Læs også min WEBLOG "Info-BLOG'en" med nyheder
Tilbage til "Artikeloversigt"
|
Læs også min WEBLOG "Info-BLOG'en" med nyheder Tilbage til "Artikeloversigt" |
|
|
England - Sekulært eller multikulturelt samfund:What kind of country?David Hayes, 29. juli 2005 The lesson of the July terror attacks is that Britain must become either secular or multicultural – and choosing the latter means setting up a Muslim Parliament, says David Hayes. Britain on 7 July 2005 became a different country. The four coordinated (and
“homegrown”) suicide-bombs on the London transport network that killed 52
innocent people and injured more than 700 may have a cumulative social impact as
great and potentially devastating as their uncountable human one. The challenges raised by these attacks are multiple:
All this is the work of years, not days. Together it raises the question for
people living in Britain: what kind of country do we want to live in? In the
light of 7 July, its near repeat on 21 July, and possible further deadly attacks
to come, two very different answers – two models – come into view. Radical secularism The first model might be called radical secularism. It would respect and
pursue the logic of the overwhelmingly likely social fact that religious
ideology has inspired British citizens to acts and attempted acts of
indiscriminate mass murder. It also draws on the less visible but potent and
long-standing everyday reality that the promotion of religious faith in the
public context – starting in the very early years of segregated education –
creates the potential for permanent, destructive social schism. The model would enforce a rigid separation between religion and public life,
involving the following measures:
Such changes can sound draconian. But they would make sense (or indeed be
made possible) only if the foundation of this new “British commonwealth” was
the conscious, willed choice of free citizens who decided that the benefits of
moving in this direction outweighed the handicaps of living under the existing
dispensation. In effect, if people affirmed: this is the kind of
country we want to live in. Thus, a final element, the essential ground and precondition for this model,
is a redefined contract between state and citizen, involving a written
democratic constitution, the product of a constitutional convention. The model
would be impelled by the idea of defining in as fair, accountable and democratic
a manner as possible the relationship between the state and the citizen. Radical multiculturalism The second model might be called radical multiculturalism. It would respect
and pursue the logic of the evident social fact that the Muslim community of
Britain have particular problems, needs and frustrations that are not presently
being accommodated; that in its depth and acuity this condition is shared by no
other religious or ethnic group; and that it demands attention at the level of
the entire society. This model would involve recognising the current condition of this community
within British society as adherents of a single faith who are nevertheless
divided by ethnic origins, languages, beliefs, doctrines, attitudes and
institutional alignments, and who require authoritative, sanctioned public
recognition and respect. It suggests that the Muslims of Britain need a shared,
public and transparent forum of dialogue to explore the problems they share and
to seek solutions. But dialogue is not enough. It is vital that this forum has significant
decision-making powers. If lack of power does not corrupt absolutely, the Muslim
community in Britain certainly faces a severe problem of powerlessness. There is
no solution except through politics. The key feature of the model, then, would be to establish by law a Muslim
Parliament of Britain with the following characteristics:
The closest historic parallel to the model may be that of the Ottoman
empire where religious communities (Armenians, Jews, Greeks) had a high
degree of internal autonomy and law-making power. It could also be seen as a
natural extension of the existing British model of multiculturalism (and its
associated philosophy) insofar as this has become a rooted, internalised
element of British people’s collective self-definition and practice. Which model? What future? No historic social choices appear in “pure” form, and none offers a
panacea. The Britain of post-7/7 has no solutions except long-term ones. But if the status quo is not an option, a political response in relation
to the Muslim community that entails only the more intense application and
extension of current security or social policies would be at best
insufficient and at worst counter-productive. A proper, creative, targeted
mix of policies (registering of imams, monitoring of internet sites and
propaganda materials, restrictions on hate speech) and investment (in
education, employment, Sure Start schemes, literacy, women’s rights) is
desirable. The lesson of 7 July is that far more is needed. Which model is the more desirable, and which the more feasible? The
questions are connected. By definition, the choice in each case could only
be the result of an enormous, collective act of decision, the product of
searching debate across the entirety of British society. But any such choice
does not and will not arise in “abstract” form. It emerges from
particular social histories and understandings that are both the inherited
and the accumulated result of earlier choices. In this light, it is not clear that, however coherent in principle and
intellectually compelling the “radical secularism” model might appear to
be, anything like the adequate resources (of political or intellectual
energy and of social support) exist at the present historical moment in
Britain to generate the massive project that would be required. To create it
would be the equivalent of a constitutional, democratic revolution. By contrast, the “radical multiculturalism” model seems far more to
go with the grain of existing social policy and dominant ways of thinking in
Britain as they have developed in the past generation. The events of July 2005 have opened a time of test, trial, opportunity
and choice for the British people. It is the local manifestation of a global
contest that will define the next generation. Muddling through is not an
option.
|
