Features of elections in different countries. Elections in countries with different voter turnouts (using the examples of Australia, USA, Singapore, Norway, Canada, Switzerland, Denmark, China, Japan) Japanese electoral system
The question of the prospects for integration into Western societies of people belonging to a different cultural tradition has become one of the key ones today. Already in 2000, the total number of international migrants exceeded 175 million people, but today all developed countries have become multicultural and immigration-intensive. As a result, compact communities of a different cultural orientation are being formed in large European cities, with a fundamentally different system of legal norms and ethical guidelines, which is often considered by the Western community as a threat to its social stability and national identity. Polit.ru publishes an article Irina Semenenko, dedicated to the problem of “cross-cultural identity”. The author discusses how to overcome the civil and social exclusion of those who are oriented towards a different cultural tradition, as well as the very content of national identity in the modern world. The material was published in the collection of articles “State Management: Problems and Development Trends. Political Science: Yearbook 2007" (M.: ROSSPEN, 2008), published by the Russian Association of Political Science.
The complex of problems associated with the growth of migration flows to the countries of the “golden billion” from the developing world today firmly holds a leading position among the issues that concern both the population of the West and its political elite. And this despite the fact that even at the end of the last century, when the prospects of globalization were at the center of not only scientific but also political discussion, there was widespread confidence in the impending qualitative change in political reality and in the possibility of effectively using political, economic and cultural potential of a globalizing world.
Indeed, immigration, being a necessary resource for economic development, creates problems for receiving countries that are today considered by a significant part of public opinion and the political elite as a threat to their social stability and national identity. The seriousness of the risks associated with foreign cultural migration is aggravated by the spread of anti-Western sentiment in the Islamic world and the growing concern of the West itself about the “Islamic threat.” The question of the prospects for the integration into Western societies of people belonging to a different civilizational tradition has become one of the key issues on the political agenda today. Ensuring the viability of Western democracy and the continuity of the European civilizational tradition largely depends on successfully solving the problems of regulating immigration and creating effective mechanisms for the integration of migrants and their descendants.
The quality of political discourse on the range of issues of migration and integration is becoming increasingly important. None of the influential political forces today can afford to ignore such a key topic as the importance of immigration for ensuring national development. Anti-immigration sentiment dominates the far right of the political spectrum and is used by the right as an effective means of mobilizing political support for those who disagree with government policies in this area. But the priorities and optimal ways to regulate immigration and integration of migrants are the subject of heated debate in the highest echelons of power and opposition in all developed countries without exception. The impact on public opinion that the reflection of this debate in the media and in scientific developments has should not be underestimated either. Thus, in Great Britain, problems of national identity and cultural diversity have become one of the main areas of research by the scientific and expert community. According to colleagues from the London Institute for Public Policy Research (Institute for Public Policy Research), As expressed to the author there, the results of the expert and analytical activities of this scientific center are widely available and in demand in socio-political discussion. I would like to hope that the Russian scientific community will be able to make a significant contribution to intensifying the discussion of the problems and prospects of immigration for Russia and to the formation of the foundations of state policy in this area. Therefore, it is important to analyze the experience accumulated in developed countries and assess the prospects regarding the formation of regulatory models and directions for their adjustment.
The scale of the challenges posed by migration turned out to be largely unpredictable, although they can hardly be called unexpected. Some experience in resolving ethnosocial contradictions has been accumulated in those countries where autochthonous ethnic minorities live compactly. The growth of ethno-national conflict over the last decades of the 20th century stimulated the search for a settlement of relations between the majority and minorities that claimed political and cultural autonomy. The creation of mechanisms for the partial implementation of such claims has brought tangible, albeit limited, results. By the end of the last century, political agreements were reached in Northern Ireland, institutions for maintaining cultural autonomy were formed, coupled with elements of political self-government (in Scotland and Wales, in the Basque Country and Catalonia, in the Belgian provinces, in Corsica, in Francophone Quebec in Canada). At the same time, the most important factor in the political mobilization of autochthonous minorities was the demand for the preservation of their language and cultural traditions (especially in Wales and French Brittany, as well as in northern Finland, Norway and Sweden - in areas inhabited by the indigenous Sami people). A decrease in intensity in the confrontation between “nations without a state” (ethnic minorities within national political communities) and the nation-state was observed precisely in the last decade, although this process did not proceed without serious disruptions. This transition of the confrontation into the phase of dialogue (and the conflict into a smoldering form) can be considered as a positive result of inter-elite agreements. As a result of the political agreements reached, compensatory mechanisms for maintaining ethnic identity began to work. Their functioning was ensured on the basis of recognition of the language, cultural practices, forms of social and political self-organization of different ethnic communities that belonged to the same civilizational tradition.
These shifts, however, coincided with a rise in ethnosocial tension caused by the growth of unresolved problems of integration into Western national communities of migrants of a different, non-Western civilization. The civic and political participation of those who did not identify with the European cultural tradition faced serious limitations, rooted both in the subjective perception of the “other” on the part of the host community and in the inertia of the tradition itself. For some migrants, “cross-cultural” (that is, absorbing elements of different cultural traditions and “fusing” them into a single whole) identity became a conscious choice, a form of adaptation to life in a new cultural environment. But for many others, the values of the Western community remained unconditional, and often unacceptable, and they not only did not strive to “dissolve” in the Western world, but in every possible way emphasized their intention to maintain their own identity. The inevitable consequence of cultural isolation was social marginalization. At the same time, not all immigrants were ready to accept the consolidation of their position on the social periphery of the host community.
It is known that democratic institutions function effectively on the basis of a “social contract”, the important elements of which are mutual trust and mutual obligations of participants. And in this sense, “the invasion of new members into society, the entry of immigrants, and changes in the civil composition of the population are a challenge to democracy,” to which an answer must be urgently sought. Because “the exact content of mutual understanding, the basis of mutual trust and the form of mutual obligations are all now subject to revision.” The question of how to overcome the civil and social exclusion of those who are oriented towards a different cultural tradition has arisen acutely for the modern nation-state in the context of the fragmentation of human social and cultural experience and the “weakening of the social field”, which A. Touraine considers “the brightest a feature of modernity." The national question (in the sense of the significance of the values of the nation-state and their relation to the values of the community, group, and individual) returned to public discourse in the form of debates about identity. The very content of national identity is undergoing a deep rethinking in a globalizing world, where, as Z. Bauman puts it, “those who can afford it live exclusively in time. Those who cannot, live in space. For the former, space does not matter. At the same time, the latter are struggling with all their might to make it meaningful."
In these conditions, the state turns out to be not the only, and often not the main, referent system of personal identification. In a multi-component, according to A. Lijphart, society, the nation itself becomes multi-component and multicultural. As a result, national identification is often replaced by ethnic identification, since more specific cultural meanings and symbolic meanings are associated with ethnic identity. It is the category of ethnicity in the modern world that is again, as at the dawn of human civilization, given “universal explanatory functions.” The very concept of “national” often contains ethnic content (this was typical for the period of national construction in the USSR and was “inherited” into Russian political vocabulary). But such an approach is fraught with undermining the unity of a political nation, which requires a clear “separation” of the national and ethnic components of identity.
The crisis of a modern political nation is aggravated by uncontrolled migration flows, which change the composition of national communities and erode their sociocultural field. In the open space of communications, ethnic identity becomes a potential factor of social mobilization in the information age. Cross-border spaces of social communication and exchange of resources are emerging, cemented by common language, culture, religion and the information field. Such areas have appeared in the United States and border Mexico, in the European Mediterranean and the Maghreb countries, in that part of the post-Soviet space where there is an active exchange of human capital. These are zones where the legal regime of the nation-state turns out to be largely ineffective and requires other, interstate agreements, for example, on the status of border territories and on a special regime for the transit of people, goods and services. It is no coincidence that the issue of dual and even multiple citizenship de facto changes the jurisdiction of the nation state.
Supranational regulation is not always capable of developing effective mechanisms for coordinating interests at different levels. General problems associated with the reception of human flows from third countries and the movement of people (especially illegal migrants) across the EU are gradually expanding the space of pan-European agreements, but this process is slow and difficult. The regulation of labor migration remains within the competence of national states. But the latest stage of EU enlargement can also be viewed as a concerted attempt to partially compensate for foreign cultural migration to the Old World - at least in the current generation - through culturally similar and, accordingly, more integrated social flows. In the immediate aftermath of the EU's latest enlargement, only three countries (the UK, Ireland and Sweden) allowed new EU citizens free entry, while others introduced a seven-year transition or quota system. But already in 2006, Finland, Portugal and Spain abandoned the restrictions, and a number of other “old” EU members also announced their intention to open their labor markets. Labor migration from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe has become a reality of everyday life in “old” Europe. Its prospects and potential risks are actively discussed in the press, despite the fact that expectations and fears of a rapid increase in the flow of labor from CEE seem to have been overestimated (according to expert estimates, in 2006, labor migrants made up only 1% of the economically active population of 10 new countries -members).
MIGRATION WITH A FOREIGN CULTURAL PERSON
The total number of international migrants in 2000 was more than 175 million, and their share in the world's population was 2.9% (against a stable 2% in 1965-1990). Australia and North America firmly hold the leadership in terms of the volume of received migration flows. In Western Europe, the share of first-generation migrants in its population ranges from 2 to 8-10%, and taking into account citizens who have one foreign parent (and, accordingly, automatically receive citizenship), reaches 15-20%. The share of foreigners in the population continues to grow in most Western countries (see Table 1). All developed countries have become multicultural and immigration-intensive, with the possible exception of Iceland. The first group includes the former metropolises (Great Britain, Holland, France), which throughout the 20th century received people arriving from the colonies in search of work. The second includes countries of traditional labor immigration (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, Germany, Sweden). The third group includes states that until recently remained suppliers of cheap labor. In the 1980s, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece became immigration countries, followed by Finland and Ireland in the next decade. CEE countries face the prospect of becoming the fourth group of migration recipients, but today they mainly export human capital to Western Europe. At the same time, although the influx of foreign labor serves as an important source of replenishment of the labor resources of the developed world, “the stable dynamics of immigration indicates that it has become an autonomous process, little dependent on the economic situation.”
Table 1. Share of foreigners in the population of developed countries, % (data on recorded migration)
| 1993 | 2003 | 1993 | 2003 | ||
| Austria | 8,6 | 9,4 | Portugal | 1,3 | 4,2 |
| Belgium | 9,1 | 8,3 | Finland | 1,1 | 2,0 |
| Great Britain | 3,5 | 4,8 | France | 6,3 (1) | 5,6 (2) |
| Germany | 8,5 | 8,9 | Switzerland | 18,1 | 20,0 |
| Denmark | 3,6 | 5,0 | Sweden | 5,8 | 5,1 |
| Ireland | 2,7 | 5,6 | Australia (3) | 22,9 | 22,8 |
| Spain | 1,1 | 3,9 | USA (3) | 8,2 | 12,1 |
| Italy | 1,7 | 3,8 | Canada (3) | 16,1 (4) | 18,2 (5) |
| Netherlands | 5,1 | 4,3 | New Zealand (3) | 1,1 | 19,5 (5) |
| Norway | 3,8 | 4,5 | Japan | 1,5 |
(1) 1990.
(2) 1999.
(3) Proportion of persons born abroad.
(4) 1991.
(5) 2001.
Compiled by: OECD Yearbook 2005.
However, these impressive figures do not provide a comprehensive idea of the scale of the problem. Statistics are deceiving. It does not take into account second and third generation immigrants. A significant part of them are citizens with full legal status, and their ethnicity is not recorded in population censuses. A more realistic ethnic image of states receiving migrants is depicted by social statistics (prison prisoners, hospital patients), where available. But a somewhat reliable picture of the formation of foreign cultural communities is only beginning to emerge as a result of the focused efforts of expert analysts. Thus, in Holland, the total number of first-generation migrants and those who have one of their parents of foreign origin today exceeds 16-17%, and in large cities the share of the population with a foreign culture is noticeably higher than this level. More than a third (37%) of the residents of Vancouver, Canada, according to the latest census, are of non-European origin. Although communities of foreign cultural migrants have been compactly formed primarily in traditional countries of immigration and in former metropolises for several generations, in recent years the problems of integration of such groups have become particularly acute in all developed countries. Affects critical mass effect migrants and refugees, which is actively discussed in the media.
Basically we are talking about groups of a different civilization compared to the European Christian tradition. The difficulties of integration today are associated primarily with the influx of millions of Muslims into developed countries. They form compact communities in large European cities, consolidated by the Islamic faith and the norms of behavior prescribed by it, although they adhere to its different interpretations. Islam has become the second largest religion on the European continent. The number of Muslims living in Europe has already exceeded the population of countries such as Finland, Denmark and Ireland combined, and is, according to rough estimates, 15-20 million. Their most significant share is in the population of France, Holland, Germany and Austria (see table. 2).
Table 2. Population of European countries and its Muslim part, thousand people
| Population of the entire country | Muslims* | Population of the entire country | Muslims* | ||
| Austria | 8103 | 300 | Italy | 56778 | 700 |
| Belgium | 10192 | 370 | Netherlands | 15760 | 695 |
| Denmark | 5330 | 150 | Portugal | 9853 | 30-38 |
| France | 56000 | 4000-5000 | Spain | 40202 | 300-400 |
| Germany | 82000 | 3040 | Sweden | 8877 | 250-300 |
| Greece | 10000 | 370 | Great Britain | 55000 | 1406 |
* Estimates for the first half of the 2000s.
Source: Dittrich M. Muslims in Europe: Addressing the Challenges of Radicalization // European Policy Center Working Paper. 2006. No. 23 (www.theepc.be).
The Muslim world has become the main source of labor and humanitarian migration of the last generation. As a result, communities of a different cultural and civilizational orientation were formed in the host countries. For a significant part of new migrants, Islam is not only a religion, but also another system of values, often incompatible with the Western one. Such a conflictual perception of “one’s own” culture in an “alien” world supports the existence of closed communities that fall outside the social and legal field of the host state (even if, according to formal characteristics, their members are “ordinary” citizens). Islam is perceived today in Western society as a different system of legal norms, ethical guidelines and religious practices compared to the system of legal norms, ethical guidelines and religious practices familiar to Europe. A regulated way of life, clothed in religious forms, unusual patterns of behavior and an unfamiliar worldview build a wall of misunderstanding and alienation between the “majority” and the “other” - Muslim - population both in immigration countries overseas, and especially in secular Europe. It is therefore not surprising that, for example, the negative perception of Roma remains so persistent in Europe (rota) , while racial characteristics have largely ceased, despite the remnants of everyday racism, to play the role of the main factor in the demarcation between “us” and “strangers”.
Under these conditions, the erosion of the value and spiritual guidelines of the host communities themselves turns out to be another major obstacle to establishing interaction with foreign cultural groups. Universal human values do not create a strong enough basis for social cohesion of the national community and for the implementation of a long-term development project. The advent of the information society changes not only the usual guidelines, but also the social and cultural mechanisms for maintaining identity. The distinctive features of individual identity are dynamism, amorphism and instability. As a result, the state of an atomized society is reproduced. All the more problematic is the inclusion of foreign cultural groups with stable values. Overcoming social exclusion turns out to be a necessary condition for establishing intercultural dialogue. But no less important is its value content, the dialogue of cultures, religions and traditions.
Such dialogue involves interaction both at the interpersonal level and at the level of structures of civil society and the state. The authors of the report on new immigrant communities in the UK, taking 1990 as a starting point (when the end of the Cold War saw significant changes in the geography of migration flows), came to the conclusion that ingrained beliefs about the origins, characteristics and socio-economic behavior of immigrants require serious revision and corresponding adjustment of the legal framework and practical policies. On the territory of this and other European countries there is a process of consolidation and fragmentation of foreign cultural communities and groups, primarily among Muslim immigrants. Different communities have different religious practices, norms of everyday behavior, and the degree of openness towards the host community and willingness to interact with it. In addition, along with visitors who want to stay, in recent years there has been a steadily growing number of those who arrive in developed countries in search of temporary work and are not at all aimed at deep integration into the host community. Particular difficulties arise due to the growing number of illegal migrants - those who do not have a legal residence status (10-15% of migrants living in Europe). They perform low-paid work in construction, seasonal work and in the service sector, but they themselves have virtually no access to social services. A very dynamic group is made up of foreign students: in the EU alone, the number of students from third countries today exceeds 750 thousand (although the level of student exchange between EU countries is incomparably higher). For countries such as Ireland or New Zealand, the education of international students has become an important sector of the national economy.
Each of these groups requires targeted policies and a differentiated approach to solving problems of inclusion in the host community. Although the unemployment rate among immigrants and their children is stably and often many times higher than the European average, the flow of labor migration does not dry out. Many (forced or by conscious choice) live on social benefits. At the same time, birth rates in these groups are several times higher, and population growth in developed countries is primarily due to migrants and their offspring. The task of using migration to solve problems of national development is becoming a priority of public policy in many European countries.
But achieving this goal faces a whole range of problems. Integration of foreign cultural populations is impossible without mobilizing the resources of the social state, since progress in this direction is directly related to solving poverty problems. The question arises about the development of mechanisms of social adaptation, including such stable political institutions as civil and legal consciousness. There is an urgent need to develop new forms of social communication in the public sphere. How do such adaptation mechanisms correlate with the cultural identity of new citizens, focused on other forms of interaction characteristic of traditional society?
The search for mechanisms aimed at realizing human rights, which took place in Europe at the end of the last century, led to the accumulation of a seemingly inexhaustible potential for tolerance. In terms of these indicators, back in the 90s, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden were in the lead, while the countries of Southern Europe were distinguished by a noticeably lower level of tolerance for unusual behavior patterns and foreign traditions. The murder of right-wing politician P. Fortuyn and director T. Van Gogh in the Netherlands and the so-called cartoon scandal that broke out in the world at the beginning of 2006 showed the fragility of the achieved balance. “Old” Europe cannot withstand the tests and challenges that are generated by the unconditional and often thoughtless application of the principles of political correctness. Streamlining migration policy and developing effective ways to integrate foreign cultural communities that have developed in receiving countries have become pressing issues on the current political agenda. At the center of public discussion were the problems of interaction with Muslim communities and the search for answers to the challenges (real or imaginary) that the rapid spread of Islam, the religion of the majority of migrants accepted by European countries, brings to Europe.
METAMORPHOSES OF MULTICULTURALISM
Until the second half of the last century, the alternative to the segregation of ethnic minorities was their consistent assimilation, that is, the unconditional acceptance by members of such groups of the cultural patterns and behavioral models of the majority. This approach received political and cultural form in the well-known metaphor of the American “melting pot” in conditions when the process of forming a nation-state was actively underway in the United States at the beginning of the 20th century. It was assumed that the formation of a political nation should be based on a common system of values and a single cultural tradition. But already in the 20s, the question of the need to preserve the cultural identity of ethnic groups living in the United States was raised by the American philosopher H.M. Cullen. Consistent opponent of the "melting pot" idea. Cullen believed that the requirement of "Americanization" of all migrants arriving in the United States was contrary to democratic tradition. However, these problems remained on the periphery of not only political but also scientific thought. Democracies of the pre-war period were characterized by an orientation towards the ideal of the nation as a cohesive community of citizens. Cultural differences were seen as surmountable, and their compatibility was not a subject of public debate.
As the welfare state emerged in the 1960s, social and political divisions within Western societies began to wane. An important incentive for a closer consideration of the problems of cultural diversity and political sovereignty was the development of integration processes within the EU and, then, the onset of a period of “Eurosclerosis” (slowdown) of integration on the threshold of the 70s. At the same time, the high level of ethno-national conflict in Europe and Canada has become a serious test for democracy. Growing concern about persistent forms of discrimination and segregation has also brought attention to the problems of indigenous peoples. The result of the social gains of the labor and youth movement, the culmination of the struggle of which was the events of 1968-1969 in France and Italy, was the introduction of strict rules for regulating the labor market and a system of social guarantees. This opened the way for a new wave of labor immigration; mechanisms were launched to attract cheap and socially unprotected labor from Third World countries. Flows of foreign cultural migration began to increase, and the problems of racism, segregation, and discrimination received not only economic, but also sociocultural content.
Public sentiment began to change towards greater tolerance in the public sphere. The idea that maintaining the cultural diversity of communities formed on the basis of ethnicity and identity is not inconsistent with the principle of maintaining the unity of a political nation has gained widespread acceptance. T. Parsons drew attention to the problems of the position of ethnic groups within the nation-state. In his view, such inclusion does not require the “dissolution” of ethnic groups into the national community, but ethnic pluralism is a serious challenge for modern democracies. In order to avoid ethnic conflict and overcome the dominance of ethnic loyalty, he considered it necessary to strengthen the common civil foundation of a modern nation. J. Habermas insisted that the state has the right to demand political loyalty from its citizens, but in no case cultural assimilation.
The explanation of social and political transformations both within Western societies and on the periphery of the post-industrial world - in the post-Soviet space or in the countries of South Asia - through the prism of cultural differences has united both adherents (such as S. Huntington) and opponents of the absolutization of the idea of cultural predetermination of social changes. Concepts such as “diversity,” “ethnic identity,” “tolerance,” and the “inclusion-exclusion” dichotomy have become the focus of public policy.
As an alternative to the doctrine of cultural assimilation, the concept of multiculturalism emerged, combining the recognition of both the individual rights of citizens and the rights of ethnic communities to maintain cultural identity. Its theorists C. Taylor, W. Kymlicka, B. Parekh and a large group of researchers who studied individual countries and regions proceeded from the dialectics of cultural diversity (diversify) and identity. “Multiculturalists” insisted that “there is no alternative to the shared use of identity space,” and proposed mechanisms for organizing “community” of groups and individuals of different ethnocultural orientations within the framework of a political nation.
Multiculturalism has become one of the most controversial concepts in modern political thought. On the issue of the content of the concept itself, no single point of view has emerged either in the political or academic community. The projection of this doctrine into multicultural social practices causes fierce debate. Despite this (and largely as a result of such ambiguous interpretations), the term is very widely used in political and scientific discourse. Internet search engines give more than 12 million mentions of “multiculturalism” (as of April 2006), and this number is growing like a snowball. There is also growing concern about uncontrolled migration and the exacerbation of social conflicts, in which obvious (and sometimes imaginary, but actively discussed in the media) ethnocultural motivation can be traced. These are the challenges that the doctrine of multiculturalism tries to answer. Ethnic and cultural components are persistently put forward as among the most significant characteristics of individual identity. Russian researcher V. Malakhov describes these processes in terms of “revising the traditional ideal of the national community.” Indeed, nation-states as political communities require new institutional “supports” for their consolidation, and multiculturalism can be considered as one of the mechanisms of such consolidation on a basis that incorporates both cultural (ethnic, religious, etc.) and political factors.
The doctrine of multiculturalism arose as a response to the need to regulate conflicts in states that contain several ethno-national communities, including indigenous peoples. On the other hand, its appearance was a reaction of the Western community to the problems caused by mass migration caused by the depletion of human resources in the developed world and the demographic pressure of the South. The ultimate goal of such a choice is to ensure the progressive economic development of the host country. In the most general terms, multiculturalism can be viewed as a political ideology and as a social practice that organizes and maintains a common space of political and social communication for a nation state. Moreover, this is an acceptable model of regulation for Western democracy, based on the recognition of the right of individuals and groups to maintain their own identity and tolerance in the public sphere.
One of the most famous theorists of multiculturalism, B. Parekh, insists on the need to “distinguish” “multiculturalism” as a concept meaning the state of cultural diversity of a national community, and “multiculturalism” as “a normative response to the presence of such a state.” “Like any other society, a multicultural society needs values shared by the majority to maintain it. Such a culture, which includes many cultures in its context, can only emerge as a result of their interaction and must support and nourish cultural differences. For those who are accustomed to considering culture "As a more or less homogeneous whole, the idea of a culture consisting of many cultures may seem inconsistent and strange. But in reality, such a culture is characteristic of societies where cultural diversity exists." For theorists of multiculturalism, this doctrine serves to strengthen the institution of the civil nation while preserving ethnic and cultural diversity within the nation itself.
Ethnic identity is considered within the framework of this approach as a category immanent in the process of self-identification. It is ethnic characteristics that enable an individual, according to this logic, to assert his own individuality in a society of uniform standards of consumption and impersonal patterns of behavior. An ethnic group as “an involuntary association of people who share a common culture, or their descendants, who identify themselves (and/or are identified by others) on the principle of belonging to such an involuntary group,” consolidates around cultural characteristics and itself reproduces such characteristics. These include a common language, religion, a sense of belonging to tradition and historical memory, common values, myths, rituals of recognizing “us” and “strangers”.
“Multiculturalists” emphasize positive political and social action, using the concepts of “inclusion” and “engagement,” “recognition,” and “cultural pluralism.” Thus, the theory lays the foundations for political practice, which, in a narrow sense, is considered as “multiculturalism” in modern political discussion. The main goal is to organize the cohabitation and interaction of individuals, groups, and communities of different cultural and religious orientations. We are talking about establishing mechanisms for combining different values, ideas, traditions, and ways of life within the framework of a civil nation. Among the arguments of supporters of the multicultural doctrine is the opportunity to gain knowledge about other cultures and ways of life. On the basis of such knowledge, openness towards “others”, tolerance in the public sphere, and rejection of racism and discrimination in everyday communication are formed. As a result, the space of national and political communication common to the nation state is reproduced.
The very concept of multiculturalism came into political use in the late 60s and early 70s, when Canada was looking for ways to resolve contradictions and organize a peaceful “community” of two communities - French-speaking and English-speaking. In 1971-1972, multiculturalism was proclaimed a principle of public policy in Canada, then in Australia. In subsequent years, it acquired political rhetoric and became synonymous with the practice of managing cultural diversity in a multi-ethnic society. Moreover, in none of the countries, even those that have proclaimed the corresponding orientation, does multiculturalism exist in its pure form. Everywhere, multicultural practices are accompanied by elements of assimilation or segregation of representatives of “other” ethnic communities.
The main direction remains economic, social and cultural adaptation and integration representatives of foreign cultural communities at the individual level. The result of initial adaptation to life in the host community should be functional integration, that is, acquiring skills to meet the essential needs of life and securing employment. The success of multicultural practices themselves can be measured by the level structural integration ethnic minorities - the degree of their involvement in educational and cultural initiatives, competitiveness, overcoming their discrimination in the labor market, providing them with equal social guarantees. In the course of structural integration, these minorities are given access to public resources outside and beyond targeted social programs. Political-legal integration involves not only their recognition of existing legal norms and the development of appropriate forms of social behavior, but also involvement in various forms of political and civic participation. Sociocultural integration focuses on individual inclusion in the system of social relations and in the cultural field of the host society. This level of integration involves interaction with the local community, and essentially active participation in its daily life. Ultimately, integration involves full participation in all forms of social life, but does not require the renunciation of one's own cultural identity (that is, it does not require assimilation).
In real life, various levels and forms of integration coexist, but not all become (and cannot become) the object of regulation. The most problematic result is sociocultural integration. Its success largely depends on the mood and attitudes of the host community and, no less, on the readiness of representatives of foreign cultural groups themselves to interact. In the absence of such movement towards each other, the implementation of multicultural practices results in the conservation of “exclusion” in the name of preserving cultural identity.
This danger is, in fact, one of the weighty arguments of opponents of multiculturalism in the scientific and expert community. Sociocultural determinism preserves social backwardness and gives rise to ethnic balkanization, which is disastrous for modern society. According to critics of the multicultural doctrine, this approach ignores social problems, replacing the need to solve them with arguments in favor of maintaining traditions and customs. Some of these customs go against not only the norms of everyday behavior customary in Europe, but also the ideas about ethics and morality rooted there. We are talking about religious rituals that are incompatible with the rules of everyday life, and about the practice of marriages predetermined by the family (pre-arranged) and polygamy, the consumption of non-traditional products. Emerging ethical conflicts create difficulties in relationships between people, increasing the feeling of insecurity and social tension for those who in everyday life are faced with manifestations that are alien to their usual culture.
At the same time, the members of the ethnic community themselves also do not always have the right to choose cultural guidelines; they are a priori viewed as representatives of “special” groups, as objects of social initiatives aimed at maintaining such “specialness.” In particular, unconditional support for traditions cannot but violate women's rights. The conflict between the fundamental commitment to gender equality in Western democracy and the desire to respect the customs of ethnic minorities, motivated by the maintenance of cultural traditions, is a serious challenge to democratic institutions. In many European countries, due to a misunderstood respect for “other” cultures, the regulation of behavior within Muslim communities has been left entirely to them. This approach, according to F. Fukuyama, corresponds to the “corporatist logic of social organization widespread in Europe” and is fraught with serious consequences for the national communities of democratic countries.
Correct political rhetoric, commitment to post-national values and deliberate silencing of the role of Christianity in the development of European civilization, adopted in the official political discourse, reproduce the blurred civilizational identity of the host community. In conditions of cultural fragmentation, its landmarks are losing their former attractiveness. And this - if representatives of foreign cultural minorities, showing an interest in affirming their values, tend to reject the values of the society in which they live - gives rise to not only ideological, but also legal conflicts. Solutions must be tailored to the specific situation. The fierce debate around the issue of headscarves in France has once again shown what difficulties we have to face along this path. A. Touraine warns about the danger of “transforming the secular character of society into a principle of public morality,” warning that “at best, this can lead to conformism, at worst, to repression.”
Scenarios of potential conflicts on ethnocultural grounds are actively used in the rhetoric of the right-wing spectrum of political forces. Alarmist sentiments are fueled by the media and reduce the level of tolerance. The very reality of a multicultural society is assessed, according to survey data, positively, but the increase in crime and social tension is often interpreted in terms of a conflict of cultures and civilizations. It is characteristic that studies of public sentiments devoted to attitudes towards multiculturalism state the coincidence of the arguments of specialists, its consistent critics, and citizens. These arguments revolve around issues of threat to social stability, national identity and security.
"Protected" ethnic communities provide a breeding ground for religious fundamentalism. According to French researchers, the reason for such radicalism is the absence among Muslim groups in Europe of those social supports on which everyday life is built in the Islamic states of the East. In host countries, such supports can only be recreated in isolated, “closed” communities. The multiple identities that multiculturalism focuses on turn out to be an unbearable burden for those who are excluded from the system of social connections outside their ethnic group and live on welfare, and an undesirable irritant for those who consciously seek support exclusively in their traditional culture. "Extraterritorial Islam" as a way of life, divorced from its roots, can transform into radical religious fundamentalism with a falsely understood system of symbols and guidelines. As a result, calls offering a simplified interpretation of the fundamentals of the faith find a wide response among Muslim immigrants. This applies primarily to the descendants of immigrants (those who grew up surrounded by European culture, but for whom it never became their own) and the majority of temporary migrants seeking to preserve their “specialness” and strong ties with traditional culture.
Purposefully maintaining an identity that is inconsistent with the values and traditions of the host community undermines its social cohesion. The head of the British Commission for Racial Equality, T. Phillips (himself a black Briton), believes that multiculturalism is “a child of a bygone era. All citizens should be guided by a common British identity.” Australian researcher Charles Mackenzie writes directly about the threats of multiculturalism both for the social institutions of modern democracy and for the culture of the majority. He provides interesting data on the cost of implementing government programs that support such a policy, for Australia - $7.2 billion per year (about 2% of GDP).
How effective are such social programs? Arguments in favor of the fact that multicultural initiatives can reproduce cultural identity and, on this basis, social segregation, are actively used in the political discourse of representatives of not only the conservative, but also the left-wing political spectrum. Fragmentation into linguistic, ethnic and religious communities makes it difficult to unite the efforts of interest groups, trade unions, and social movements to fight for social equality and, as a result, prevents the strengthening of social solidarity. As a result, multiculturalism as an ideology of interaction turns out to be an ideology of fragmentation and the maintenance of social exclusion. An attempt to consolidate a nation-state results in the reproduction of a diffuse identity, weakly rooted in the political and cultural tradition of the host nation.
Both the concept itself and the results that the implementation of multicultural practices brings are subject to increasingly widespread criticism within Western societies themselves. We can talk about a crisis of multicultural doctrine. At the same time, the controversy is overloaded not so much with rational arguments as with emotional assessments. But, although in recent years multiculturalism has become the object of the most heated discussions, no alternative models for the integration of foreign cultural communities have been found. Achieving results along this path directly depends on the quality of migration flows.
At the individual level, skilled migrants generally find their place in the host community. But the question of whether such integration occurs as a result of or in spite of multicultural practices remains open. Moreover, the lot of a significant part of foreign cultural citizens of Europe and America is still social marginalization.
Adjustments are being made to current social practices, and migration legislation is becoming more selective and targeted. An analysis of today's national regulatory practices related to the integration of foreign cultural communities allows us to classify its existing models and assess the prospects for their revision.
NATIONAL MODELS FOR REGULATING INTEGRATION
Approaches to the inclusion of immigrants in the life of host countries have changed markedly over the past half century, when labor migration has become a vital resource for the economic development of the West. Receiving states are faced with the need to expand state participation in solving a range of problems related to the reception of migrants. In recent years, the most visible component of this policy has been the streamlining of national migration legislation with the aim of severely limiting the influx of immigrants. To meet the needs of national labor markets, a diversified approach to accepting labor migrants has been developed almost everywhere, and preferential quotas have been established for highly qualified specialists from third countries in order to fulfill the needs of the innovative economy. These measures themselves, however, give rise to mixed assessments, since the needs of the labor market are by no means limited to such specialists, and vacant jobs are not limited to the high-tech sector of the economy. A special priority has become the regulation of humanitarian migration - the acceptance of persons seeking political asylum, refugees and family members of already living foreign citizens.
The wave of terrorist attacks that swept across the United States and Europe at the beginning of the new century stimulated the introduction of strict formal criteria for entry: fluency in the language of the host country, knowledge of the basics of its legal and historical and cultural traditions, as well as the acceptance of an obligation to follow them. With security concerns now at the forefront of immigration-related risks, governments are being forced to crack down on increased police powers and increased spending on public security. Such steps, however, cause a negative reaction from Muslims, who note an increase in self-distrust both in everyday life and in communication with law enforcement officials.
Tightening legal regulation of immigration and increased security measures reflect growing concern about the complex problems caused by migration in all developed countries. At the same time, a noticeable discrepancy arose between the economic need for foreign labor and the prejudice of the population towards migrants themselves. The problems of race relations, immigration and migrants are considered among the main ones for the country even by residents of such a state of traditional migration from former colonies as Great Britain. In May 2006, they were considered "most important" or "important" by 41% of Britons (in the 90s - only 5%). The discussion involved not only government agencies and the media, but also stakeholders such as employer associations, trade unions and non-profit organizations (including those uniting migrants themselves), as well as local authorities. The question of how the protection of the rights of foreign cultural communities, that is, interests of a group nature, relates to the protection of individual rights, which is the cornerstone of democracy, has become one of the key ones in the political confrontation between supporters and opponents of social deregulation.
Multiculturalism in the system of state regulation. In countries with traditional migration in the last quarter of the 20th century, various models of adaptation of migrants to the host community were tested. Such mechanisms were especially actively developed where there was a need for multi-level integration of groups and communities of different social status and cultural orientation. Canada, where the confrontation between the Francophone minority and the English-speaking majority turned into a serious threat to the political unity of the country in the 60s, she became a pioneer of the state policy of multiculturalism. But this policy also had other recipients - indigenous peoples (Inuit and Iroquois, who made up about 2% of the population) and first-generation migrants, whom Canada continued to accept as part of labor migration quotas.
The launching pad for multicultural policy was the recognition in 1969 of the state status of the French language. A year later, Canadian Prime Minister P.E. Trudeau announced a de facto orientation towards multiculturalism in government policy. The need for government support for cultural diversity as a key resource for the development of Canadian society was declared. It is cultural diversity that has been and continues to be viewed today as that special component of national identity that distinguishes Canadians from other nations.
Canadian identity was formed through the interaction of political and ethnocultural factors. Multicultural practices received legal formalization in a number of legislative acts of the 70s and 80s, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution). At the same time, it was not possible to eliminate the smoldering confrontation: in the referendum on the political status of Quebec in the fall of 1995, supporters of independence lagged behind supporters of maintaining its status within the Canadian federation by only 1% of the votes. True, in subsequent years the number of supporters of independence began to decline. But in Quebec, for example, numerous cases of denying migrants a free choice of school for their children in order to force them to study French caused a heated debate, which once again testified to the complex interaction of national and ethnic components of identity within a multicultural nation.
However, at the national level, significant progress has been made in the integration of immigrants and in maintaining a “special” multicultural identity on this basis, primarily due to improved social services and conditions for highly educated immigrants. Canadian society is usually described with the metaphors of a “multicultural mosaic” or a “bowl of salad”: here cultures mix, coexist, but do not dissolve into the dominant culture, oriented towards the Anglo-Saxon tradition.
It became a kind of laboratory of multiculturalism in the last three decades of the 20th century. Australia. Unlike Canada, the issue of protecting the rights of Aboriginal people was high on the agenda here. At the same time, being a country of traditional immigration, Australia pursued a discriminatory policy against non-European visitors until the 60s. For a long time, it adhered to the course of replenishing the ranks of its citizens exclusively at the expense of the metropolis and the Anglo-Saxon cultural tradition. The dominant trend was the assimilation of newcomers into “white Australia” and the segregation of representatives of foreign cultural minorities, including the indigenous population.
In the 60s, when economic ties with the countries of the Asia-Pacific region began to expand, immigrants of a different cultural orientation flocked from there. By that time, the flow of arrivals from the metropolis began to dry up. By the middle of the decade, the policy of maintaining a “white Australia” was put to an end, and integration became the main direction of regulation. In practice, it turned out to be a stepping stone to the adoption of multiculturalism as a state strategy for the development of the nation, which was adopted with an eye to the Canadian experience. Such policies were intended to preserve and strengthen the ethnic identity of communities formed by non-British migrants and to protect the cultural identity of indigenous people.
The implementation of this policy in both Canada and Australia has acquired a dense network of political and non-political institutions at the federal and local levels. Particular attention was paid to publishing and radio broadcasting in languages of other cultural communities and training of specialists in the field of education, as well as symbolic unifying initiatives, such as Australian Harmony Day. In recent years, with the rapid growth in the number of Muslim migrants, national institutions have emerged to represent the interests of Muslim communities.
Multicultural practices in these countries have become part of everyday life. They form the information field, are written as a special line in the national budget, and determine the content of educational and educational projects. During the implementation of such programs, a new generation of people was formed, for many of whom, as survey data show, ethnic identity no longer plays such a significant role as in the previous generation. Supporters of the government's policies point to social peace and cultural diversity as its main achievements; Numerous opponents bring weighty counterarguments - up to the infringement of human rights and the lack of freedom of individual choice of cultural and religious practices. In addition, concerns were raised about the viability of the dominant (Anglo-Saxon) cultural tradition, which allegedly fell under the dual pressures of multiculturalism and mass culture.
The social demand for the integration of minorities that did not belong to the dominant cultural tradition was also formed in such a country of traditional immigration as New Zealand. However, here the focus of regulation was interaction with the indigenous population, whose right to preferential state support was recognized.
New Zealand is the only country of traditional immigration where the principle of public policy was proclaimed biculturalism. According to this model, the content of national identity is determined by the experience of interaction between two cultures - the descendants of European immigrants and the indigenous Maori people. This course replaced the policy of assimilation and segregation of the indigenous population. The change in emphasis took place in the context of the massive migration of Maori from rural areas to cities, where employment and social infrastructure have grown rapidly since the 60s. The gradual weakening of ties with the former mother country, especially after the closure of programs to support white settlers from the United Kingdom in 1975, brought the question of the content of New Zealand identity to the center of political discourse. This was all the more important because the country's sovereignty was based on a treaty signed in 1840 between Maori tribal leaders and the British Crown, which gave the Aborigines a certain autonomy and special rights to ancestral lands and their resources. The significance for the national history of this document, previously consigned to oblivion, was revised. It became a powerful political argument for introducing the idea of partnership between two communities - European and indigenous - as the basis of national identity. This was accompanied by the introduction of “positive discrimination” practices for the indigenous population, the creation of a network of relevant state and municipal institutions, and large-scale social initiatives in the field of education and culture. Maori were guaranteed representation in parliament (seven seats).
However, in recent years the need to maintain such a quota has been called into question. Founded in 2004, the Maori Party, regardless of the quota system, won four of the seven seats in the parliamentary elections and became the fourth most influential in the country. In the process of implementing bicultural initiatives, the degree of public discussion around the appropriateness of unilateral protective policies and the artificial construction of national identity began to rapidly increase. This was all the more relevant because outside the two communities - the recipients of bicultural practices - the number of foreign cultural groups of first-generation immigrants continued to grow, replenishing the labor resources of a dynamically developing economy. The ethnic composition of the New Zealand population has become more diverse due to immigrants from the countries of the Asia-Pacific region. Critics of the official policy advanced arguments in favor of recognizing the importance of individual rather than group rights in the construction of identity.
Multiculturalism as a social practice. In the country of the most massive immigration - USA - the nation was formed in the process of the influx of groups of different ethnic, racial and linguistic composition into the “melting pot” of American statehood. At the beginning of the last decade of the 20th century, the level of migration began to increase. In addition to officially registered migrants, in 2005, from 7 million (government statistics) to 12 million people were living in the country illegally (data Pew Hispanic Center). Whites made up more than two-thirds of the total population - 69.1%, African Americans - 12.1, Hispanics - 12.5, Asians and Pacific Islanders - 4.0, Indigenous - 0.7, Mixed race - 1, 7, others – 0.4%.
The main direction of government policy in recent decades has been “positive discrimination” against socially disadvantaged groups. It provided for the provision of advantages in the social sphere, primarily when applying for public service (police, local government, etc.) and in the higher education system. Although such programs had other target groups, they were more often aimed at African Americans as a kind of compensation for segregation (unequal access to social benefits) that had been practiced for generations. The targeted support policy has produced noticeable results. But the implementation of "positive discrimination" has drawn criticism for being "discrimination in reverse." The very principle of group rather than individual targeting of social assistance was also questioned.
The aesthetic and ideological poverty of the cultural baggage that was accumulated during the period of colonization of the “Wild West” stimulated the formation of a request for the integration of the customs and traditions of different ethnic communities into the national culture. Maintaining elements of the cultural traditions of ethnic groups and communities has become an organic part of the process of its formation, and cross-cultural practices have become part of the American way of life. Modern mass culture successfully exploits interest in ethnic styles in music, clothing, food - areas of consumption that determine individuality through personal choice. This interest received impetus precisely from the depths of American culture, or rather, the traditions of its ethnic groups. Modern youth subcultures also feed from this source.
However, multiculturalism did not establish itself in the United States as a component of the ideology of national development, although multiculturalism was an objective state of American society. First of all, because in the ideological support of the national development strategy, group identity, the maintenance of which multicultural practices are oriented, has traditionally occupied a subordinate position in relation to individual identity. The American nation was seen as a "common home" of citizens - members of a political nation, but not of communities of culturally related citizens. The logic of the “melting pot”, in which a new identity should ideally be formed, formally corresponded to this approach. But only as long as ethnic identity was associated with backwardness and a lower standard of living.
The development of American culture stimulated the transformation of ethnicity into a distinctive feature of individuality, and such dialectics already in the 70s called into question the viability of the “melting pot” metaphor. This became especially noticeable when the number of temporary (including illegal) migrants from Latin America arriving in search of work began to grow rapidly. Having settled compactly in the states bordering Mexico, they, as carriers of the Latin cultural tradition, did not strive to become “Americans.” The majority maintained and maintains close ties with their “small homeland”, which are not limited to transferring funds to families left behind. Thus, there are more than 600 Mexican hometown associations in 30 US cities. They help organize public works in their homeland and finance them, donate equipment for the development of the social sphere, sponsor educational programs, that is, they work mainly within the framework of humanitarian and cultural projects.
Discussions about cultural pluralism have become an integral part of political rhetoric, but they have not been transformed into political practice at the federal level. Another thing is the level of states, especially such ethnically diverse ones as California or New Mexico. In the latter, the work of social services is organized, among other things, by invited specialists from Spain. The study of Spanish language and culture is supported through educational and outreach programs. They prefer not to talk about the “melting pot” here. In California, even congressional districts are drawn to ensure political representation for minorities.
The events of September 11, 2001 exacerbated the perception of problems associated with illegal immigration in American society. In a country where the institutions of the rule of law are considered a basic value and an indisputable achievement of democracy, large groups of people continue to remain outside the legal field. Of equal concern are the difficulties of integrating new immigrants, especially Muslims. Even in data on the size of the Muslim population in the United States, there are noticeable discrepancies, especially since the question of religious affiliation was not included in the census questionnaires. According to expert estimates, in 2005, over 5.5 million Muslims lived in the country, and 1,751 Islamic organizations operated (Islamic centers and mosques, schools, American Muslim societies, etc.). The most significant group lived in New York (more than 0.5 million people); the largest communities were Asians (32%) and American Muslims, mostly African Americans (29%). The majority of employed Muslims worked in mechanical engineering, the electronics industry, computer technology and medicine, that is, they were highly qualified.
Interaction with consolidated groups of Muslims was established at the local level, primarily through interreligious dialogue, which was initiated by the “other” side - Christians and Jews. But the overwhelming majority of imams (77%) believed that Muslims should be actively involved in the life of American society. And, first of all, to work for the benefit of the community and to the activities of the media, churches and educational institutions to improve the image of Islam in the country. “In several cities, Muslims and Christians are working together to help settle Muslim refugees. Some of them have found that while working together on projects can be more rewarding than “another conversation,” the challenge is to find a real deal that will be taken seriously by all parties, and to find ways to reflect on the work together. ". Establishing such a dialogue is always painstaking daily work, and it is especially difficult when society maintains a high level of wariness towards visitors from Islamic countries.
In the postmodern era, the discussion about the vector of development of the nation-state and the influence of cultural factors on the consolidation of a political nation has become relevant for most European countries. First of all, it was reflected in the social policies of such former colonial powers as Great Britain and Holland. It was in these ethnically diverse countries that multiculturalism became the principle of social and cultural policy of the state.
IN Great Britain During the period of strengthening the welfare state, a deliberate policy was pursued to maintain “unity in diversity.” Ethnic groups received support for their cultural initiatives from local communities (communities), delegated their representatives to the education and health care systems. Religious schools have grown in popularity (faith schools), they adhered to the state standard of education and were financed from the state budget, but had religious disciplines in their programs and were managed with the participation of religious communities. In 2005, every third primary school and every fifth secondary school were like this (62 of them were Muslim).
The vast majority of such educational institutions are run by the Church of England. According to the Spanish researcher, the traditional UK institutionalization of relations between the state and the Church of England (which, however, does not provide for state funding of church organizations), as well as active dialogue between them, lays the foundation for recognizing the right of other religious and cultural communities to maintain their own identity. It is precisely such communities (Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Indian Sikhs, etc.) that turned out to be the recipients of targeted municipal support programs. Their cultural and religious centers have become part of the landscape of cities and towns, traditions and customs are a familiar part of everyday life.
Such a policy, however, could not eliminate the existing isolation of ethnic communities, especially in areas densely populated by non-European populations. Thus, in Leicester, about 80% of the population came from former colonies, primarily from India and Pakistan. Migrants made up the majority of the population in the environs of London and other large cities, where zones of compact settlement of various ethnic groups formed. Therefore, one of the priority objects for the implementation of social programs was the “internal ghettos” formed as a result of the construction of social housing. (inner cities) in large industrial centers. To end this bastion of hidden segregation, measures were taken to disperse social housing, improve the quality of education and increase opportunities for access to various educational programs. New cultural objects - museums, exhibition and concert halls - were removed from the historical center.
Integration policy in the UK was carried out in the broader context of countering social discrimination. The emphasis, especially in recent years, has been less on the special rights of immigrants and their descendants and more on ensuring equal opportunity. These efforts have produced tangible results. It was possible to literally breathe new life into some depressed areas. Ethnosocial tension at the turn of the 20th century. visibly asleep. The report of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (2000) stated that the latter is “a community of citizens and a community of communities, both a free and multicultural society, and there is a need to reconcile and harmonize the interests of different groups that may conflict with each other.” This assessment, however, evoked very controversial responses, especially since, according to surveys, every fifth Englishman has not overcome racist views.
Surveys of the income and skill levels of so-called new immigrants who arrived in the country after 1989 showed contradictory trends in the social development of such groups. They are more highly educated and their incomes have grown faster than comparable UK-born groups. At the same time, in most regions, the share of immigrants with incomes below the average level is noticeably higher than in a similar group of natives, and the share of unemployed is higher. Even in such an “open” profession as journalism, only 1.8% of employees are non-Europeans.
In the depths of the rapidly growing Muslim community, closed communities were consolidated - inaccessible to the outside world, including law enforcement agencies, and groups connected by family ties or organized on a network basis around a religious center, which practically did not maintain contact with outsiders. Outside the institutions of primary socialization, the level of interaction between representatives of different ethnic groups is low. According to polls, 4 out of 10 white residents of the country have a negative attitude towards the possibility of having “black neighbors”. Only 1% of native Britons have close friends from other cultural communities (among representatives of such communities themselves the picture is more varied - they maintain wider connections outside their community).
After the London Underground bombings in the summer of 2005, attitudes toward the notorious “Islamic threat” became a watershed in the country’s public opinion—all the more important because these events gave impetus to the assessment of the effectiveness of multicultural practices in political and academic circles. According to polls, about half of Britons (but two-thirds of Muslim citizens) do not consider Islam “incompatible with the values of British democracy.” The majority of citizens strongly believe that immigrants should be “fully integrated into British society.” 62% of Brits (and 82% of Muslims) support multiculturalism because it makes the country a "better place to live". More than 2/3 of Britons (and 74% of Muslims) disagree with the idea that multiculturalism policies need to be reconsidered. But the government's immigration policy is described as "chaotic".
Responding to public demand, the Blair government responded by streamlining immigration regulation. In 2005, control over the granting of refugee status was tightened, a point system (similar to the Canadian one) was introduced for “certification” of those entering for permanent residence, and a classification of labor migrants by skill level was introduced (only those with the highest qualifications are allowed free entry, others must enlist support " sponsor") and reduced access to the labor market for persons with low qualifications. The work permit system, which gave employers the right to invite non-citizens to work if there are no local applicants for a vacancy, has been abolished. These measures were received ambiguously by employers - as not always meeting the needs of the labor market and not allowing them to respond flexibly to them. There are active discussions on the legalization of people who have jobs but are in the country illegally, and on the introduction of an English language exam for immigrants. The number of entry points for people entering the UK has been reduced to five. The streamlining of legislation is in line with the changes that are expected (or have already been adopted) in most European countries.
Towards a revision of national models? Adjusting multicultural practices is inevitably a long and painful process. One of its directions is the active involvement of foreign cultural communities in the implementation of social programs and strengthening their interaction with local authorities, national public organizations and state social institutions. In the public debate, there are growing calls for a closer study of the positive experiences of the communities themselves, for example, traditions of supporting family members in need of protection - the elderly and children - and other forms of everyday communication and mutual assistance that are being lost in the West. Ways of combining civic and ethnic identity are also widely discussed, in relation to both foreign cultural and autochthonous ethnonational communities.
Until very recently, the model of European tolerance was considered Holland. She was known for her uncompromising commitment to a policy of respect for human rights. Having successfully overcome religious confrontation on the eve of the industrial revolution, this country has most consistently pursued a policy of multiculturalism. At the same time, its authorities, according to leading experts on migration issues, relied on the return home of immigrants who managed to preserve their ethnocultural identity. But the calculation turned out to be a miscalculation: in the 90s, about a fifth of the country’s population was of non-Dutch origin, and all large cities became like ethnic ghettos. The right started talking about the prospects for the complete Islamization of the country. After the murders of P. Fortuyn and T. Van Gogh, changes emerged in the mood of the intellectual elite and middle class, as well as ideological supporters of right-wing parties (especially among young people). In a country where any critical statement about immigrants until recently could have been regarded as racist, the prevailing opinion is that the attitude towards newcomers, especially Muslims, is too lenient. A report by a parliamentary commission prepared in 2002 on the experience of migrant integration over the past three decades stated the failure of the state multicultural policy. According to him, if integration occurred, it was rather in spite of government initiatives than because of them.
As a result, a radical revision of the policy of multiculturalism began. The main direction is not, as before, support for self-organization of ethnic groups, but their involvement in national organizations at various levels. In addition, new arrivals to the country must, under the new legislation, pass an exam in the Dutch language and the basics of national history. Holland is the most striking example of a revision of the ideology and practice of multiculturalism under the pressure of changes in political discourse and public sentiment.
Much attention is paid to solving integration problems in Belgium. In terms of quality indicators of legal regulation of migration and integration, it is a leader among EU countries (see figure). At the same time, there is no special national model for the integration of foreign cultural communities in Belgium. Wallonia gravitates towards the French approach and focuses on individual integration. Flanders - towards the Dutch model and the provision of greater rights to communities. Brussels is trying to combine the advantages of both approaches, especially since many Muslims live here compactly. Islam has been recognized as one of the official religions since 1974, and religious institutions are supported by the state. The implementation of the integration program is based on a network of advisory bodies. In 2005, a Muslim community committee was elected for the first time to represent the interests of Muslims in government bodies. Permanently resident immigrants were given the right to vote in municipal elections.
Non-citizens permanently residing in the country have the same rights. Ireland. This country is one of the “youngest” in Europe in terms of the age structure of the population, its birth rate is still noticeably higher than the EU-25 average (1.98 versus 1.48), the need to replenish the labor market with migrants has appeared here recently. It was only in the mid-1990s that Ireland became an attractive destination for settlers from other countries due to economic recovery and relatively lenient immigration laws. Newcomers were covered by the national social protection system. The attitude towards labor migrants was and generally remains friendly, which is greatly facilitated by the factor of historical memory of several generations of compatriots who left overseas in search of a better life. But this also predetermines the unspoken attitude of Irish society towards the assimilation of those arriving for permanent residence.
Immigration is still not cited by the Irish as a priority issue. To a certain extent, this is due to the relatively small number of migrants from other cultures. At the same time, Ireland has received and continues to receive many visitors from CEE countries, as well as foreign students (educational services are an important item in the national economy). Although there is no comprehensive program for regulating immigration and integration, the problems of protecting the rights of migrants in the labor market have been discussed in recent years within the framework of successfully functioning social partnership institutions. In the future, organizations representing the interests of immigrants may become involved in their work. There is a National Advisory Committee on Racism and Intercultural Dialogue that stimulates public debate on these issues. In recent years, measures have been taken to tighten immigration legislation, but legal regulation in this area, due to the peculiarities of interstate relations with the UK, is coordinated with it.
IN Sweden The policy of adaptation of immigrants has been actively pursued since the mid-70s. With the increase in labor immigration, the addressee of this policy was recognized as the “migrant community”, and belonging to it positioned people as “other” in relation to the Swedes. In 1997, a policy of integration was taken, in which the needs and problems of migrants began to be addressed in the general context of social and cultural policies. Immigrants are considered in the light of this approach as one of the socially disadvantaged groups. According to the government, integration policy should be based on general human rights, and not on the special rights of foreign cultural communities, and respect the rights of the individual, and not just the rights of ethnic and religious groups. In the debate on migration and integration, trade unions and the left in general take a protective position, consistent with the mentality of the majority of the population. Right-wing parties, on the contrary, generally support regulated labor migration in the interests of businesses that lack labor. This is reflected in political debate, but not in the funding of a variety of local programs aimed at immigrants.
Finland occupies the last place among the “old” EU members in terms of the number of foreign citizens living in it (the relative majority of whom are Russians). Finnish society is distinguished, according to survey data, by a high degree of social cohesion. This gives grounds to interpret the “Finnish miracle” of recent years (the highest indices of economic competitiveness, low levels of corruption, educational success) in terms of social solidarity, as well as effective targeted regulation of social problems by the state. A significant contribution to their solution is made by local communities implementing a wide variety of social and cultural initiatives.
One of the targets of such initiatives is the Sami ethnic group - an indigenous people and, at the same time, an ethnic minority living in northern Finland (as well as Sweden, Norway and our Kola Peninsula). The Sami of these countries have their own representative body in the form of a regional parliament. Finnish legislation guarantees them cultural autonomy, provides education in their native language, and also recognizes its use and the presence of Sami ancestors as significant reference points for their ethnic self-identification. Traditional occupations for indigenous peoples are also supported, but the issue of ownership of historical lands remains unresolved and causes friction in society. Another problem, the mechanisms for solving which are not yet visible, is the wary attitude in the culturally homogeneous Finnish society towards immigrants as bearers of a “different” and alien tradition.
The most stringent legislation to regulate migration is in force today in Denmark. Human rights are cultivated here as an indisputable and primary value of democracy. But the so-called cartoon scandal once again served as a reminder of the limits of freedom of speech and the danger of using such freedom to incite ethnic hatred and fuel religious fundamentalism.
Due to the deterioration of attitudes towards migrants in political circles and in society as a whole, there was a belief that the integration policy had failed. None of the leading parties opposes tougher immigration laws, and migration itself is seen as “a threat to the future well-being of the country economically, culturally and religiously.” Acceptance of refugees is sharply limited; When reuniting families, the age limit is set (24 years) for Danish citizens. Sanctions have been strengthened against employers who hire illegal migrants. At the same time, quotas have been introduced to encourage the arrival of engineers and high-tech specialists. The main efforts are expected to be focused on the integration of those already in the country. There are the Ministry of Refugees, Immigration and Integration and the Council of Ethnic Minorities. Plans are being financed for the restructuring of urban areas where migrants live densely, vocational education programs, and the admission of representatives of the non-Danish population to serve in municipalities (however, the share of such employees remains consistently low - 2.2%). The Danish experience, which most radically revises the attitudes of previous decades, is of keen interest beyond its borders; its elements are being introduced, in particular, in Holland.
In France all problems associated with regulating the integration of foreign cultural populations - immigrants from former French colonies - are considered in the context of their inclusion in the political nation. The state has not yet had a targeted program to overcome social exclusion or curb radical manifestations of the “diversity” of its citizens. In practical policy, the main attention was paid to individual integration, while foreign cultural communities as such did not become a priority recipient of regulation. The Government Committee on Integration and the State Council on Integration, created in 1989, practically did not involve representatives of those with whom they were supposed to work in their activities. There is still not a single representative of the country's multi-million Muslim population among parliamentarians. There are not even statistics on the ethnic and religious affiliation of residents - it is believed that such calculations impede the implementation of the integration strategy. Accordingly, problems of social marginalization resulting from the failure of strategies of assimilation and integration into the civil nation are suppressed. And the suburban riots that swept across the country in 2005 can be seen as a way to “be heard,” to show solidarity with everyone who found themselves in a social ghetto.
P. Bourdieu called migrants in France a Socratic term atopos(from the Greek “out of place”). There is a marked difference between the political rhetoric of a common civic identity of “all French” and the everyday experience of life as “second-class” citizens. Ethnic and class characteristics remain important in the system of individual components of identity, and this constrains integration. There are frequent cases of hidden discrimination based on ethnicity in hiring. Adjustments to the regulation of migration problems today provide for a more selective approach to the reception of migrants and preference for those who are “easier to integrate into French society.”
The dichotomy “political nation” - “ethnic nation”, describing the processes of formation and development of the nation-state in France and Germany, became a stereotype during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. Even then, the Germans cited linguistic and cultural arguments on the issue of Alsace and Lorraine, and the French - political ones. In the first case, the construction of a nation-state occurs on the basis of belonging to a single ethnic group, in the second, a community of citizens professing common political ideals stimulates the formation of a common cultural identity. While a serious oversimplification, the contrast between "political" and "ethnic" nations applies in Weber's sense of an "ideal type." It can be used to explain differences in the policies of states that are similar in level of development and the nature of problems in the labor market, as well as receiving comparable human flows from third countries (see Table 1 in the first part of the article).
Germany Until recently, it was guided by the model of an “ethnic nation.” The only recipients of integration programs were ethnic Germans arriving from abroad for permanent residence. A country of mass labor immigration, Germany received guest workers, primarily from Turkey, whom it hoped to return home. As in the Netherlands, this expectation did not materialize, but the answer was not the introduction of multicultural practices, but restrictive citizenship legislation. This approach was based on the anti-immigration rhetoric of the main political forces, which reflected the degree of public sentiment.
Noticeable changes occurred in the 90s, when Germany finally recognized itself as an immigration country, and the regulation of labor migration became part of integration policy. Quotas were introduced to attract highly qualified specialists from abroad. It was proposed to divide labor migrants themselves into three categories: in addition to “desirable” workers, the categories of “useful” (those who will fill unclaimed vacancies) and “inevitable” (persons without qualifications, members of immigrant families) were identified. Citizenship and naturalization legislation was brought into line with the norms adopted in most EU countries at the turn of the 21st century. In conditions of reorientation to jus soli("right soli", that is, the right to citizenship by virtue of birth in a given country), children of immigrants born in Germany finally have the opportunity to choose their citizenship, although dual citizenship is still not recognized. These measures, however, were accompanied by a reduction in social spending in areas whose development is necessary for the successful integration of migrants, primarily in education. The discussion about the feasibility and possibility of using multicultural practices was more active than in neighboring France. It was initiated by business representatives who were concerned about the situation on the labor market and society’s unwillingness to recognize the coming problems. But, as before, the discussion was characterized by high political intensity, and the policy in the field of regulating migration and integration remained a zone of demarcation of society into supporters and opponents of the prospect of transforming the nation into a multicultural one. In both countries - France and Germany - "there were serious ideological barriers that made it difficult to establish such a phenomenon as a multicultural nation."
Southern Europe itself has in the recent past been a supplier of cheap labor to other regions. By the 1990s, all countries in this region that joined the EU had become immigration countries. This social metamorphosis was not supported by a targeted policy of regulating migration and integration. Therefore, the measures taken were predominantly a reaction to the current situation, and their object was not so much foreign cultural groups as immigrants in general (although some targeted adaptation policies were carried out, for example, in Spain in relation to the Roma). The main method of regulation was one-time amnesties, the purpose of which was to recognize the actual status of labor migrants living on the national territory. Legalization of those who had a job made it possible to provide them with access to a number of vital services in the social sphere. Amnesties have been held repeatedly in the last 10-15 years and in Italy, and in Spain. In this regard, the opinion of the authors of the report of the Global Commission on International Migration is interesting: such actions and “a certain tolerance” of states towards illegal migration “can be considered in some respects as a de facto liberalization of the world labor market.” Another method was to strengthen border controls, including maritime borders. However, it was the south of Europe that remained a transit point for the penetration of illegal immigrants into other European countries, and mass amnesties caused protests from EU partners, especially France.
In recent years, in southern European countries there have been obvious attempts to institutionalize the interaction of representatives of the largest communities, primarily Muslim, with the state. IN Portugal In 2003, the National Immigrant Support System was created, which provides legal and other assistance to those arriving in the country, relying on a network of local authorities assisting migrants. In turn, these bodies actively cooperate with non-profit associations, with Catholic church communities and with organizations that protect the interests of migrants. Similar support services have begun to appear in a number of regions of Italy, primarily where problems related to the reception of immigrants are especially acute (for example, in Veneto).
The effectiveness of the activities of such structures, as well as the effectiveness of measures to regulate immigration, directly depends on the effectiveness of state and municipal administration. Greece here is the most striking example. Despite the impressive increase in immigration (including ethnic Greeks) in the 1990s, the National Employment Development Plan ignores the complex problems associated with migrant labor. Major political forces recognize the importance of labor immigration, but public discussion on this topic is sluggish. Society as a whole remains oriented toward the “Greek majority nation”; government programs aimed at recognizing cultural differences or protecting the social rights of migrants have not been developed, and local authorities are poorly involved in interaction with non-Greek groups living in their territories. At the same time, according to survey data, there is a growing understanding in the country of the positive contribution of migrants to national economic development.
In a number of new immigration countries, expert assessments of this contribution and a system of indicators that reveal the degree of integration of migrants are being developed. This is all the more important because for the European South, immigration from the Third World is not the only object of attention and successes in the adaptation of those arriving in the country largely depend on the implementation of targeted and differentiated policies towards various ethnic groups. Italy is forced to accept refugees and migrants from Albania and the former Yugoslavia, while Spain and Portugal from Latin America. Interaction with such groups is complicated by a whole range of social problems. Thus, the emergence of street gangs and the increase in crime in Spain is usually associated with confrontation between groups of people from former colonies, as well as from Eastern European countries. And what is characteristic is that the majority of immigrants themselves (up to 87% of respondents in Italy) believe that the level of tolerance towards crime is “too high.” They are trying to solve problems within the framework of social programs affecting education, health care, and housing construction. An Islamic Advisory Council has been created in Italy a council of well-known and successful Muslim figures.Measures are being taken to encourage the participation of immigrants in existing trade union organizations, in city neighborhood and district councils.
However, a significant part of them continues to weigh heavily on the social budget of the host countries. The lack of targeted government policies to regulate integration fuels anti-immigration sentiments. In southern European countries, it is widely believed that newcomers take jobs away from the local population, although they mainly fill vacancies (primarily in the service sector) that are unacceptable to others due to very low pay. At the same time, according to surveys among Italians, it is professional qualities and level of education, rather than cultural characteristics (such as religion), that are given preference in a number of criteria for being invited to work in the country, which indicates a purely rational and utilitarian assessment of immigration priorities politicians .
None of the developed countries has such a purposeful state policy of consolidating the nation on an ethnic basis as in Japan. Back in 1986, Prime Minister Y. Nakasone openly called Japan “a country of one race.” The idea of a monoethical nation, in which there is no place for other ethnic communities, continues to dominate public policy today. Immigration laws are very strict, and the non-Japanese population, including foreigners, ranges from 3.2 to 4.8%. Those who came to the country, even in the middle of the last century, are in the position of “guests”. Today, different ethnic groups live in Japan - more than 700 thousand Koreans and 200 thousand Chinese, as well as representatives of the indigenous Ainu people (about 25 thousand people on Hokkaido). A special group consists of about 3 million burakumin - ethnic Japanese, descendants of the historically established caste of "dirty" professions (butchers, tanners, gravediggers, scavengers). For centuries, despite the abolition of the caste system in 1871, they remained second-class citizens and were subject to strict segregation.
To overcome discrimination against these people, who lived mainly in urban ghettos, an integration law was passed in 1969, during which their living conditions were significantly improved. Noticeable successes have been achieved along this path (this, in particular, was stated by the National Association for the Struggle for Granting Burakumin equal social rights). But even today, among the Burakumin descendants, unemployment is twice the national average, and there are frequent cases of outright discrimination in hiring. Social segregation is actively resisted, especially in education, but access to the highest level of education for burakumin is estimated at 60% of the average. The effective implementation of government assistance programs is also hampered by everyday chauvinism that has taken root in society.
The policy of integration of foreign cultural communities brought the most significant results in countries of traditional migration, especially where it was successfully integrated into strategies to combat social discrimination. On the contrary, it was carried out least successfully where the orientation towards the “ethnic nation” model was maintained or where not only the number of foreign cultural communities, primarily Muslim, grew rapidly, but also processes of their consolidation were underway. The same problems facing all immigration states without exception have stimulated the search for common approaches. Based on the analysis of national practices of state regulation of integration, the classification of regulatory models can be illustrated as follows (see figure).
Drawing. Integration of foreign cultural communities in developed countries: classification of regulatory models (as of 2005-2006)
1 Estimates are based on an analysis of the aggregate indicators of the “European Citizenship and Inclusion Index” (European Civic Citizenship and Inclusion Index), which take into account the level of involvement of migrants in labor relations, regulation of family reunification, long-term stay, naturalization, as well as the effectiveness of the application of anti-discrimination legislation. See: Country Summary Reports on the Transposition of the Racial Equality Directive (www.migpolgroup.com/reports/).
2 Aggregate assessments of the extent to which immigration and integration priorities are included in public policy, and the representation (including self-representation) of migrants' interests is included in the system of political institutions and/or civil society institutions. Made by the author based on materials from country reports on immigration in 2005 (see: Current Immigration Debates in Europe: A Publication of the European Migration Dialogue; Migration Country Reports 2005. United Kingdom, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany , Spain, Italy, Greece - www.migpolgroup.com/reports/), as well as materials from official government websites of countries of traditional immigration.
WHAT DOES THE COMING DAY HAVE? PROSPECTS FOR MIGRATION AND INTEGRATION REGULATION
Both objects of regulation - migration flows and processes of integration of emerging foreign cultural communities - are today in the focus of attention of all countries of Western democracy without exception. At the turn of the 21st century, in the context of globalization, the entire developed world became an immigration enclave due to worsening demographic problems.
Traditional immigration states turned to multicultural practices at a previous stage of development, in the last third of the past century. The search for common approaches has been undertaken at the EU level. Here, in recent years, a number of decisions have been made on the coordination of national programs for regulating immigration, and in the future it is planned to create mechanisms for such coordination in relation to immigration from third countries. General principles of humanitarian migration (reception of refugees and persons seeking political asylum) have been developed and are being applied. Within the EU, active monitoring of labor and humanitarian migration is carried out, and centers for studying the problems of immigration and integration have been created. Their main task is to provide support for the implementation of common European principles of anti-discrimination legislation and, within these principles, fair (fair) attitudes towards non-citizens.
However, the choice of priorities in pursuing such a policy and regulatory model remains with the national state. In receiving countries, there has been a convergence of legislation regulating the entry of migrants and mechanisms for their inclusion in the national labor market. The ideas of quotas for the influx of skilled labor and, especially, stimulating “desired migration” are becoming increasingly popular. An exam is introduced on the language and basic history of the host country. Programs for the provision of housing and social services are being developed to prevent the isolation of migrants from national society. Most European countries include the solution to these problems in comprehensive social programs aimed at ensuring equal opportunities for access to the labor market. Therefore, especially great efforts are being made to involve migrant children in the primary and secondary education system.
The cultural heritage of the Muslim world is being popularized. The Western intellectual community has shown a strong interest in the works of people from the Islamic cultural tradition. Many of them bring fresh ideas and become new authorities in design, architecture, and cinema. Elements of the traditions of ethnic groups and communities from non-European countries have become an integral part of the modern cultural landscape and everyday life, and this happened primarily in the wake of migration flows. African culture inspired the development of plastic arts in the Old World at the end of the 19th century and retains its importance to this day. However, the African continent itself remains almost exclusively the target of targeted social programs. They are involved in their implementation through a system of network NPOs (Oxfam etc.) millions of citizens of Western countries.
Estimates of tax revenues from immigrants in recent years indicate a steady increase in their contribution to the national economy. As a report on taxes paid by immigrants to the UK Treasury notes, “migration can stimulate economic development, capital formation and more flexible labor market policies. On the other hand, without successful integration, many immigrants find themselves on the economic and social periphery of the host community. In addition, ", economic results are only part of the picture of the vast impact of immigration on a national community, and the dynamism and diversity that migrants bring cannot be measured statistically." Among the factors influencing the level and quality of regulation, the key was the recognition by all European countries of their actual status as countries of labor immigration, and of the immigrants themselves as a resource for development. Therefore, the primary task is to develop quantitative and qualitative assessments of the needs of the labor market and social institutions.
The historical nature of nation-building (“political” vs"ethnic" nation) still influences the choice of model for regulating immigration and integration. Countries of traditional immigration have consistently realized the dream of forging a new cultural identity in the melting pot of a civic nation. The experience of the colonial past also remains significant for the choice of model. In the development and application of multicultural strategies, continuity with the inherent focus on multiethnicity inherent in the imperial tradition is visible. Factors such as the presence of the problem of indigenous peoples and the level of ethno-national conflict in the host community also continue, although less than in previous decades, to affect the formation of integration models. The acceptance of religious and cultural diversity to a certain extent depends on the degree of institutionalization of relations between church and state. Where the state, as in France, does not interact in any way with traditional religion, it is not inclined to recognize the special rights of other religious communities. But where, as in Great Britain, such interaction is institutionalized and not overloaded with ideological and political discussions, communities of other cultures can receive recognition and targeted support.
In those countries where the above factors individually (or in combination) are significant, mechanisms for maintaining cultural diversity are included in state development strategies (multiculturalism) or are implicitly perceived as an important component of the development of the national community. However, in recent years, the ideas of multiculturalism have lost, at least in European countries, their former attractiveness. A complex of social problems remains unresolved, and the danger of growing alienation among the closed foreign cultural communities that have developed here remains. In addition, Western countries face the challenge of developing different approaches to different groups of immigrants and, accordingly, adjusting regulatory priorities. As is known, the recipients of multicultural practices have so far been migrants and their descendants who arrived in the country for permanent residence and work. The problems of refugees, temporary or illegal migration require a more differentiated approach and largely different solutions. The priority in this case becomes functional integration - mastering a set of knowledge and skills that allow newcomers to the country to independently provide for themselves. For EU countries, the problem of adapting to new conditions for citizens coming for temporary and permanent work from Central Europe is also acute. The problem is even more relevant in light of the prospect of further expansion of the European Union.
Integration policy models are currently undergoing revision or significant adjustment in all democratic countries receiving migrants without exception. The general direction of evolution is the emergence of a more goal-oriented and targeted regulatory policy in relation to specific groups of migrants. Multiculturalism remains relevant where it is adopted as public policy. But, regardless of whether such attitudes are declared at the level of state policy or implemented within the framework of specific social practices, the implementation of adaptation and integration programs for immigrants is increasingly delegated to local communities. It is through them that the implementation of the “unity in diversity” strategy is recognized as the most effective. Cooperation between local public organizations and groups of citizens with representatives of foreign cultural religious and ethnic groups is carried out within the framework of initiatives to promote national cultural heritage (joint holidays, festivals of ethnocultural traditions) and at the level of institutions of primary socialization. The financing of such institutions is used, among other things, as a means of control over their activities.
In a number of European countries (Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Spain) immigrants received the right to vote in local elections. Political participation is seen as one of the effective ways to stimulate sociocultural integration. At the same time, there is increasing understanding among representatives of local authorities, voluntary organizations, and religious communities that integration and maintenance of cultural diversity is a two-way street. Community representatives are encouraged to take on a significant share of the care and responsibility for their members and receive appropriate support from local authorities. With this formulation of the question, the right to cultural identity, freedom of speech and self-expression must be supported by a responsible and balanced attitude to the exercise of their rights by both the majority and representatives of ethnic minorities. Ultimately, integration as a “movement towards each other” changes both foreign and host communities.
In this sense, countering fundamentalist and extremist sentiments within foreign cultural religious communities, whose activities are organized in a “closed door” regime, remains a serious problem. Thus, more than a third of imams in France do not speak French, which creates essentially insurmountable obstacles to the development of intercultural dialogue. Orientation towards a moderate elite, rooted in the social structure of the host community, can, according to a number of experts, contribute to the development of interaction. Targeted support for institutions that adhere to so-called European Islam becomes a vitally important task. These are moderate variants of religious and cultural practices, the adherence to which not only does not cause a conflict of religious and civil identities, but also strengthens the ethical motivation of their interaction. The opportunity to teach Muslim schoolchildren the basics of religion and culture (this initiative is supported by the Vatican), publishing activities, interaction with religious institutions in countries oriented towards “average” Islam (such as Kuwait), and finally, the promotion of everyday experience and life strategies of those Muslims who have achieved success and are rooted in the host society. However, such measures cause a mixed reaction among that part of the Muslim community that strictly follows the letter of tradition.
In recent years, institutions have appeared in almost all Western countries that defend the interests of the Muslim community. They are integrated into the existing system of functional representation. The problem is that the people delegated to them do not always have unconditional authority among the Muslim population. Another way to involve members of other cultural communities in the system of political participation is the direct representation of ethnic minorities in legislative and party bodies (as in the Parliament and Labor Party of Great Britain or in the Parliament and other political bodies of New Zealand). In total, there are about 30 Muslim deputies in the parliaments of European countries today. Representatives of the Muslim community, who are primarily perceived as “foreign cultural” due to their religious “otherness,” are often included in such bodies as “dissidents” who disagree with prevailing ideas about the “inviolability of cultural traditions” (for example, in Holland). They defend the rights of members of their ethnocultural groups from the standpoint of Western democracy. This is met with harsh reactions, including death threats, from religious fundamentalists. Social adaptation and integration of immigrants does not remove the issue of countering extremist sentiments both within foreign cultural communities and on the far right political flank of Western countries.
The issue of creating a World Organization on Migration is being widely discussed. Since December 2003, the Global Commission on International Migration has been operating under the auspices of the UN, its task is to create a framework infrastructure for formulating a response to these problems. A potential means of solving them remains cooperation with countries that are donors of human resources. The effectiveness of interaction is determined primarily by the nature of the political regime of the state from which migration flows originate. Practices of interaction between local communities of receiving and sending countries are actively developing. For many first-generation migrants, the possibility of return leaves the potential freedom to make new life choices and improve their social status in their home country. Contacts are maintained with families left behind and opportunities are taken to introduce traditional values to children raised in the West. However, as experience shows, such a sharp change in socialization institutions can fuel religious fundamentalism.
At the individual level, the problem of “double” identity, that is, the rooting of its bearers simultaneously in traditional and host cultures, today is not solved exclusively within the framework of an alternative choice between incompatible life strategies. Such identity becomes a cultural norm, the result of cultural diffusion in the era of the information society (despite the fact that the idea of synthesis is not acceptable to all those who have to face such a dilemma). The development of modern means of communication creates transnational spaces beyond and beyond state borders. There is a need for new guidelines for individuals, groups, and national communities. The very task of conceptualizing such communities is a serious challenge for political science. Determining guidelines for national-civilizational identity and long-term development priorities therefore becomes relevant not only for Russia, but also for those countries that stood at the origins of modern European democracy. The problem is whether the European political and cultural tradition will be able to develop effective mechanisms for civilizational synthesis.
The question of the possibility of such a synthesis remains open. To what extent are developed countries ready to accept and integrate foreign cultural communities and groups, and to what extent are such groups themselves, primarily those from the Islamic world, ready to join the work of the social and political institutions of the West, which has provided its citizens with the highest standard of living in the world? How does the prospect of such inclusion relate to the expressed desire to preserve one’s own value and cultural orientations? And how is the fundamental question of the correlation between group identity and free individual choice resolved? How to compensate for the risks associated with globalization, including those caused by the movement of large-scale human flows? An assessment of the long-term prospects for the coexistence and interaction of cultural fields, which today give impetus to the development of “large regions” of the world economy, largely determines the responses to these and other challenges of globalization. The preservation and consolidation of civilizational identity, oriented towards the Christian tradition, remains the basis for ensuring the viability of the world to which Russia belongs.
But the modern “world of worlds”, which M. Gefter wrote about, requires constant and focused efforts to maintain. These problems cannot be solved only by means of political and legal regulation. Ultimately, a solution is possible only at the level of dialogue between cultures and bearers of cultural traditions.
Sriskandarajah D., Cooky L., Reed H. Paying their way. The fiscal contribution of immigrants in the UK. L., 2005. P. 12. In 1999-2000. The contribution of immigrants to the total volume of tax revenues to the budget amounted to 8.8%, in 2003-2004 - already 10%, and the growth rate of revenues from them was almost four times higher than the corresponding indicators for the British.
See: Commission of the European Communities. Communication on Immigration, Integration and Employment. Brussels, Com (2003) 336.
Cm.: Ramadan T. Western Muslims and the Future of Islam. Oxford, 2004.
Cm.: Bundeszentrale für Politishe Bildung (www.bpb.ac)
The concept of suffrage and the essence of elections. Elections are carried out at various levels of society: in public organizations their leadership is elected, in joint-stock companies - a board of directors or other body, in cooperatives - boards, etc. Many government bodies are also elected at the center (parliaments or at least their lower houses, presidents), and local government bodies - councils, mayors, etc. - are elected locally. Most bodies elected by citizens are called generally representative. In the rarest of cases, a prime minister is elected directly by citizens: in 1996, such elections were held for the first time in Israel. Elections are the most important instrument for the legitimacy of state power; they ensure the selection of the political elite and are one of the defining characteristics of state life and the state regime.
Elections of state bodies and state officials are: general (throughout the entire territory of the state) and regional;
regular (within a specified period) and extraordinary, repeated (if the elections are declared invalid), etc.
Direct and indirect elections. Direct elections are the direct election by citizens of their representatives to state bodies, individual officials (for example, the president). Almost always (with the exception of, for example, the Kingdom of Bhutan), deputies of the lower house of parliament, unicameral parliament, lower local government bodies (community councils), and other local government bodies are elected by direct elections. However, in this case there are exceptions. In some Muslim countries (Bangladesh, Pakistan), a certain number of women deputies to the lower house are elected by the parliament itself, and in a unicameral parliament there may be a small number of deputies appointed by the president from among the country's prominent citizens (for example, up to 10 people in Egypt). In many countries, the upper houses of parliaments (Brazil, the USA, etc.), presidents (Mexico, France, etc.), the lower houses of legislative assemblies or unicameral assemblies in federal subjects and autonomous entities are elected by direct elections. In the only country, Israel, since 1996, a prime minister has been elected by direct elections.
At the same time, many higher state bodies and officials, including in democratic countries, are elected by indirect elections. In theory, direct elections are more democratic, but indirect elections may be more appropriate if they provide a more professional, balanced approach to filling such high positions v officials influencing the life of the country. Therefore, the question of using one or another election system is a question of expediency, related to the specific conditions of the country, its history, and national specifics.
There are two types of indirect elections: indirect and multi-degree (they are sometimes called multi-stage). Indirect elections have two options. In the first option, elections are held by an electoral college specially created for this purpose. An example of this is the election of the US President, when voters vote for electors from one party or another, and then the electors, having gathered in their state capitals, vote for a previously announced presidential candidate from one party or another. State electoral votes are summed up in Washington, the capital of the United States. A similar procedure exists in Argentina; until the 90s it was used with certain amendments in unitary Finland. The Senate in France is elected by indirect elections, where candidates vote for: a) members of the lower house of parliament elected from a given department - an administrative-territorial unit; b) members of councils - local government bodies of the region - the largest administrative-territorial unit; c) members of the general councils of departments; d) their members specially elected for such voting by municipal councils. The upper house of parliament in India, the president in Germany, etc. are also elected by indirect elections. In the second option, elections are held not by a specially created electoral college, but by a permanent body. The most clear example of this is the election of presidents by parliaments in Greece, Turkey and other countries.
On October 16, a HSE seminar was held.A junior researcher at the HSE Center for Civil Society and Non-Profit Sector Studies gave a presentation on this topic. According to her, as noted in the literature, the first international observation of elections was recorded in 1857, when the European Commission, represented by representatives from Austria, Britain, France, Russia and other countries, observed the elections taking place in the disputed territory of Moldova and Wallachia (now the south Romania). Until the mid-20th century, observer participation was not active. The increase occurred in 1989-1990; by 2004, the percentage of elections held with the participation of international observers reached 85%.
The first national election observers appeared in 1984 in the Philippines. Then it was possible to involve more than 200 thousand residents of the archipelago in the observations.
In Russia, the concept of “election observer” was introduced in the 1990s; non-partisan observation organizations appeared in the 2000s, in particular the Golos Association. However, already in 2005, the election legislation was adjusted and public organizations lost the opportunity to appoint their observers at federal level elections.
Thus, the participation of citizens in elections as observers was not a new event for our country; what was new was the scale: in March 2012, hundreds of thousands of people became observers during the presidential elections. This led to the emergence of new observer organizations and a trend towards long-term observation, which was manifested, for example, in the creation of the “Map of Violations” during elections.
Despite the massive scale, the activities of the observers were not chaotic. The inclusion of citizens in the observer movement was coordinated by new public organizations that emerged from below. They distributed campaign videos aimed at attracting citizens to voluntary and unpaid election observation activities; provided training on the legal basis of observer activities; developed methodological instructions on the norms of election legislation. “Mobile assistance groups” and a “hot” telephone line were created, and parallel vote counting technology was used for the first time in Russia.
Subsequently, the movement of election observers began to transform: each of the existing public associations of observers (Golos, Citizen Observer, SONAR, RosVybory) acquired its own unique functions; a territorial division of responsibility appeared among movement participants.
Such dynamism and organization of the movement of observers contributed to attracting people. The activists' repertoire of actions has also expanded. In particular, the practice of “electoral tourism” has become widespread. In addition, many public observers during the formation of election commissions became members of them. In general, Yulia Skokova stated, Russia has created very favorable conditions for citizens to participate in elections as observers.
According to the speaker, such citizen activity can be considered a social movement: a significant number of people participate in it, it is well organized, and its activities are associated with an attempt to influence certain aspects of society.
The report presented the results of surveys of election observers conducted by the Center for Research on Civil Society and the Non-Profit Sector of the Higher School of Economics in 2012-2013. The survey was conducted online with preliminary consultation with observers on the content of the questionnaire.
As a result of the survey, it was possible to create a “portrait” of a typical observer: 79% of respondents are between the ages of 18 and 45, with more men (68%); These are mainly people with higher education (71%) from the field of IT (20%), science (11%), education (7%). According to Yulia Skokova, representatives of these industries work with information, and therefore more often encountered information about violations during voting or vote counting, which largely influenced their decision to become observers.It is also characteristic that 47% of the observers surveyed are not members or supporters of any political parties. In this sense, it is interesting that de jure there have been no public observers since 2005, but de facto they exist: organizations negotiate with parties and receive referrals to polling stations from them.
Observers are highly informed and take part in the activities of various civil society institutions. Most often, they participate in the activities of charitable organizations (21%), HOAs/housing cooperatives (16%), various interest clubs (15%), environmental organizations (10%) and others. A significant portion of respondents took part in volunteer activities (85%) and charity (82%) over the past year.
Civic feelings are not alien to them either: 88% of respondents feel like citizens of the country, while 50% feel offended by what is happening in the country. Apparently, it was this and the combination of a high sense of responsibility for what is happening in the country (62%) and a fairly low sense of the ability to change something in it (30%) that influenced the formation of a desire in 44% of observers to leave the country: 21% would like to leave the country in the near future, 18% - in the distant future.
As Yulia Skokova said, the respondents decided to become observers for various reasons, but the main one was disagreement with the voting results in the previous elections (69%). The desire to make sure that elections are held fairly (64%) and the sense of civic duty to prevent election fraud (58%) are also high. Moreover, the desire to make sure that the elections are held fairly and the opposite option - to prevent violation of the law - coincide for 36% of observers. Few are those who first became observers of company with someone.
As for the prospects for citizens' participation in election observation activities, 68% of survey participants are ready to become observers again under any conditions. “It is important to maintain this desire. However, to do this, we need to look for answers to quite complex questions: How to attract observers in the regions? How to maintain interest in such activities? How to make surveillance effective?” the author of the report emphasized.
The social significance of the observer movement lies in the fact that the integrity of the election procedure increases, democracy and civil society develop, skills of public self-organization develop, the legal literacy of the population increases, and a positive image is formed for the election procedure, Yulia Skokova is sure.
After the report, a discussion took place at the seminar about the prospects for the development of the observer movement. Answering a question from Elena Petrenko, Research Director of the Public Opinion Foundation, about whether it is possible to formalize this practice into a social institution, Yulia Skokova turned to foreign experience. According to her, as a rule, observer movements gradually transformed into institutions. And in the case of Russia, we are talking, apparently, about the initial stage of institutionalization.
Leading researcher at the HSE Center for Civil Society and Non-Profit Sector Studies Vladimir Benevolensky drew attention to the fact that in many countries of the so-called developed democracies there are no observer movements. “Neither France, nor Great Britain, nor many other countries are marked on the map of the spread of movements. What could this mean?” the researcher asked. According to the author of the report, the practice of internal (national) election observation is widespread in developing countries. This is evidenced by the literature on this issue. Perhaps citizens in developed countries have more confidence in the electoral system. True, it was the developed countries that supported the observer movements in countries that were becoming democracies.
Director of the Center for Research on Civil Society and the Non-Profit Sector at the Higher School of Economics, Irina Mersiyanova, suggested that over time, for various reasons, a gap may arise between ordinary observers and organizers of observations, as often happens in voluntary organizations. However, according to representatives of the observer movement present at the seminar, the “caste of professional observers” has not emerged; a large amount of work is still carried out exclusively on a voluntary basis.
Representative of the interregional public movement of observers “SONAR” Dmitry Nesterov expressed concern that the observer movement (as a mass movement) could come to naught due to the loss of the initially defining protest motivation. “If it disappears, the activity of citizens in matters of observation during elections will gradually be reduced to a minimum,” he believes. According to Elena Petrenko, the observer movement is “one of the manifestations of a developing civil society”; Just as people organized themselves to fight fires and eliminate the consequences of floods, Russians began to participate in election observation. Time will tell what will happen to the movement of observers next.
Vladimir Ivanov, especially for the news service of the HSE portal
Photo by Nikita Benzoruk
In many countries, national separatism has become a real threat to their integrity. As an example, we can cite the long-term conflict in Ulster (Northern Ireland), but in addition to national contradictions, there is also a religious confrontation between the Catholic Irish and the Protestant English. When trying to resolve this conflict by force, the British authorities encountered resistance from Irish terrorists. The largest group is the IRA - Irish Republican Army. Particularly high-profile terrorist attacks took place in Great Britain in the 1980s and 90s. And police and military forces were introduced into Northern Ireland. Belfast turned into a front-line city. However, it was not possible to break the resistance of the separatist groups and in the end both sides had to sit down at the negotiating table. Until now, a solution that would suit both sides has not been worked out. However, the terrorist attacks stopped. Equally complex relations developed between the Spanish government and the Basques, a people living in northern Spain. There, too, due to the ineffectiveness of other methods of influencing the central authorities, the formation of terrorist organizations began. The most famous of them - ETA - continues to carry out terrorist attacks to this day. In addition to openly gangster groups, there are many others in Spain, whose demands are very diverse: from national or cultural and linguistic autonomy to independence. During Franco's reign, all attempts at national or linguistic isolation were suppressed. They are not welcome even now. Therefore, I do not consider Spain's national policy to be correct. If the country is multilingual, this should always be taken into account. Therefore, in Canada, the government made numerous concessions to the French-speaking province of Quebec when demands for sovereignty began there. As a result, Quebec remained part of Canada, and now this problem has practically been resolved: the majority of residents of the province now speak out for the unity of the country. However, separatist sentiments are still not uncommon there.
The US national policy can also be considered successful. Since the 50-60s. there was an intense struggle for racial equality. And today, at least, it was possible to remove the open confrontation between white and colored Americans. And the unrest on this basis generally stopped, groups like the “Black Panthers” became a thing of the past; however, there was no assimilation of national diasporas living quite separately. Therefore, it would still be incorrect to say that “American” is a nationality. Native Americans - Indian tribes - still live on reservations, and living conditions there are by no means the best. This issue most likely requires a slightly different solution than assimilation. With the collapse of the socialist camp, all previously suppressed interethnic contradictions broke through. As a result, the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia collapsed. But if in Czechoslovakia the “divorce” took place peacefully, then the SFRY was plunged into civil war for many years. The former republics of the Soviet Union, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Ingushetia, Karabakh, Transnistria, Fergana, Osh, and Uzgen were not spared interethnic armed conflicts.
Strangely enough, the supranational United Nations Organization was guided in its actions by the correct national policy. It was its armed units that stood between the conflicting parties and thus forced them to sit down at the negotiating table. Unfortunately, in the last Balkan conflict, NATO forces took only one side in the interethnic confrontation in Kosovo. As a result, a powerful bomb has been planted under the European security system. A hotbed of terrorism has been created almost in the center of Europe, and so far even heavy weapons have not been taken away from the UCH militants. In general, the situation there is developing according to the Chechen scenario and what will happen next is unknown.
The problem of the Kurds stands apart. This nation does not have its own state, although there are more than a million people living mainly in Turkey, Iraq and Iran. None of these states wants to not only give up part of their land for the creation of an independent Kurdistan, but also (for example, in Turkey and Iraq) prohibits speaking the Kurdish language. As a result, the Kurds have been waging a guerrilla war with all three states for decades and have not stopped carrying out terrorist acts. True, the UN pays too little attention to this problem. And these countries are pursuing a national policy aimed, as it seems to me, at the disappearance of the people (dispersing them around the world and exterminating those who do not agree to assimilate). Afghanistan also stands out because its aggressive national politics is intertwined with the use of Islamic fundamentalism as a state ideology. And the civil war there could last for many more years. It is very difficult to find any acceptable or feasible solution here.
5 0 1782
The procedure for presidential elections in the United States has existed for more than two centuries, but it is so confusing that Americans themselves sometimes do not understand it.
Elections are indirect and take place in two stages. By checking the box next to a presidential candidate, citizens are actually voting for electors who will represent their state and will in turn elect the president.
Despite the fact that the Electoral College is supposed to meet in December, in fact the president will be determined on election day, that is, today, he will be the one for whom the majority of electors voted.
Over the past month, presidential elections were held in Moldova, Lebanon, Bulgaria, as well as in a number of other states as part of general elections, for example, in Nicaragua.
How are elections going in these countries, including those that have already ended in the United States?
So, if you are a Moldovan citizen, then for the first time in the last 20 years you have the opportunity to choose a president.
The elections are direct, the head of state is elected by a majority of votes. Voting is held on weekends. To vote, you must present your passport. You will be able to vote if you are abroad and even in unrecognized Transnistria. The voting will be monitored by local as well as international observers, including those abroad.
In Lebanon, the president is elected by parliament, so nothing depends on you, as a citizen of this country. This, by the way, led to the fact that the deputies could not come to a common decision for 2 years. Let me remind you that a similar situation has developed in Moldova, where, starting in 2009, parliamentarians were unable to elect a president for almost 3 years.
If you are a Bulgarian citizen, then you have to choose the president by voting for him in direct elections. You can also downvote everyone.
By the way, in the history of modern Bulgaria, direct presidential elections have been held since 1992, but this year they became mandatory for the first time. Polling stations are open both in Bulgaria and abroad. Voting also takes place on weekends upon presentation of a passport. International and local observers are monitoring the election process.
In Nicaragua, the president is elected by a majority of votes in direct elections. At the same time, restrictions on the terms of the presidential re-election have been lifted (which became the main basis for accusations that the elections were undemocratic). The elections take place over the weekend. Their progress is being monitored not only by local, but also by international observers (although Euronews claims the opposite, pointing to the US threat to stop financial support for the country if the principles of democracy are violated).
If you are an American, you can vote using any document that shows your last name and first name (even a badge without a photo will do), you can also do it anywhere in the country or via email. Elections are not held on a day off; however, as citizens themselves note, everyone is released from work. At the same time, the United States is indifferent to the fact that international observers do not come to them. More precisely, they come, but they can visit a limited number of states.
Of course, every country has the right to self-determination in choosing an electoral system. Therefore, the comparison presented in the article is rather conditional.
However, in reality it turns out that in a country that considers itself “the most democratic country in the world” and often criticizes others, in reality the principles of democracy are not always observed. For example, the US presidential election system has already failed four times, resulting in the candidate with the most votes not winning. However, there are no significant changes in the electoral system.
Also interesting in this light is the US refusal to invite Russian observers to the elections, which was followed by a warning of criminal prosecution if Russian diplomats appeared at polling stations. On the other hand, the theme of the “Russian threat” ran like a red thread throughout the entire election campaign, becoming especially heated in its finale. The image of an external enemy always brings people together, but, most importantly, distracts from internal problems, for example, growing unemployment in a number of states.
Alla Buchkova, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science and Sociology, Russian Economic University. G.V. Plekhanova, Candidate of Sociological Sciences
