|
|
| |
| |
Editorial
03/2006 |
|
Lessons in democracy
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a member of parliament in the Netherlands (pictured on our front page). She is black,
her background is Muslim. Nonetheless, she is an icon of anti-migration activism in Europe. A former member
of the PvdA, the Dutch labour party, she switched to the right-wing VVD. The social democrats, she felt, were
out of touch with popular sentiment on migration and too comfortably prepared to close an eye on the abuse of
women in Muslim cultures. That a Somali-born feminist from a refugee family has become a figurehead of
European xenophobia shows how complex the issues really are. Some critics say Ms. Hirsi Ali is a mere fig
leaf of right-wing populism. They do not do her justice. Yes, she is a rabid activist – but she also has reason
to feel victimised. Theo van Gogh, a director who had made a film based on a script of hers, was murdered by
an Islamist fanatic in Amsterdam in 2004. That crime led many Dutch to reconsider migration. Ironically,
reemphasising traditional Dutch values (such as tolerance expressed in the freedom of speech) suddenly stood
in the way of multicultural laissez-faire.
France provides another example of bewildering complexity. On the one hand, the country is traditionally generous
in granting migrants full citizenship. On the other hand, people of African descent have largely remained marginalised.
Riots drew attention to their misery last fall. Some now consider the Republican paradigm – a melting pot with no
concern for race or religion – a complete failure. But is it really? In the late 1990s, when multiculturalist euphoria
held sway over much of Europe, FranceÕs national soccer team was emblematic. This group of young men – “;black, blanc, beur”; –
showed the world that what matters is excellence, not race. When they won the World Cup and the European Cup, they
triumphed over racism at the same time. Moreover, they helped re-define migration in Germany. Our ethnically homogenous
team, after all, had not performed well. French success, in comparison, demonstrated the importance of talent, wherever it may come from.
Today, all advanced nations have woken up to the fact that they need well-trained, skilled migrants. Nonetheless, some still maintain
that “multiculturalism has failed spectacularly”. But what is the alternative? We know that German public schools do a comparatively poor
job of helping migrants to become upwardly mobile. Should we learn from countries who do better? Or should Germany stick to keeping
migrants even more marginalised than others? And does anyone believe it is equitable to let illegal migrants slave away as cheap
household helpers as has become typical of the EU? Obvsiously, discrimination and xenophobia are no recipes for success in the
era of globalisation – nor against the threat of international terrorism.
There is nothing wrong, of course, with the idea that people should learn the language of the country they live in. Doing so is in their
own best interest. It makes sense to inform migrants about the culture and values of host countries. However, they deserve help in
acquiring such competences. Forcing them to underwrite constitutional or cultural values is unlikely to produce more than mere
lip service. Integration is something, the host countries need to manage convincingly in political and social terms. It is not simply
an obligation on migrants.
Back to the Netherlands, to the city of Rotterdam. In local elections last month, Leefbar (“livable”) Rotterdam, a blatantly xenophobic
outfit, lost its majority to the centre-left PvdA. Apparently, one reason why the right-wing populists did not do better was that voter
turnout was much higher among migrants than it had been in 2002. Obviously, many had learned a lesson in democracy.
Dr. Hans Dembowski
Editor in Chief of D+C Development and Cooperation/E+Z Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit
euz.editor@fsd.de
|
|
|
