals to manifest these identities in both the public and the private sphere. Multicultural policies do not, in any way, try to impose a ‘common’, ‘national’, ‘religious’ or normatively ‘right’ identity on individuals. On the contrary, multicultural policies are made with the intention to provide the same space for alternative identities and may, therefore, require the adjustment of existing institutions, norms and behaviours. 29 Kymlicka (1995). pp. 96. 30 Kymlicka (2000). pp. 162.



2. Multiculturalism

Yet, even though governments in liberal countries have agreed to the ICCPR and the Declaration for persons belonging to minorities and recognise that policies of multiculturalism could help achieve more equality for different members of society, why have they not adopted multiculturalism in the form proposed by Kymlicka; an integrative multiculturalism?

2.2 The ‘why nots’ of Multiculturalism Multiculturalism has received criticism from both policy makers and academia. One frequently expressed criticism is that multiculturalism is contrary to the nation-building exercises on which most existing states were based. Historically, through nation-building a particular (national) community is privileged. The chosen systems of laws, institutions, symbols and language(s) give preference and benefit one group at the expense of another, whether intentionally or unintentionally. It is thus believed, that allowing a minority community to maintain their own distinct culture through multiculturalism indirectly gives them the opportunity to create their own nationalist movements which might become separatist. Kymlicka’s counterargument is realistic. He acknowledges that strong multiculturalism, which proposes that different cultures should be recreated and fully preserved as originally as possible, is neither practical nor feasible. His 1995 book hints at ‘strong’ multiculturalism (where he talks about multicultural citizenship). Yet by the year 200031 he speaks of multicultural integration, the ‘weak’ multiculturalism. Nevertheless, in both proposals multiculturalism has little in common with nation-building pursued by national minorities. On the contrary, if we disagree that immigrants should preserve their distinct cultures or become segregated from the dominant society, then we recognise that integration is needed. But this must be multicultural integration that allows the public manifestation of different identities as well as integration on fairer terms. Multiculturalism provides the tools for this. For instance, institutional adaptation, such as revising national work schedules to accommodate religious holidays of minorities. Adopting harassment codes at the workplace that prohibit racist comments. Setting up guidelines for the media on ethnic stereotyping. Implementing public education programmes, such as teaching on discrimination grounds, organising or funding literacy courses for adult migrants (in their mother tongue), supporting anti-racism 31 Kymlicka and Wayne (2000). pp. 4.

23

24

Significant Difference?

campaigns or diversity training for police forces, social workers or health-care professionals. Providing funds for cultural programmes, such as ethnic festivals and ethnic studies programmes. Adopting affirmative action schemes, such as preferential treatment of visible minorities in access to education, training or employment.32 All these examples of multicultural policies are based on the idea that integration first requires that the dominant society enables integration, i.e. wants it, allows it and actively pursues it. For this to happen, “strong efforts at fighting prejudice and discrimination”33 need to be made. It is believed that giving immigrant communities more positive recognition enhances the willingness to integrate and prompts the dominant society to accept and integrate minorities. These examples of multicultural policies have those motivations and, if implemented correctly, should have those consequences. It is important to note that none of the policies named above aim at nation-building. “For example, none of them involve creating Spanish-language army units, or enable Ukrainians or Somalis to exercise self-governing powers over government employment or immigration. Nor have immigrant groups demanded any of these types of measures.”34 An interesting criticism of Kymlicka’s multiculturalism is provided by Chandran Kukathas who criticises weak multiculturalism. The multiculturalism that really follows modern liberalism should result in a system where society and government tolerate diversity, i.e. create the conditions necessary to sustain different cultures and identities. Firstly, Kukathas argues, Kymlicka presents himself as a modern liberal, embracing multiculturalism but then moving back to a more classic liberalism by presenting an integrative model of multiculturalism. Secondly, strong multiculturalism which arises from modern liberalism would indeed result in a fragmented or compartmentalised society, a different result from the one Kymlicka envisages. Kukathas’ suggestion is that multiculturalism is unstable; it results in anarchy and segregation (strong multiculturalism), or in a weak multiculturalism that “leaves open the possibility that some people will assimilate into a society (…) because they have little other option”.35 This criticism is important as there is some evidence to support it: in the UK, it has been suggested that multiculturalism resulted in separateness and in the Netherlands that the implementation of multiculturalism did not displace assimilation tendencies. Contrary to Kukathas’ suggestion, Canada provides a more stable 32 Kymlicka (1995). pp. 96. 33 Kymlicka (1995). pp. 96. 34 Kymlicka (2000). pp. 160. 35 Kukathas http://economics.gmu.edu/pboettke/workshop/fall04/theoretical_foundations. pdf



2. Multiculturalism

example of the application of multiculturalism along the lines of weak or integrative multiculturalism. The intellectual weakness of the political philosophy of multiculturalism, says Bryan Barry, not only leads to confusion, but takes away attention from the really important issue: socio-economic inequalities36. Yet Barry’s suggestion, namely that “human rights are what all human beings need in order to live minimally decent lives”37 is too deterministic. The counter-arguments to Barry’s claims are easy to find: when applied as an integral strategy, multiculturalism fights those standards and processes that create (indirect) discrimination amongst different people. Additionally, individuals not only seek ‘minimally decent lives’ but, according to social identity theories, it is in human nature to need and strive for a positive self-concept.38 This positive self-concept is often derived from the evaluation of an individual’s collective identity. Multiculturalism, by trying to present the minority’s collective identities in a positive way, seeks to address this need too. Another unenthusiastic view on multiculturalism is presented in the 1996 study of Patricia Nemetz and Sandra Christensen: “The Challenge of Cultural Diversity: Harnessing a Diversity of Views to Understand Multiculturalism” which concludes that an individual’s predisposition to accept or reject multiculturalism is based both on the individual’s fundamental beliefs and on the influence that sources of information have on the individual, such as newspapers, radio, political parties, etc.39 Although the research measures to what extent fundamental beliefs allow the individual to internalise diversity training, Nemetz and Christiansen propose that informal influences have the same potential to convince individuals for or against diversity, as formal influences do. Informal influences will strengthen the tendency to refute diversity or even incite anti-diversity activism in those individuals who are not inclined (by their paradigmatic views) to accept multiculturalism. For this reason, they conclude “Our theory is not excessively optimistic about diversity (..). Philosophers have long recognized a tension between the individual and the community (…) [and] no utopian solution exists to resolve this tension.”40 This is not an exhaustive list of criticisms against multiculturalism and others include liberal imperialism, the financial cost of diversity which could be used in creating ‘common’ civic identities, the difficulty in finding 36 Barry (2001). pp. 63-64. 37 http://signonthebrokenline.com/2007/04/29/brian-barrys-culture-and-equality-a-criticalreview/ 38 Verkuyten and Zaremba (2005). pp. 376. 39 Nemetz and Christensen (1996). pp. 435. 40 Nemetz and Christensen (1996). pp. 457.

25

26

Significant Difference?

a balance between individual and group rights and the lack of ‘popular’ support for the implementation of these policies. With so many valid criticisms, why did the governments of the UK and the Netherlands adopt multiculturalism? In the next chapter, I will describe why multiculturalism was adopted in these two countries, what objectives were expected to be achieved and whether or not, based on those objectives, this strategy failed.



Significant Difference?

3. Multiculturalism in practice

The unions that resulted in the present day UK and the Netherlands have had, historically, weak nation-building projects. Nor during Empire did the governments of these countries aim at making their imperial subjects British or Dutch citizens. The heterogeneity of populations was acknowledged in their colonies. The choice of multiculturalism in these two countries, although “conditioned by distinct traditions and specific historical contexts”,41 could therefore be seen as natural. Yet “Why did these countries adopt multiculturalism?” and “what goals were the governments of these countries seeking to achieve when doing so?” These questions will be explored in this section by focusing on two kinds of policies that are central to multiculturalism. Firstly anti-discrimination policies, which seek to address discriminative treatment of immigrants once in the country. Secondly, policies that help them access the labour market, which enhances their possibility to engage in the socio-economic system. The (assumed) interrelation between these two sets of policies, which suggests that a higher level of discrimination leads to fewer opportunities in the labour market, will also be part of this analysis. With this in mind, attention will be given to the points in time when anti-discrimination and labour market policies became part of the multiculturalism choice of each country.

3.1 Multiculturalism in practice: United Kingdom The UK has a long tradition of dealing with diversity. Since the 1800s, the UK has “had a clear and politic sense of diversity (…). In India too they came to practise a politics of cultural tolerance, not assimilation; indirect rule, not administrative centralism”.42 During Empire and after the Second World War, 800 million British subjects could claim the right of entry, settlement and work in Britain, but the stagnant economic realities of the 1950s meant that support for the entry of “coloured” colonial subjects diminished. With the Notting Hill riots of 1958, the ideal of civis Britannicus sum became decreasingly justifiable. As a result, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962 and the Immigration Act of 1971 made it increasingly difficult for (former) subjects to enter the country. 41 Joppke (1996). pp. 454. 42 Bernard et al. (1991). pp. 91.

27

28

Significant Difference?

Yet, the 1958 riots also brought about new laws and policies and research groups and organisations were created to deal with challenges of diversity. So, while immigration became increasingly restrictive, policies were put in place to remove discrimination against minorities within Britain43. The Race Relations Act 1965 became the institutional basis for anti-racism and integration measures. With this Act, a multicultural strategy was being pursued, as expressed by Home Secretary Roy Jenkins in May 1966. Integration is not “the loss by immigrants, of their own national characteristics and culture. I do not think that we need in this country a ‘melting pot’, which will turn everybody out in a common mould (…) of someone’s misplaced vision of the stereotypical Englishman. I (…) define integration, therefore, not as a flattening process of assimilation but as equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance”.44 However, not everyone in the public or political elite felt the same way; this is represented by Enoch Powell ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech of 1968. Powell’s speech was a rupture with the government’s choice which until then had been based on “remarkable consensus among the major political parties”45 facilitated by the UK’s two party system. Powell was dismissed from the Conservative Shadow Cabinet. Thereafter it was only Margaret Thatcher who criticised this strategy before becoming Prime Minister. She, however, did not touch on it again afterwards. In 1976, the new ‘Race Relations Act 1976’ replaced the previous Act and became the foundation for the UK’s Anti-discrimination regulations. Under this law, ‘racial discrimination’ meant treating a person less favourably than others based on their race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins. The Race Relations Act increasingly demonstrated an integral set-up. New anti-racism policies attempted to remove disadvantages by changing whatever sustained these and included the “recognition of and provision for claims to community and culture in the political stage”.46 Legislation was reviewed again and agencies were set up: the CRE (which in 2006 merged with 2 other equality bodies and became the Commission for Equality and Human Rights) was responsible for reviewing and aligning legislation with the objectives of the Act. It also treated claims of discrimination and conducted research which sought to find those micro-political and social or community practices in order to “target the practices which result in racist exclusions, and identify the agencies which can transform those practices”.47 43 Joppke (1996). pp. 479. 44 Patterson (1969). pp. 112. 45 Joppke (1996). pp. 479. 46 Feuchtwang (1987). pp. 7. 47 Feuchtwang (1987). pp. 8.



3. Multiculturalism in practice

Additionally, the CRE and the other 2 agencies responsible for anti-discrimination “also participate in the process of data development by taking part in consultations on their design or, prior to this, by requesting the adaptation of statistical tools to improve the action scheme.”48 The CRE, for instance, played a significant role in experiments to include an ethnic question in the British census. From the early 1980s onwards, the work of the CRE seemed to bring about a reduction in the number of people describing themselves as prejudiced.49 Yet the number and culture of immigrants was still often described as a danger to “the ‘homogeneity of the nation’, endangering the values and culture of the majority and unleashing social conflict”.50 Discrimination, even if indirect, had resulted in ‘racial disadvantage’ and a negative socioeconomic position of British minorities with a “disproportionately high level of unemployment among young black men”.51 This was the backdrop against which in 1981, police action in Brixton, where unemployment of black males was around 50%, infuriated the crowd52 and violent riots erupted. The government called for an inquiry. The government’s reaction to the results of the inquiry was to make an even broader effort towards achieving equality by replacing ‘colour-blindness’ with ‘positive action’. From the 1980s onwards, multiculturalism became the basis for legal provisions such as relaxing marriage and divorce laws for some minorities and adding street names in foreign languages to some areas. In relation to labour policies, the 1984 Equal Opportunities Policies were devised to apply to both private and public sector and consisted of developing initiatives to raise staff awareness in their dealing with diversity (examining procedures and practices to improve the representation of minorities). In order to monitor and evaluate whether these laws had worked, it also included the use of statistical data to compare the workforce composition (broken down into ethnic/ religious/ minority categories, position and salary) at the initial point and throughout the years. According to the initial profile of the working force, the UK presented an equality plan which proposed that equal opportunities policy should cover recruitment, promotion and training at organisation level. Each organisation had to set an action plan, with targets and timelines. Diversity training of staff, including managers, 48 Simon (2004). pp. 21. 49 Sutton, Perry, Parke and John-Baptiste (2007). pp. 16. 50 Stolcke (1999). pp. 26. 51 http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/25/newsid_2546000/2546233. stm 52 http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/25/newsid_2546000/2546233. stm

29

30

Significant Difference?

was required so that the importance of equal opportunities would be understood by everyone in the organisation and supported at all levels. Training of recruiters was an additional requirement. The plan also required that attention be given to other aspects of diversity: that the job criteria be clear and justifiable, companies offered pre-employment training when required, to consider the organisation’s image, develop links with community groups and consider flexible working.53 After almost a decade of voluntary Equal Opportunities Policies “The concept of British society’s responsibility with regard to continuing discrimination and racism reached a peak following the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993, a young Black killed by the police.”54 An inquiry followed, which in 1999 concluded that “institutional racism” had been part of the murder. The fury of the general public was given a prominent place in the media and in 2000, a Race Relations Amendment Act (RRA) was passed. The RRA Act included a mandatory duty on public bodies to monitor themselves for more equal ethnic representation, as well as the duty to demonstrate that the procedures taken effectively prevented discrimination. The RRA guidelines still remain voluntary for private employers even today. While achieving or not achieving targets (indications on the diversity of labour composition) is neither rewarded nor sanctioned, presenting the data is a proof of commitment to non-discrimination by organisations. The historic description provides answers to why the UK adopted multiculturalism as a strategy to deal with diversity: multiculturalism made an indirect appearance in the political arena at the end of the 1960s with the choice for diversity after Empire. Nazi racism still fresh in the minds of the British people and “nostalgic clinging to Britain’s past Great Power status”55 prevented Tories and Labour from questioning the status quo. However, the main reason why the different UK governments adopted multiculturalism since the late 1950s was a clear choice to manage the challenges of diversity. Multiculturalism was introduced incrementally after 1976 and had become the normative choice for dealing with diversity before the 7/7 bombings in 2005, when attacks against multiculturalism gained vigour and the strategy was finally replaced with Community Cohesion.56 When answering the question ‘based on which aims and objectives did the UK adopt multiculturalism as a strategy for dealing with the challenges of diversity?’, I also find that the empirical side of multiculturalism was explored 53 Simon (2004). pp. 26. 54 Simon (2004). pp. 16. 55 Joppke (1996). pp. 478. 56 http://www.cohesioninstitute.org.uk/home



3. Multiculturalism in practice

in depth by creating policies − at an early stage and giving continuity to these policies − that challenge prejudice, disadvantage and enforce equality legislation on the grounds of age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief and sexual orientation. Implemented correctly, the policies should result in the elimination of inequalities and discrimination and strengthen good relations between people.57 Assessing whether, based on these aims and objectives of anti-discrimination and the labour market policies, multiculturalism failed is not a straightforward task. However, indicators for the objectives of the policies measured at different points in time provide insights. One of the objectives of anti-discrimination laws and policies is to challenge prejudice and disadvantage to eliminate discrimination. The following table shows that prejudice, monitored through the British Social Attitudes Survey, has declined since 1983. Table 2: Would you describe yourself as … ? 1983 2005* % Very racially prejudiced against people from other races 39** 2 A little racially prejudiced against people from other races 23 Not prejudiced at all 75 Don’t know 1 Refused 0 *2005 BBC Multiculturalism Survey, conducted by telephone Source: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll. aspx?oItemId=2247 Accessed 21 May 2010 ** Park, Curtice, Thomson, Jarvis, Bromley (2004).

2008 % 3 17 79 * *

Strengthening good relations between individuals and groups in society is one of the long-term aims of anti-discrimination policies. The 2002 survey conducted by the Mori Social Research Institute called the ‘Voice of Britain’58 showed that most British people believed that relations between ethnicities were respectful (78%), good (59%) and that being British did not mean being white (nine out of ten people). When thinking about the “British way of life” people pointed to cultural diversity (9%) and politeness (6%) rather than demographic characteristics such as ethnicity. In addition, the majority of respondents (59%) agreed that “Britain is a place that has good race relations between different types of people such as those from different ethnic minorities. This figure rises to 67% among ethnic minority groups. (…) And 57 http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/aboutus/mission/pages/visionmissionandpriorities.aspx 58 http://www.ipsos-mori.com/content/race-is-no-barrier-to-being-british.ashx/ http://www. ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=984

31

Significant Difference?

over half (57%) saying people should do more to learn about the systems and culture of the ethnic groups in this country, although one in four disagree (27%).”59 Kully Kaur-Ballagan, the head of Ethnic Minority Research for MORI concluded the survey by stating that “Britain is confident about its multi-culturalism.”60 The results of the Mori survey of 2002 are supported by the 2007 Equalities review, which acknowledges that in the past 30 years much progress has been made. However, inequalities are still present in areas such as education and employment and prejudice towards certain groups point to the possibility of a reverse in achievements61 as shown in Table 3.

Don’t mind if I come across as prejudiced

Disabled people Black people Muslim people People aged 70+ Gay/ lesbian people Women

Sometimes feel prejudiced but try not to let it show

Table 3: Expressions of prejudice towards different groups within society (2007) Never feel any prejudice

32

90 75 65 87 67 79

7 20 26 9 23 14

3 5 9 4 10 7

Source: Equalities Review (2007). pp. 92

The data presented in Table 3 shows that most people would not choose to come across publicly as prejudiced. Still, 26% of all respondents said they ‘sometimes feel prejudiced against Muslim people but try not to let it show’, 23% felt the same way about gay men or lesbians and 20% against black people. In Britain, the review concludes, entrenched disadvantage still arises from characteristics over which most individuals have no control, such as their own ethnicity, impairment, or sexual orientation. Perceptions and good relations amongst the different groups have consequences for the participation of minorities in the labour market. To ensure 59 http://www.ipsos-mori.com/content/race-is-no-barrier-to-being-british.ashx / http://www. ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=984 60 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1990118.stm 61 Equalities Review (2007). pp. 6.



3. Multiculturalism in practice

minorities’ participation, different governments implemented, incrementally, labour market policies. In 2003, the Government set out a strategy to redress racial inequalities in the labour market (Cabinet Office 2003) with the aim that “In ten years’ time, ethnic minority groups living in Britain should no longer face disproportionate barriers to accessing and realising opportunities for achievement in the labour market.”62 To assess the impact of these policies, we can firstly review whether organisations have complied with these. Secondly and more importantly, we can study whether compliance has achieved more participation of minorities in the labour market. Data shows that between 1998 and 2004 there has been an increase in compliance with diversity regulations by government organisations, for which these regulations are mandatory and also for the private sector, for which they are voluntary as shown in Table 4. Table 4: Change in compliance with diversity regulations between 1998 and 2004 Private sector 1998 2004 Presence of equal opportunities policy* Keeping employee records with ethnic origin identified*

Public sector 1998 2004

All workplaces 1998 2004

55

68

97

98

64

73

24

31

49

60

30

38

Source: Kersley et al (2006) Inside the Workplace: Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey *Uses 1998 and 2004 cross-section data and panel dataset for workplaces with 10 or more employees.

The data in Table 4 shows a positive development in compliance with diversity regulations throughout the private and the public sector. The proportion of organisations with equal opportunities policies is quite high, also in the private sector. The number of organisations that keep employee records with their ethnic origin is important as it enables the monitoring of recruitment, selection and promotion procedures which in turn helps identify indirect discrimination. Compliance with this regulation has also increased, although it is still weaker in both sectors. To be effective, high compliance should translate into a high participation level of minorities (addressed as immigrants in the following table) in the labour market, comparable to that of the native population. Table 5 provides these statistics for the period 1980-2001.

62 Sutton, Perry, Parke and John-Baptiste (2007). pp. 9.

33

34

Significant Difference?

Table 5: Difference in immigrant and native male employment rates between 1980-2001 in the UK* UK

Natives mean 92.0%

Immigrants mean 87.6%

Difference 4.4%

Source: Tubergen, Maas and Flap (2004). pp. 715. *Data show percentages of active male population between the ages of 25-54 years.

Table 5 shows that the difference in employment rates between the native and immigrant active male population in the UK is only 4.4%. While these statistics are only descriptive and intervening variables could be at work, this data allows for cautious, but positive conclusions on the impact of the multicultural policies in the UK.

3.2 Multiculturalism in practice: The Netherlands Migration to the Netherlands started at the end of the 1940s following decolonisation of Indonesia and intensified in the 1960s with guest worker schemes. Many of the migrants from the (former) Dutch colonies were Maluku minorities (or Moluccans) who had served in the Dutch East Indies Army. The Netherlands offered them residence as temporary refugees awaiting the independence of the South Maluku (or the South Moluccas) which was promised to them by the Dutch before losing the Indonesian archipelago in the Indonesian war of independence. This did not happen and 25 years of temporary residence and disappointment spawned resentment against the Dutch government. In the 1970s, Maluku youngsters sought to pressure the Dutch and Indonesian governments into granting independence to63 Maluku. During the first hijacking (1975) three hostages were killed by the hijackers. During the second one (1977) two hostages and six hijackers were killed by the Dutch commandos who attacked the train. Guest worker immigration, which was also assumed to be temporary led to tensions in some communities, such as in Rotterdam district ‘Afrikaanderwijk’. Until that moment the attitude towards migration and migrants had a “laissez faire character”64. The first steps towards addressing race and ethnic issues in the Netherlands were also taken to address incidents. Both the train hijackings and the riots in Rotterdam’s awoke the authorities and the public to the fact that neglect was not a (wise) choice. In 1983 ‘Equal treatment and discrimination prohibitions’ became part of the Dutch Constitution. A thorough evaluation of existing legislation followed in order to eliminate elements that discriminated people based on their nationality, their race or their 63 Essed and Nimako (2006). pp. 283. 64 Verwey-Jonker (1973). pp. 40-42.



3. Multiculturalism in practice

religion. The Department of Minorities Affairs was established within the Ministry of Home Affairs and the first ‘Ethnic Minority Policies’ (EM policies or EMPs) were created. The policies: 1. “Were targeted at specific groups (…) perceived as culturally different from mainstream society and (…) of low socio-economic status: some native underprivileged groups, guest workers, Malukus, Surinamese and Antilleans, refugees, gypsies and caravan dwellers. 2. Aimed to achieve equality of ethnic minorities in the socio-economic domain, inclusion and participation in the political domain and equity in the domain of culture and religion within constitutional conditions and to the extent feasible. 3. Should cover all relevant domains and ministries (…) [made available] financial means at the national level for implementing the policies”65 The EM policies proposed a process to classify people as minorities. The classification was (and still is) conceptualised by the government, as opposed to the UK and other Western countries which use self-definition. The adopted definition stated that “minorities occupy a non-dominant position within society, that they are distinguished from the majority by linguistic, ethnic, religious or cultural characteristics, and that they are eager to preserve their identity.(…) Minorities (…) are often victims of discrimination, racism, and religious or other forms of intolerance.”66 The EM policies were specifically drafted answers to the problems of minorities which mainstream policies did not address.67 In the EMPs, it was proposed that minority groups organise themselves within the limits of the general laws of the Netherlands. Associations of some minorities’ target groups should give minorities a voice in matters relating to their position in society through consultations. Minorities were to participate in integration efforts and become a bridge between immigrants and the ‘larger society’. This initiative should facilitate the creation of opportunities for minorities. Two years later, the National Anti-discrimination Agency (LBR) was set up. The manner in which the EM policies were implemented followed, to a large degree, the principles of pillarisation, which compartmentalised Dutch society into strictly segregated religious or ideological groups. It is argued that with pillarisation a concept of tolerance was developed whereby people with different ideologies, religion or beliefs did not need to deal with difference, but could actually avoid contact with (individuals of) the other groups. And that this way of dealing with diversity was (implicitly) carried through 65 Penninx (2005). pp. 2. 66 http://www.minbuza.nl/en/themes,human-rights/human-rights#a7 67 WRR (1989). pp. 22-23.

35

36

Significant Difference?

towards migrants that arrived in the Netherlands.68 However, in 1989, 6 years after the EM policies were introduced, the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) presented a report with what came to be known as ‘Allochtonenbeleid’ (alien policies). One of the propositions made in the report was that the government choose a vision of the future civil society that it wanted to promote and target with its policies.69 In addition, the report suggested that “those who had hitherto been treated as ‘minorities’ were first and foremost from a different background, language and culture than the Dutch and that this was a primary reason for the difficulties that they faced. The emphasis of policy should thus be to help them ‘integrate’ within that culture rather than continue to nurture separateness in the name of multiculturalism.”70 Nevertheless, the WRR in this report recommends that the new policies have a cultural component whereby the culturally diversity of the Dutch society is reflected.71 As a result, the supportive facilities provided by EM policies were not continued after the 1990s. With this report, the term and definition of minorities were replaced by ‘allochtonen’ which means alien or non-native. It is used to describe persons born abroad, or persons born in the Netherlands who have at least one foreign parent. In the discourse and policies, the term ‘minorities’ was eliminated. The advice in the 1989 WRR report was especially supportive of increasing the participation of minorities in the Labour market and placed responsibility with both the minorities themselves and the government, the actor which creates the right conditions and opportunities. This resulted in three instruments: the Fair Employment of Ethnic Minorities Act (WBEAA), the Equal Treatment Act (AWGB) and the creation of the Commission for Equal Treatment (CGB). The Equal Treatment Act (AWGB, 1994) contained rules aimed at providing “protection against discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, sex, nationality, heterosexual or homosexual orientation or civil status (as amended on 9 September 2004)”72 and made explicit the aim of promoting equal participation in society. The Act included both direct and indirect discrimination and the prohibition of harassment. The Commission for Equal Treatment (CGB) was set up in the same year to interpret and enforce law, to outlaw differential treatment in all aspects (including employment) and outline exceptions to the principles of equal 68 Vasta (2009). pp. 5 and Witte (2010). pp. 32-33. 69 Penninx (1979). pp. 163-174. 70 Guiraudon, Phalet and Ter Wal (2005). pp. 77. 71 WRR (1989). pp. 25. 72 http://www.cgb.nl/artikel/equal-treatment-act Accessed 4 July 2010.



3. Multiculturalism in practice

treatment on the grounds of race (or nationality) permitting positive action when someone belongs to a particular ethnic or cultural minority group73. In contrast to the UK, the mandate of the CGB did not include a direct or implicit link between banning discrimination and eliminating prejudices or enhancing good relations among groups in society. The government was to assess the position of minorities through surveys (Sociale Positie and Voorzieningengebruik Allochtonen) which reviewed the education level and labour market position of minorities. One important aspect of the years around the setting up of anti-discriminatory laws and support facilities was the agreement amongst political parties, not unlike the agreement in the UK, not to use minorities as a topic of political campaign or debate. This resulted (until around the year 2000) in a decline in media reporting on immigration and affairs with an ethnic component.74 Also in 1994, the government first emphasised the term ‘integration’ (in the Contourennota) and proposed the view that integration can only take place when both the minorities and the receiving group take steps to achieve it. It is in the same Contourennota that the government takes a step back from specific to mainstream policies for minorities, except when mainstream policies do not solve the challenges encountered.75 The Fair Employment of Ethnic Minorities Act (WBEAA) introduced employer responsibilities such as reporting on the ethnic composition of their workforce and plans for the recruitment of minorities. It stated that employers in both the public and private sector with more than 35 employees were obliged to achieve greater representation of ethnic minority groups in their workforce. It also required organisations to provide annual reports and data on the ethnic identity of their personnel, as well as plans for improving employment equity, which were to be drafted in coordination with the workers’ councils. These laws were highly criticised by employer organisations for the bureaucratic costs and inefficiency. Opposition led to low compliance, yet no legal action was taken against any employer. Both minority group organisations and employment agencies avoided monitoring of statistics and actions out of concern for their relationship with employers.76 To cope with the failure of these labour laws, the labour market participation Act (SAMEN) was introduced in 1998. The SAMEN Act applied to both 73 Ravinder Singh, Squires and Modood (2006). pp. 42. 74 Beek, van de (2010). pp. 183-184. 75 Ministerie Binnenlandse Zaken (1994). pp. 6. 76 Ravinder Singh, Squires and Modood (2006). pp. 43-44.

37

38

Significant Difference?

private and public sector with initiatives ranging from raising staff awareness, examining procedures and practices to monitoring workforce composition. The distinguishing aspect of the SAMEN Act was that it proposed one-to-one contracts between the government and the private sector in which companies committed themselves to achieving proportional representation of ethnic minorities.77 By February 2002, 87 of such contracts had been signed and the 100th was expected to be signed a month later.78 In small and medium enterprises, of around 68,000 vacancies for which 57,000 new employees were found, 49,000 were ethnic minorities.79 In the 15th and 16th reports to the CERD (1998–2002), the government reported that the Act had been very effective and that between 1999 and 2003, 70% of employers had provided the data and taken measures required by the SAMEN Act and that a high level of compliance was being achieved, as shown in Table 6. Table 6: Compliance with the SAMEN Act (%) Compliance

1998 49

2001 72

Source: Houtzager and Rodrigues (2002)

Until the termination of the SAMEN Act, many Dutch policies had been similar to those in the UK with the exception of the laws at the point of entry which, in contrast to the UK, became more open. The 1986 Nationality Act included more elements of ius soli which made it easier for immigrants and their children to become Dutch citizens.80 In 1992, dual nationality was accepted, resulting in a naturalisation peak in the 1990s.81 Despite the change in terminology and policy focus, the labour market policies were also multicultural in nature showing a tendency of the Dutch government to favour this strategy above others when dealing with diversity82. However, by the end of the 1990s, multiculturalism was increasingly questioned. Many people did not understand it and those who thought they did were not sure it was working. And in the year 2000, the publication of Paul Scheffer’s essay ‘multicultural drama’, resulted in debates in parliament and in the media in which for two years “politicians and opinion makers came with racist remarks and proposals for even harsher measures against

77 Guiraudon Phalet and Ter Wal (2005). pp. 78. 78 http://www.vno-ncw.nl/web/show/id=94618/dbcode=301/doscode=93/filetype=dosnews 79 Ministerie Sociale Zaken and Werkgelegenheid. 12 July 2002, code ABG/DB/02/49503 80 Penninx (2005). 81 Penninx (2005). 82 http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=341



3. Multiculturalism in practice

immigrants and refugees”83. A trend that Baukje Prins had seen emerging since the end of the 1980s was fulfilled: prominent people such as journalist Herman Vuijsje (1986), politician Frits Bolkestein (1991 and 1992), writer Paul Scheffer (2000), professor turned politician Pim Fortuyn and Minister Rita Verdonk “(…) recommended the affirmation of Dutch identity as an important remedy against the problems of multicultural society”.84 Immigration policies were tightened drastically, multiculturalism was discredited and policies with elements such as “compulsory integration contracts in which immigrants would declare themselves adherents of Dutch values” 85 were proposed. Alongside these developments, anti-discrimination policies were to become tougher on indirect discrimination in line with EU guidelines on discrimination legislation (The Racial Equality Directive 2000/43/EC, which had to be transposed in 2003) and structural cooperation was sought between the various anti-discrimination organisations. In 2007 existing anti-discrimination lobby and research bodies merged into “Art. 1” which works alongside the Commission for Equal Treatment. The labour policies targeting minorities were contradictory. On the one hand, policies which “had proven to stimulate participation of youths and women of minorities”86 were to be entrenched. Municipalities, employers’ organisations and (organisations of) ethnic minorities were to play an active role in continuing those policies. On the other hand, the Minister (Rita Verdonk) promised to review the SAMEN Act, which despite successes was abolished by 1 January 2004 against strong opposition from the LBR. With this, the “only legislation providing for monitoring in relation to the objectives of promoting minorities in employment”87 was pushed aside. In 2004, research was commissioned by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment to create a new baseline on ethnic minorities’ participation in the labour market and to seek new solutions or use good existing ones to deal with lagging levels of employment of minorities. This narrative tries to respond to the question why policies of multiculturalism were adopted. It shows that multicultural policies were also initially introduced to respond to violent incidents involving minorities. With time and until the year 2003, multiculturalism initially in a more ‘strong’ form and then increasingly in a ‘weak’ form seemed to become the normative choice of the Dutch political elites. 83 Krebbers (2005). http://www.gebladerte.nl/30106v01.htm 84 Prins (2002). pp. 371. 85 Krebbers (2005). http://www.gebladerte.nl/30106v01.htm 86 Ministerie Sociale Zaken and Werkgelegenheid. Of 12 July 2002, code ABG/DB/02/49503 87 Simon (2004). pp. 35.

39

40

Significant Difference?

Answering the second question ‘based on which aims and objectives did the Netherlands adopt multiculturalism as a strategy to deal with the challenges of diversity?’ is challenging because the (focus of the) answer changes with each new WRR report and the proposals contained therein. Shifts in the advice of the WRR were often accompanied by shifts in the integration department: from the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, to Home Affairs, to Justice and Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment. Overall, the 1979 EMPs with their elements of ‘strong’ multiculturalism seemed to aim at strengthening the position of minorities through selforganisation and emancipation within the minorities’ own cultures. Nevertheless, these EMPs lasted for about 6 years. The goals arising from the 1989 WRR report were ambivalent, on the one hand presenting more culturalintegrative tendencies while giving labour market participation of minorities a prominent place. This focus on labour market participation and the new laws aspiring to eliminate anti-discrimination hints more at weak multiculturalism. The same is true for the period that follows (1994-2003) with its acknowledgement that prejudice inhibits integration and participation. Given the significant existence of prejudice against minorities (see Table 7), initiatives are taken to encourage equity in the labour market participation of minorities such as the implementation and replacement of the Fair Employment of Ethnic Minorities Act with the SAMEN Act. This last one proved to be fairly successful in achieving a compliance level of 72% in 2001. However, it is the same government that dismantles specific policies and replaces these with mainstream solutions. Nevertheless, during this period much attention is given to participation in the labour market and the Fair Employment of Ethnic Minorities Act is passed. In 1998, the same coalition entrenches this law, now in the form of the SAMEN Act, with a relatively high degree of success. Two years later, however, with multiculturalism under scrutiny, multicultural policies are displaced by an integration strategy which gives much (public and media) attention to entry points and the need of minorities to assimilate, while continuing with the implementation of a more thorough anti-discrimination legislation. In short, while anti-discrimination legislation has become increasingly thorough, multiculturalism has been replaced by an assimilative form of integration culminating in Rita Verdonk’s affirmation of Dutch identity as the remedy for the multicultural challenges in the Netherlands. The goal of labour market policies is more straightforward: achieving a more equitable representation of minorities in the labour market. While the legislation and policies used to achieve this have fluctuated, the goal itself has



3. Multiculturalism in practice

not changed much since the EMPs. Due to the changing goals, assessing whether, based on the aims and objectives, multiculturalism failed in the Netherlands is not a straightforward task. Although anti-discrimination policies have remained in place since the EM policies, they were the focus of political attention for a short period. The data in Table 7 presents such a pattern: a decrease in tendency to discriminate soon after 1983 when the Equal treatment and discrimination prohibitions became part of the Dutch constitution, but an increase shortly afterwards. Table 7: Average tendency to discriminate against minorities 1980-1993 (in %)88 Tendency to discriminate against minorities

1980

1985

1989

1991

1992

1993

49

30

31

35

41

41

Source: Scheepers and Coenders (1996)

According to the 2006 study by Philomena Essed and Kwame Nimako, during the 1980s the organs which reviewed relations between the native group and minorities represented minorities as problematic while downplaying the influence of racism; in this context defined as the discrimination of visible minorities or discrimination based on origin.89 State funding throughout the 1980s and 1990s of the main organisations dealing with (research and questions on) racism determined the context and content of migration and ethnic studies. In the view of Essed and Nimako, de-legitimisation of research into racism has limited institutions and the public in their understanding of systemic (indirect) racism. Additionally, research into minorities not only problematised minorities but increasingly recommended their emancipation within the context of the Dutch identity. This point becomes increasingly visible when analysing the succession of policies targeting minorities. This is not to say that in various areas prejudices have declined. The following table presents results for three questions relating to ethnic prejudice of the Dutch towards ethnic minorities.

88 Scheepers and Coenders (1996). pp. 14. 89 While racism has different contextual meanings, in both the UK and the Netherlands, discrimination or unequal treatment based on origin and ethnicity are also considered discrimination on racial grounds. See for the UK http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/ advice-and-guidance/equality-act-guidance/glossary-of-terms/#r For the Netherlands https:// www.discriminatie.nl/over-discriminatie/discriminatiegronden#ras and http://www.ieder1gelijk.nl/discriminatie/discriminatiegronden/ras-afkomst-of-huidskleur.html

41

Significant Difference?

1985-86

1988-89

1991-92

1994-95

1997-98

2002-03

2004-05

2008-09

Promote native Dutch Dismiss/ fire individual from minority Available house to Dutch native family

1981-82

Table 8: Percentage of Dutch (aged 16-74 years) to admit ethnic prejudice in three concrete situations (1979-2002) 1978-79

42

33 38 38

31 32 32

16 16 17

17 18 25

22 24 34

17 15 36

18 20 45

17 16 35

15 16 44

14 15 30

Source: SCP (Culturele Veranderingen) in Coenders, Lubbers and Scheepers (2006) and Jaarrapport integratie 2009.90

Table 8 presents a decreasing trend for two of the three areas of prejudice (in the promotion of a native Dutch person or dismissal of an individual pertaining to a minority). This trend is absent when the question is “Who should get an available flat/ house first, a family of native Dutch people or a family of migrants?” Similar findings were published in the Integration Year Report of 2005 (Jaarrapport Integratie 2005), which made the argument that the lack of social contact and low mutual acceptance between groups was the result of preferring social contact with members of one´s own ethnic group. This applies to the majority of the minority groups as well as the indigenous population who “prefer to keep ethnic minorities at a distance.”91 The study of Saskia Schalk-Soekar “Multiculturalism: a stable concept with many ideological and political aspects” conducted among 1,500 Dutch people between 2001 and 2007 confirms an ambivalent attitude towards diversity. When assessing multiculturalism in terms of accepting and actively supporting cultural diversity, the host population throughout these years “accept but hardly support the culturally heterogeneous composition of the population.”92 The same can be said when looking into the answers given by 1000 Dutch people interviewed in the Summer of 2009. When asked “which characteristics make one a ‘Dutch person?’ about half of the respondents answered feeling Dutch (51%), having command of the Dutch language (48%) and practising your civic rights; such as voting (40%). Just about a quarter of all respondents considered being born (26%) and bred (25%) in 90 SCP (Culturele Veranderingen). in Coenders, Lubbers and Scheepers (2006) and Jaarapport Integratie 2009. pp. 90. Translation: Neiging tot etnische discriminatie in Nederland, 1979 tot 2002 bij drie concrete gevallen. Bij de vraag ‘Wie zou een vrijkomende woning moeten krijgen, een Nederlands gezin of een gezin van een gastarbeider?’ Bij de vraag: ‘Wie zou ontslagen moeten worden: een Nederlander of een buitenlander?’ Bij de vraag: ‘Wie zou gepromoveerd moeten worden: een Nederlander of een buitenlander?’ 91 Gijsberts and Dagevos (2005). pp. 105. 92 Schalk – Soekar (2007). http://www.onderzoekinformatie.nl/nl/oi/biza/d61000o/OND1282327/



3. Multiculturalism in practice

the Netherlands a prerequisite for being a Dutch person. Fewer than 10% responded being member of a club or association (9%), having at least one Dutch parent (8%) and being Christian (5%)93. If public perception has an impact on minorities’ access to the labour market, then we can expect low support for policies and instruments that try to achieve equity of minorities in the labour market. Fons van de Vijver argues that in the Netherlands, measures that help achieve equity for a group are not widely supported94. This is reflected in the results of the adopted mainstream policies that replaced the SAMEN Act. These mainstream labour market participation policies resulted in a decline in attention and concrete measures targeting minorities. TNO’s report ‘Diversity in the workplace’ in 2005 shows that the percentage of companies targeting minorities as recruits and/or their promotion to higher positions once within the company is much lower than the level of compliance with the SAMEN Act in 1998. This has resulted in an average of 7% participation of minorities in the labour market.

Measures for the recruitment of minorities Measures for promotion (into higher position) of minorities Both (recruitment and promotion) Minority participation rates in organisation

All workplaces

Public Sector

Private Sector

Table 9: Diversity policies and their results in 2003 (%)

12.7 12

37 41

06.5

04

15 13 07 07*

* includes other non-profit organisations (in education, health and other sectors) Source: Vries, de et al (2005). pp. 16

The ‘Discrimination Monitor of non-western migrants on the Dutch Labour market’ (Discriminatiemonitor niet-westerse allochtonen op de arbeidsmarkt) also points towards discrimination (conscious or unconscious, direct or indirect) as a barrier for finding a job.95 Entzinger and Dourleijn (2008) also found that despite the increase in actual integration (increased participation in various domains, interaction, identification and acculturation) between 1999 and 2006, the native Dutch population as well as Turkish and Moroccan Dutch believe that society offers native Dutch better possibilities

93 Eurobarometer 71 (Spring 2009). pp. 10. 94 Vijver, van de, in Presentatie “Polarisatie vanuit de crossculturele psychologie” 2010. 95 Andriessen, Dagevos, Nievers and Boog (2007). pp 9.

43

44

Significant Difference?

than it does to those pertaining to a minority.96 This is confirmed by the results of Table 10 which show (in percentages) the average employment rates of male adults differentiated in natives and immigrants for the years 1980-2001 as well as the difference between both groups. Table 10: Difference in immigrant and native male employment rates between 1980-2001 in the Netherlands* The Netherlands

Natives mean 96.8%

Immigrants mean 84.0%

Difference 12.8%

Source: Tubergen, Maas and Flap (2004).97 *Data show percentages of active male population between the ages of 25-54 years.

Table 10 shows that average employment rates are indeed quite different for natives and immigrants; the difference being much greater than in the UK. Various reasons are given for this difference, but studies dating from as early as 1985 (Ruebsaet and Kropman, 1985; Veenman 1995; Olde Monnikhof and Buis, 2001; and Kruisbergen and Veld 2002) point to a relation between the negative perception employers (might) have of minorities and their willingness to employ them. In the 2004, research on the ‘Position of ethnic minorities in the labour market: perceptions, facts, barriers and solutions’ commissioned by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment found that even when adjusted to the different education levels, the position of minorities lags behind that of native Dutch. In this study, the reasons given for the discrepancy in obtaining an internship, a job, promotion and higher salaries are negative perception and discrimination, limited perceptiveness of cultural codes in communication, rejection by colleagues and superiors and the fact that many minorities work in segments of the economy that are more fragile to outside shocks. This review suggests that during the last thirty years, diversity policies have fluctuated and that the implementation of policies of multiculturalism was temporary and unfulfilled. In his 2007 thesis, Peter Scholten agrees that it is virtually impossible to evaluate the success or failure of Dutch policies98 due to their shifts in the last thirty years. Therefore, concluding that multiculturalism failed in the Netherlands is, at its best, questionable. Failure can be more easily attributed to the lack 96 Entzinger and Dourleijn (2008). pp. 145. Translation: Autochtonen, Turkse and Marokkaanse respondenten zijn het er namelijk in meerderheid over eens dat autochtonen in de maatschappij betere kansen hebben dan allochtonen. 97 Tubergen, van, Maas and Flap (2004). pp. 715. 98 Benedictus and Dorp, van (2008).



3. Multiculturalism in practice

of (integral) policies, the fact that implementation has been mostly projectbased and, therefore, short-term and short-lived. This may have been aided by the mismatch between government rhetoric that creates expectations which are not supported by the policies chosen. It could be argued that all of these factors point to the fact that the Dutch (the civil society and the elected representatives) have not (yet convincingly) chosen for a multicultural society.

45

46

Significant Difference?



4. Conclusion: Did Multiculturalism fail?

4. Conclusion: Did Multiculturalism fail?

My conclusions are based on a review of two sets of policies implemented in relation to multiculturalism: anti-discrimination policies and policies that facilitate the participation of minorities in the labour market. For both sets of policies, the following questions are asked and answered: Why did the governments of the UK and the Netherlands choose multiculturalism? What were the aims and objectives they wanted to achieve by implementing multicultural policies? Based on these aims and objectives, did multiculturalism fail? In short, the incremental, long-term policies implemented in the United Kingdom in relation to anti-discrimination and labour market participation seem to have reduced the level of prejudice against (some) minorities and enabled positive relations between groups in society. In addition, the policies made it possible for individuals with an ethnic minority background to participate in the labour market on an almost equal footing as their native counterparts. While the policies of the Netherlands have helped reduce (some) prejudices against (some) minorities, there seems to be no link or relation between these policies and the relations between groups in society. The short-lived labour market that targeted participation of minorities did not achieve comparable results in the employment rates of Dutch minorities compared with their native counterparts. These conclusions might have been different if all or other implemented policies that give the ideology of multiculturalism concrete implementation in the UK and the Netherlands had been reviewed. However, when assessing whether, based on the objectives on which it was adopted, multiculturalism failed in the United Kingdom, the tentative answer is that it did not. The commitment of British political elites has been consistent throughout the years in stressing positive relations amongst the different communities in society, resulting in a positive self-reflection of what it means to be British as well as a positive perception of minorities. This is reflected in an increasing participation of public and private organisations in diversity policies with resulting high employment rates for minorities, even when compared to the employment rates of the native population. This is a much better result than the one achieved in the Netherlands. However, this does not mean that there are no diversity challenges in the UK. The Equalities Review of 2007 points out that, while much progress has been made, there are persistent (and sometimes new) prejudices that

47

48

Significant Difference?

still require attention. Christian Joppke has argued that anti-racist policies have been pushed forward in a militant manner whereby the political centre has been pushed aside and “provoked an equally militant conservative backlash.”99 It is this group which, after the London bombings of 2005, has been at the forefront of the attack against multiculturalism, pointing out that violent diversity challenges can still arise, despite the multicultural efforts made in the past. Criticisms should not therefore be taken lightly, especially knowing that the UK has consistently and for decades pursued policies of multiculturalism. But do violent incidents prove that multiculturalism has failed? Or put differently, do these acts disprove the success achieved through multiculturalism? To answer this, different research is needed; research that studies the number of violent incidents arising from diversity challenges. I do not believe that they do. Like Kymlicka, I believe that the 2005 bombings and most conflicts arising from diversity challenges can occur in spite of multicultural policies; that actually the absence of such policies would result in more conflicts. Hence, while acknowledging that there is still much to be done, I believe that multiculturalism did not fail, but that this strategy implemented in the form of strong anti-discrimination and equal opportunities policies actually helped achieve what governments since the 1960s have set out to do: create more equality between groups. It is my belief that this has been achieved in the UK through embracing not only the ideals of multiculturalism as a normative choice, but by giving it a coherent, long-term empirical content. When assessing whether, based on the objectives on which it was adopted, multiculturalism failed in the Netherlands, it is important to bear in mind that in the Netherlands the first policies to manage problems of diversity were taken 14 years after those in the UK (see Appendix 1). Additionally, the changing goals and shifts in policies make it difficult to answer the question whether the policies of multiculturalism achieved the goals and objectives they were designed to achieve. The anti-discrimination laws and policies of the last 15 years have seemed to reduce prejudices in some specific situations, but not in others. Research by various authors and more recently through the Discrimination Monitor of non-western migrants on the Dutch labour market suggest discrimination is at work when minorities look for a job. In relation to the policies designed to increase labour market participation of minorities, the termination of the SAMEN Act diminished results achieved previously. Current mainstream 99 Joppke (1996). pp. 488.



4. Conclusion: Did Multiculturalism fail?

diversity policies have resulted in quite low compliance; even in the public sector. Alongside this low compliance is a low participation rate of minorities in both the private and the public sector. The data in the study of Tubergen, Maas and Flap (2004)100 supports these conclusions by showing the difference in the employment rates of immigrants and natives in the UK (4.4%) and in the Netherlands (12.8%) for a period of 21 years (between 1980-2001). Despite the fact that the authors used descriptive data, they took into account the immigrant’s individual characteristics and their country of origin. But why is this conclusion important? There are various reasons. Firstly, the results achieved in the Netherlands suggest an absence of an underlying commitment to embrace and institutionalise diversity. Even today, there is still a big difference between government rhetoric and actual policies. While before and after Minister Verdonk, others have suggested that integration policies would result in the (complete) assimilation of minorities, international commitments and the implementation of new anti-discrimination laws make it increasingly difficult for anyone to actually pursue this kind of policy. Poppelars and Scholten put this argument forward by stating that “The Dutch exceptionalism stems not only from the radical way in which the Netherlands has turned from multiculturalism to assimilationism but also from the limited extent to which the turn in official policy discourse seems to have taken effect in concrete policy practices”.101 The study of Nemetz and Christensen shows that the likelihood of a person to accept diversity stems not only from their personal convictions; but also from the influence exerted by informal information. These findings provide a warning for the ambivalent way in which the Dutch government is now dealing with diversity; with an assimilationist rhetoric that makes many believe that differences in the public sphere can or will be eliminated. Secondly, given the fact that European governments are amongst the most vociferous defenders of liberal values and human rights and have signed and ratified laws that protect minorities, it is dangerous to discard a strategy that is actually in line with the (inter)national obligations that these governments have consciously and willingly assumed. Looking closely into the concrete integration policies chosen by the British and the Dutch governments, we see that none of the instruments adopted prevent individuals from manifesting their differences in the public sphere (the difference between multiculturalism and integration). It seems, therefore, that while there have 100 Tubergen, van, Maas and Flap (2004). pp. 715. 101 Poppelaars and Scholten (2008). pp. 339.

49

50

Significant Difference?

been big changes at the entry points, in reality the policies used to deal with existing minorities still follow many aspects of weak multiculturalism. Finally, Multiculturalism, as said before, has been declared dead in both countries. Today, it is not an attractive option for politicians or governments. In the UK, it has been replaced by social cohesion and active integration. In the Netherlands, granting multiculturalism any merits is taboo. I am wary of discarding such an important strategy without solid basis for it. It limits the options open to governments and policy makers when dealing with diversity and its challenges. With fewer options to choose from, what alternatives do we have if, in a few years’ time, integration might ‘fail as well’?



Bibliography

Bibliography Andriessen, Iris; Dagevos, Jaco; Nievers, Eline and Boog, Igor (2007) “Discriminatiemonitor niet-westerse allochtonen op de arbeidsmarkt 2007”. Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau/Art.1. Barry, Brian (2001) “Culture and Equality. An Egalitarian Critique of Mul­ ticulturalism”. Harvard University Press. http://signonthebrokenline. com/2007/04/29/brian-barrys-culture-and-equality-a-critical-review/ Accessed 13 August 2008. 17:24. Beek, Jan H. van de (2010) “Kennis, macht en Moraal: De productie van wetenschappelijke kennis over de economische effecten van migratie naar Nederland, 1960-2005”. Institute for Social Science Research (AISSR). Benedictus, Jannie and Van Dorp, Henriette (2008) on Peter Scholten “In­tegration policy: a muddled business”. http://www.utnieuws.utwente. nl/new/?artikel_id=71342 (Jaargang: 43, Nr. 2). Accessed 30 July 2008. 17:49. Buruma, Ian (2006) “Murder in Amsterdam. The death of Theo van Gogh and the limits of tolerance”. New York: The Penguin Press. Coenders, Marcel; Lubbers, Marcel and Scheepers, Peer (2006) “Het tolerante land’ in historisch en landenvergelijkend perspectief”. In: Jaarboek Mens en Maatschappij, december 2006. Amsterdam University Press. Crick, Bernard; editor. (1991) National Identities: the constitution of the Uni­ted Kingdom. Oxford: Blackwell. De Vries, S.; van de Ven, C.; Nuyens, M.; Stark, K.; van Schie, J.; van Sloten, G.C. (2005). “Diversiteit op de werkvloer: hoe werkt dat? Voorbeelden van diversiteitsbeleid in de praktijk”. 2005 TNO. Dhami, Ravinder Singh, Judith Squires and Tariq Modood (2006) “Develo­ ping positive action policies: learning from the experiences of Europe and North America”. Department for Work and Pensions, Research Report No 406. Entzinger, H. and Dourleijn, E. (2008) De Lat Steeds Hoger: De leefwereld van jongeren in een Multi-etnische stad. pp. 104. Van Gorcum. Essed, Philomena and Nimako, Kwame (2006) “Designs and (Co)Inci­ dents: Cultures of Scholarship and Public Policy on Immigrants/ Mi­norities in The Netherlands”. International Journal of Comparative Soci­ ology. Vol 47(3–4): 281-312. Sage Publications. http://cos.sagepub.com/ cgi/reprint/47/3-4/281 Accessed 5 August 2008. 18:49.

51

52

Significant Difference?

Eyerman, Ron (2008) “The Assassination of Theo van Gogh. From Social Drama to Cultural Trauma”. Durham & London: Duke University Press. Feuchtwang, Stephan (1987) “The anti-racist challenge: to anthropology in the UK”. In “Anthropology Today, Vol. 3, No.5. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. Gallis, P. et all. (2005) “Muslims in Europe: Integration Policies in Selec­ ted Countries”. CRS Report for Congress. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/ row/RL33166.pdf Accessed 31/10/2007 at 22:50. Gijsberts, Mérove and Dagevos, Jaco (2005) Love Thy neighbour? . pp. 105. SCP.http://www.scp.nl/english/dsresource?objectid=22742&type =org Accessed 14 July 2010. 15:11. Gijsberts, Merove and Dagevos, Jaco (2009) “Jaarrapport integratie 2009” SCP, Den Haag. Glazer, Nathan (1997) “We Are All Multiculturalists Now”. Harvard Uni­ versity Press. Guiraudon, Virginie; Phalet, Karen and Ter Wal, Jessika (2005) “Monitoring ethnic minorities in The Netherlands”. http://ics.uda.ub.rug.nl/FILES/ root/Articles/2005/PhaletK-Measuring/PhaletK-Measuring-2005. pdf Accessed 18 August 2008. 16:58. Houtzager, Dirk LL.M. and Rodrigues, Peter R Dr. (2002) “Migrants, Mino­ rities and Employment in The Netherlands: Exclusion, discrimination and anti-discrimination”. Dutch Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/NL.pdf Ac­cessed 1 July 2010: 18:08. Human Development Report (2004) “Cultural liberty in today’s diverse world”. Published for the United Nations Development Programme. Printed by Hoechstetter Printing Co. Jackson Preece, Jennifer (1997) “National minority rights vs. state sovereig­ nty in Europe: changing norms in international relations?” Nations and Nationalism 3 (3), 1997, 345-64. ASEN. Joppke, Christian (1996) “Multiculturalism and Immigration: A Compa­ rison of the United States, Germany, and Great Britain”. Theory and Society, Vol. 25, No.4 pp.449-500. Springer. Krebbers, Eric (2005) “The Netherlands: from multiculturalism to forced integration”. http://www.gebladerte.nl/30106v01.htm Accessed 30 July 2008. 18:15. Kukathas, Chandran “Theoretical Foundations of Multiculturalism”. http:// economics.gmu.edu/pboettke/workshop/fall04/theoretical_ founda­tions.pdf Accessed 14 August 2008. 16:32.



Bibliography

Kundnani, Arun (2007) “Integrationism: the politics of anti-Muslim ra­ cism”. Race & Class. Vol. 48(4): 24-44. Sage Publications. Kymlicka, Will (1995) Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford University Press. Kymlicka, Will (2000) Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multicultura­lism and Citizenship. Oxford University Press. Kymlicka, Will and Wayne, Norman (2000) Citizenship in Diverse Societies. Oxford University Press. Lechner, Frank J. (2007) “Redefining National Identity: Dutch Evidence on Global Patterns”. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Vol. 48, No. 4, 355-368. http://cos.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/48/4/355 Ac­ cessed 30 July 2008. 16:13. McLennan, Gregor (2001) “Problematic Multiculturalism”. Sociology Vol. 35, No.4, pp. 985-989. BSA Publications Limited. Ministerie Binnenlandse Zaken (1994) “Integratiebeleid etnische minder­ heden: Contourennota”. Handelingen van de Tweede Kamer, zitting 1993-1994, 23 684, nr. 1. Ministerie Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid “Brief aan de Voorzitter van de Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal on MKB-minderhedencon­ venant en Raamconvenant Grote Ondernemingen”. Of 12 July 2002, code ABG/DB/02/49503. Quoted in Patterson, Sheila (1969) Immigration and race Relations in Bri­tain 1960-1967. London: Oxford University Press. Patricia L. Nemetz and Sandra L. Christensen (1996) “The Challenge of Cultural Diversity: Harnessing a Diversity of Views to Understand Multiculturalism”. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 2. Aca­ demy of Management. Peet, John (2002) “The rule of common sense”. The Economist, May 4. Penninx, Rinus (1979) “Naar een algemeen etnisch minderhedenbeleid?” In WRR (Ed.), Etnische minderheden (pp. 1-174). Den Haag: Staatsuit­ geverij. Penninx, Rinus (2005) “Dutch Integration Policies After the Van Gogh Murder”. Contribution to the Expert Panel on Social Integration of Im­ migrants, organized by The Metropolis Project, the European Com­ mission, UNESCO and the Library of Parliament, held at the House of Commons on January 24, 2005 in Ottawa. Poppelaars, Celesta and Scholten, Peter (2008) “Two Worlds Apart: The Di­ vergence of national and Local Immigrant Integration Policies in The Netherlands”. In Administration & Society. Vol. 40,(4). July 2008. Sage Publications.

53

54

Significant Difference?

Prins, Baukje (2002) “The nerve to break taboos: New realism in the Dutch discourse on multiculturalism”. JIMI Volume 3. Number 3&4 (Sum­ mer /Fall 2002). 363-379. PCERII. Prins, Baukje and Sawitri Saharso (2008) “In the spotlight. A blessing and a curse for immigrant women in the Netherlands.” Ethnicities 8(3), pp. 365-384. Prins, Baukje and Sawitri Saharso (2010) “From Toleration to Repression. The Backlash against Multiculturalism in the Netherlands”. In: S. Vertovec and S. Wessendorf (eds), The Multiculturalism Backlash: European discourses, policies and practices. London: Routledge, pp. 72-91 Runblom, Harald (1994) “Swedish Multiculturalism in a Comparative Eu­ ropean Perspective”. Sociological Forum, Vol. 9, No. 4, Special Issue: Multiculturalism and Diversity, (Dec., 1994), pp. 623-640. Schalk-Soekar, Saskia (2007) “Multiculturalism: a stable concept with many ideological and political aspects”. http://www.onderzoekinformatie.nl/nl/oi/biza/d61000o/OND1282327/ Accessed 30 July 2008. 17:57. Scheepers, Peer and Coenders, Marcel (1996) “Trends in etnische discriminatie in Nederland 1980-1993”. Justitiële Verkenningen, 22 (3), pp. 8-25. Schinkel, Willem (2008) “De gedroomde samenleving”. Kampen: Klement. Selm, Joanne van (2005) “The Netherlands: Death of a Filmmaker Shakes a Nation”. http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display. cfm?ID=341 Accessed 25 July 2008. 18:38. Simon, Patrick (2004) “Comparative Study on the collection of data to measure the extent and impact of discrimination within the United States, Canada, Australia, Great-Britain and The Netherlands” http:// ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/pubst/ stud/compstud04_en.pdf Accessed 15 August 2008. 17:17. Sivanandan, A. (2005) “It’s anti-racism that failed, not multicultura­lism that failed”. http://www.irr.org.uk/2005/october/ak000021.html Accessed on 5 August 2008. 17:02. Snel, E. and Scholten, P. (2005) “Van gastarbeiders tot het multiculturele drama: integratie als hardnekkig beleidsprobleem.” In Arentsen and Trommel (eds.), Moderniteit en Overheidsbeleid; hardnekkige beleidsproblemen en hun oorzaken. Coutinho, Bussum. Sniderman, Paul and Hagendoorn, Louk (2007) “When Ways of Life Collide. Multiculturalism and its Discontents in the Netherlands”. Princeton: Princeton University Press.



Bibliography

Stolcke, Verena (1999) “New rhetorics of exclusion in Europe”. pp. 26. In­ ternational Social Science Journal, Vol. 51, 159 (p 25-35). Found in http://www3. interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/fulltext/119064070/PDFSTART Accessed 1 August 2008. Sutton, M.; Perry, B.; Parke, J. and John-Baptiste, C. (2007) “Getting the message across: using media to reduce racial prejudice and discrimi­nation”. http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf /611667.pdf Accessed 2 July 2010: 13:34. Tubergen, Frank van; Maas, Ineke; Flap, Henk (2004) “The Economic In­ corporation of Immigrants in 18 Western Societies: Origin, Destina­ tion, and Community Effects”. American Sociological Review, Vol. 69, 5. American Sociological Association. Verkuyten, Maykel and Zaremba, Katarzyna (2005) “Interethnic Relations in a Changing Political Context”. Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol.68,4. pp.375-386. American School Association. Vasta, Ellie (2009) “The controllability of difference: social solidarity and immigrant integration”. Centre on Migration, Policy and Society. Wor­ king Paper no. 71, University of Oxford. Verwey-Jonker, Hilda (1973) “Allochtonen in Nederland”. (Onderzoek in opdracht van het Ministerie van Cultuur, Recreatie en Maatschappelijk Werk), Den Haag: Staatsuitgeverij. Vijver, Fons J. R. van de, in Presentatie “Polarisatie vanuit de crossculturele psychologie” 29 January 2010 in Collegereeks Polarisatie FORUM. Witte, Rob (2010) Al Eeuwenlang een Gastvrij Volk: Racistisch geweld en overheidsreacties in Nederland 1950-2009. Uitgeverij Aksant, Amsterdam. WRR (1989) “Allochtonenbeleid”. (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Rege­ ringsbeleid, Rapporten aan de Regering, nr. 36), Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.

Web sources Art. 1 Discriminatie. Under “Over discriminatie, discriminatiegronden: Ras”. https://www.discriminatie.nl/over-discriminatie/discriminatiegronden#ras   Accessed 18 August 2010. 17:48 Bader, Veit “Dutch Nightmare? The end of multiculturalism?” http://artsci. wustl.edu/~ppri/Workshop_Papers/BaderPaperonNetherlands.pdf Accessed 25 July 2008. 19:31. Bureau Gelijke Behandeling Gelderland Zuid. Ieder1gelijk Under “Discriminatie, discriminatiegronden: Ras” http://www.ieder1gelijk.nl/discriminatie/discriminatiegronden/ras-afkomst-of-huidskleur.html Accessed 19 August 2010. 13:31

55

56

Significant Difference?

Commissie Gelijke Behandeling (Commission for Equal Treatment). http:// www.cgb.nl/artikel/equal-treatment-act Accessed 4 July 2010: 10:32. Ascherson, Neal “Replies to David Goodhart” (2006) http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/06/repliestodavidgoodhart/ Accessed 21 August 2008. 15:14. Equality and Human Rights Commission: Vision, mission and priorities http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/aboutus/mission/pages/ visionmissionandpriorities.aspx Accessed 26 August 2008. 14:33. Equality and Human Rights Commission. Under “Advice and Guidance, Your rights: Race” http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-andguidance/your-rights/race/what-is-race-discrimination/what-formsdoes-racial-discrimination-take/ Accessed 18 August 2010. 17:32 Equalities Review (2007) “Fairness and Freedom: The Final Report of the Equalities Review”. http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/equalitiesre­view/ upload/assets/www.theequalitiesreview.org.uk/equality_review.pdf Accessed 22 July 2010. 16:04. Eurobarometer 71 (Spring 2009) “De publieke opinie in de Europese Unie. NATIONAAL RAPPORT NEDERLAND”. http://ec.europa.eu/public_ opinion/archives/eb/eb71/eb71_nl_nl_nat.pdf Accessed 7 July 2010. 16:29 European Commission: Enlargement: Accession Criteria. http:// ec.europa. eu/enlargement/enlargement_process/accession_process/criteria/index_en.htm Accessed 11 August 2008. 16:26. IPSOS Mori: Race Is No Barrier To ‘Being British http://www.ipsos­mori.com/ content/race-is-no-barrier-to-being-british.ashx / http:// www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll. aspx?oItemId=984 Accessed on 5 August 2008. 15:38. Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Rights of minorities http://www. minbuza.nl/en/themes,human-rights/human-rights#a7 Accessed 4 August 2008. 15:06. BBC News: Debate call on ‘multicultural’ UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ uk_politics/3599925.stm Accessed 24 July 2008. 07:03. BBC News: Britons embrace multi-culturalism http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/ hi/uk/1990118.stm Accessed 30 July 2008. 17:35.



Bibliography

BBC Home: 1981: Brixton riots report blames racial tension http:// news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/25/new­ sid_2546000/2546233.stm Accessed 8 October 2008. Canadian Heritage: Multiculturalism: Canadian Diversity: Respecting our Differences http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/multi/respect_e.cfm Acces­sed 7 August 2008. 12:17. Institute for Community Cohesion: Homepage http://www.cohesioninsti­ tute.org.uk/home Accessed 1 July 2010: 17:40. Koopmans, Ruud (19 November 2008) “Nederland is nog volop multicultureel” in NRC Handelsblad. http://www.nrc.nl/opinie/article2066117. ece/Nederland_is_nog_volop_multicultureel_volledige_tekst Accessed 17 August 2010. 10:18 Office of the United Nations high commissioner for human rights: status of ratifications of the principal international human rights treaties http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/report.pdf Accessed 4 August 2008. 12:17. Office of the United Nations high commissioner for human rights: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 4,1. http:// www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm Accessed 4 August 2008. 12:36. Park, A.; Curtice, J.; Thomson, K. Jarvis, L.; Bromley, C. (2004) “British Social Attitudes 2003-2004. Continuity and Change over Two Deca­ des − The 20th Report”. Publisher: Sage ISBN: 9781412933124 VNO-NCW: Veertig nieuwe minderhedenconvenanten met bedrijven http:// www.vno-ncw.nl/web/show/id=94618/dbcode=301/dosco­de=93/ filetype=dosnews Accessed 28 August 2008. 13:58.

57

58

Significant Difference?



Appendices

59

Appendices

Appendix 1: Main events in anti-discrimination legislation and policies Dates 1958 1962 1965 1968

1971 1976 1977

UK Racial riots in Nottingham and Notting Hill First Commonwealth Immigration Act First Race Relations Act Second Race Relations Act Commonwealth Immigration Act : Restrictive immigration policy

NL

Enactment of the Race Relations Act of reference Creation of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE)

Hostages taken by Maluku activists

1979

1983

1984

The Mandla vs Dowell Lee case: case law on religious discrimination

1985 1986 1987 1988

Creation of the National bureau against discrimination (LBR) Concept of systemic discrimination Equal opportunities policy Public financing of Muslim and Hindu schools New WRR report: minority policies (Allochtonenbeleid)

1989 1991 1994

WRR Report: Ethnic minorities (Etnische Minderheden) WRR: Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid Introduction of a prohibition of discrimination in the constitution Ethnic minority policy (Minderhedennota) Computerisation of population data (GBA)

Census: introduction of the ethnic question Codes of practice, standards, guidelines

Fair Employment of Ethnic Minorities Act (WBEAA : employers registration of minorities in their workforce to promote proportional Labour market Participation of outsiders/aliens) Equal Treatment Act (AWGB) and Creation of the Commission for Equal Treatment (CGB: Commissie Gelijke Behandeling)

60

Significant Difference?

1998

1999

Lord Scarman Report: The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry

2000

Race Relations (Amendment) Act: Race equality schemes Census: question on religion and mixed origin RRA Regulations : positive duty, accountability, equity plan 3 organisations merge into Commission for Equality and Human Rights: CRE

2001 2003 2006 2007

New Ministry established: the Ministry for Metropolitan Affairs and Integration (Grote Steden- en Integratiebeleid): Minister Roger van Boxtel SAMEN Act (labour market participation) Mediator for ethnic minorities (BAM: Bedrijfsadviseur minderheden) 3 national organisations merge into LBR: the Antidiscrimination Committee (ADO, consultative body and centre of expertise in fair portrayal and the media), the Antiracism Information Centre (ARiC) and the National Bureau against Racial Discrimination (LBR, specialising in legislation)

Abolition of the SAMEN Act

The LBR and the local and regional antidiscrimination agencies (ADAs) become, together, the association against discrimination (Art. 1)

Source: Simon, Patrick (2004) “Comparative Study on the collection of data to measure the extent and impact of discrimination within the United States, Canada, Australia, GreatBritain and the Netherlands” for the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities of the European Commission.

Appendix 2: Major Anti-Discrimination Agencies Country

Agencies

United Kingdom

Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) Landelijk Bureau ter be- Algemene Wet Gelijke strijding van Rassendis- Behandeling, 1994 criminatie (LBR) Since 2007: Art. 1 Commissie Gelijke Behandeling (CGB) Equal treatment commission

The Netherlands

Laws of reference and year of creation Civil Rights Act, 1976

Grounds covered Race, national origin, colour All grounds

Source: Simon, Patrick (2004) “Comparative Study on the collection of data to measure the extent and impact of discrimination within the United States, Canada, Australia, GreatBritain and the Netherlands” for the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities of the European Commission.



Appendices

Appendix 3: Legislation on Employment Equality Country

Laws or programmes

United Kingdom

Race Relations Act

The Netherlands

SAMEN

Scope of application and main elements of the programme Mandatory for public authorities (bodies, institutions and public companies, including the territorial authorities), recommended for private companies. Private and public companies with over 35 private and public employees Equalisation of the representation of minorities, annual monitoring report, penalties in the event of non-compliance with the programme

Grounds covered

Ethnic groups

Non-Natives: Turks, Moroccans Surinamese, West Indians Other non-Westerners

Source: Simon, Patrick (2004) “Comparative Study on the collection of data to measure the extent and impact of discrimination within the United States, Canada, Australia, GreatBritain and the Netherlands” for the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities of the European Commission.

Appendix 4: Parties in government United Kingdom Year 1945-1951 1951-1964 1964-1970 1970-1974 1974-1979 1979-1997 1997-present

Party Labour party Conservative Party Labour party Conservative Party Labour party Conservative Party Labour Party (New Labour)

Position Centre-left Right Centre-left Right Centre-left Right Centre with both right and left elements

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/past_elections/html/default.stm Accessed 28 August 2008. 14:29

The Party for Freedom (PVV) is a right-wing political party founded by Geert Wilders in 2006. The PVV’s political agenda is dominated by a hard-line approach to topics such as integration, immigration and Islam. The PVV is also a firm critic of the European Union.

61

62

Significant Difference?

The Netherlands Year 1978 − 1989 1989 − 94 1994 – 98 1998–2002 July 2002 − 27 May 2003 27 May 2003 − 7 July 2006

Party CDA–VVD coalition (Christian Democrats and People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy) CDA–PvdA (Christian Democrats and Labour Party) PvdA, D66 and VVD coalition PvdA, D66 and VVD coalition CDA, VVD and LPF coalition CDA, VVD and D66 coalition

Position Centre-right Centre-left Centre-left Centre-left Right Centre-right

Source: Storm, Servaas and Naastepad, Ro (2003). NLR Vol, 20, March-April 2003, pp. 131151. Found http://www.newleftreview.org/?getpdf=NLR25405&pdflang=en Accessed 13 August 2008. 19:31

Box 1: Description of UK Political Parties in government since the 1950s The UK’s political parties include national parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Those representing the whole UK and in government since the 1950s are: The Labour Party launched a body called the Labour Representation Committee in 1900. It had no members, only organisations affiliated to it that represented the efforts of working people, trade unionists and socialists wanting to change the British Parliament to represent the interests of everybody. The first Labour government was chosen in 1924. The values of this party before the 1990s revolved around democratic socialism favouring redistribution, government intervention and a welfare system. Since embracing the third way, free-market policies have been more common, yet the party still describes the following as its values “social justice, strong communities, reward for hard work, decency and rights matched by responsibilities. We stand for the many not the few.” Source: http://www.labour.org.uk/what_is_the_labour_party Accessed 27 August 2008. 13:27

The Conservative Party, also called the ‘Tory Party’, held government for many decades since 1783 (1783-1830). The modern history of the Conservative Party begins with the era of Disraeli (1874-1880) who forged the crucial link between the Conservative Party and patriotic pride in nation and empire. The vision of this party revolves around “giving people more opportunity and power over their lives, making families stronger and society more responsible and making Britain safer and greener.” Source: http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=our.vision.page Accessed 27 August 2008. 13:41

The Liberal Democrats “exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community,



Appendices

and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.” Source: http://www.libdems.org.uk/who_we_are.aspx Accessed 29 July 2010. 14:28

Box 2: Description of Dutch Political Parties in government since the 1970s The Labour Party or PvdA was founded in 1946, succeeding the Social Democratic Labour Party (SDAP) which was originally formed in 1894. It aimed at breaking the strict political, social and religious segregation (pillarisation) by seeking to attract groups to a progressive middle ground. As a coalition partner, it played a major role in the construction of the Dutch welfare state during the 1950s. During the 1970s and 1980s, the PvdA embraced some elements of the third way, slimming down the welfare state but keeping some constraints on the private sector. The CDA was formed in 1980 through a merger of various Christian parties − the Catholic Peoples’ Party (KVP), the Calvinist Anti-Revolutionary Party (ARP) and the Dutchreformed Christian Historical Union (CHU). It is similar to the German CDU which also focuses on family values, social justice, environmental stewardship, corporate decision-making structures and a strong role for the state in economic management. The party traditionally occupies a centrist position. The People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy or VVD was founded in 1948 as a market-liberal party, supporting both free markets and some aspects of the welfare state. The VVD is a right wing party on economic matters but ‘liberal’ on cultural and moral issues such as gay rights and euthanasia. Since the 1970s, however, its support for the welfare state has declined considerably and its conservative and liberal values have often conflicted. Despite its role in the centre-left coalition that governed between 1994 to 2002, in subsequent years it adopted much of the anti-immigration rhetoric and proposals of the LPF first (no longer in existence) and the PVV later. Democrats 66 or D66 is a pro-European social liberal party formed in 1966 which seeks to increase democratic participation in Dutch society and politics and promote liberal values such as individual freedom, social involvement, equal rights and freedom of speech. “D66 aims towards a democratic, durable and open society where individual

63

64

Significant Difference?

freedom coupled with social cohesion is the norm. A society in which the will and the opportunity to take responsibility for oneself and one’s immediate surroundings is present”. D66 is currently one of the fiercest opponents of Geert Wilders’ PVV. Source: http://democrats.nl/d66.html Accessed 28 August 2008. 15:20

The Socialist Party (SP) is a Eurosceptic democratic socialist party. It started in 1971 as the Communist Party of the Netherlands/Marxist-Leninist, but changed its name a year later. The former Maoist party officially abandoned Marxism-Leninism in 1991 and first entered parliament in 1994. The elections of 2006 made SP the third largest party in parliament, behind the CDA and the PvdA. The Party for Freedom (PVV) is a right-wing political party founded by Geert Wilders in 2006. The PVV’s political agenda is dominated by a hard-line approach to topics such as integration, immigration and Islam. The PVV is also a firm critic of the European Union. The latest polls (September 2009) suggested that if elections were held now, the PVV would come out second. They would fall only one seat behind the projected winner, the CDA. Source: https://n7.noties.nl/peil.nl/ Accessed 9 September 2009.