British Home Secretary Suella Braverman has come under fire because of her recent comments about the failure of multiculturalism in Britain. Even the leader of her party, Rishi Sunak, has distanced himself from her remarks. One notable criticism amid this campaign was made by Dr. Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, who did not mince her word, saying that the minister of Indian origin is hiding behind the color of her skin to spread her venom and racism.
In fact, this attack has blatantly racist undertones. It makes the assumption that the color of the minister’s skin obliges her to support particular ideas and notions. However, the minister spoke as a British citizen and an official serving the interests of her country as she sees them.
But what does the minister mean by "multiculturalism"? Why is it such a sensitive and explosive term? Has it truly failed? Is being isolated in the interest of immigrants, or would they be better off integrating into society and embracing a single culture?
Indeed, she was not the first prominent European official to make fiery remarks of this sort. Nevertheless, she may have been the first to articulate so clearly. Angela Merkel, for example, has spoken about the failures of multiculturalism; at the time, however, her statement was seen as a political ploy aimed at alleviating the pressure she had been under due to her support for policies that increased the number of immigrants arriving in Germany.
What Braverman means by "multicultural" is a society in which different communities that hold different values and concepts, and even speak different languages, live in parallel and isolated societies. This self-imposed isolation, voluntary seclusion, and the failure to integrate have given rise to domestic tension, and they undermine the security of the entire country and the future of its economy.
Discussing multiculturalism has become like broaching "religious dogmas" that must be unquestionably believed in. Indeed, broaching the topic leaves one in a minefield; it leaves the person who opened the discussion in danger of being labeled chauvinistic and racist. There is some truth here, since this matter is exploited by fanatical racists seeking to prevent refugees from certain cultures and religious backgrounds from coming to Europe and the US. However, the minister’s statements conveyed something entirely different.
What she advocates is a multi-communal society with similar and harmonious values that help them rise up the social ladder. That would help individuals integrate into a unified society instead of living in isolation and becoming obsessed with a sense of victimhood and persecution.
The recent clashes in France were a clear illustration of what the minister fears. We saw Paris burning, with shops and centers being vandalized and set aflame. It looked like a civil war had broken out between a segment of society and security forces.
Why did this happen? It happened because of the "multiculturalism" whose repercussions the minister was pointing to. It allows different communities to live parallel lives, feeding conspiracy theories and the illusion of police violence, thereby sparking clashes, just as lighting a matchstick in a room filled with gas sets it aflame.
"Multiculturalism" is a pleasant term, but it is harmful and toxic. It sums up all the barriers impeding the integration of youths into society and hindering them from building a bright future for themselves. They will feel marginalized by society, which they see as being against them. Extremists reinforce this sentiment and highlight cultural and religious differences, aggravating the youths’ isolation from and resentment towards the societies they were born into but now see as their enemies and blame for all their mistakes.
This also helps explain why young people left cities like London, Amsterdam, and Madrid to become ruthless killers in terrorist organizations like ISIS (let us remember "Jihadi John"). They did so because, mentally, they lived in a different, isolated cultural world. Had they been integrated into broader society from the start, they would have seen themselves as part of it instead of seeing it as a debased society they needed to purify and save themselves from.
Although the minister's rhetoric may be harsh, it is necessary. It is like the bitter medicine that a patient must take to heal. "Multiculturalism" has been experimented with for several decades now, and it has failed. It has harmed refugees and immigrants more than anyone else. It has isolated them and deprived them of a chance to succeed in the societies they had grown up or migrated to. Dazzling individual success stories do not mean that the communities they emerged from have been successful.
Nevertheless, many seek to maintain this state of affairs. Some do so with malicious intent; their aim is to control and trap these communities in a psychological prison, and to hinder their integration into the broader society, using the pretext of the need to preserve their identity. Others are well-intentioned and believe that multiculturalism is the most progressive way of life and that best suited for a developed society. Regardless of the intentions, the outcomes have been disappointing. Yet, the minister had the bravery to approach this mine although she had known that it would blow up in her face.
