SOCIAL COHESION AND TOLERANCE

VI. Policy Domains

In recent years a number of academics, public institutes and politicians have articulated the need for policy re-assessment and formulation concerning the integration of immigrants and ethnic minorities. The following section lists, by way of examples, a variety of policy areas and measures surrounding immigrants and social cohesion.

targeting disadvantage, inequality & discrimination

This heading broadly refers to egalitarian policies designed with the view not towards making people the same, but making sure people are not advantaged or disadvantaged in terms of treatment, opportunities or circumstances. Such policies are of at least three types (Spicker 1992): equality of treatment (removal of bias or unfairness, especially in access to services), equality of opportunity (ability to conduct themselves and compete on equal terms), and equality of result (concerned with the fair distribution of outcomes, rewards and privileges). Critics of these policies often point out that, however well-meaning and successful in the short-run, such policies still do not address actual questions of power.

Another area of policy under the above rubric concerns anti-discrimination. Again, the specific types of policies here are many (see Bauböck 1994a). They include monitoring in employment, housing and education; redressing laws and administrative practices which are themselves discriminatory; prohibiting racial discrimination and harassment; and programmes for fighting structural causes of social disintegration (especially in terms of housing and the labour market).

political integration

In keeping with the considerable re-thinking currently underway with regard to citizenship, civil society and political participation, Sophie Bessis (1995: 41) advocates that

In order to be meaningful once again, democracy needs to recreate itself by opening up to the ensemble of social actors, to develop new forms of partnership, to break with centralism, and to take into account the various possible levels of decision-making involving citizen participation.

A number of policy re-evaluations along these lines have been undertaken in recent years with specific reference to immigrants and ethnic minorities. For instance, in 1991 the Standing Conference of Regional Authorities of Europe [CLRAE] issued its Frankfurt Declaration entitled ‘Towards a New Municipal Policy for Multicultural Integration in Europe.’ This contains a section of policy recommendations under the heading ‘Effective participation by immigrants in local political life’ (see CLRAE 1992). The Frankfurt Declaration includes proposals that:

• immigrants must be involved in public enquiries and consultation;

• consultative councils should be set up within decision-making system of local authorities and these should be (a) staffed by persons either elected by immigrants or nominated by immigrants’ associations, and (b) organised by neighbourhood in larger cities;

• the right to vote in local elections should be extended to foreigners who have been resident for several years;

• procedures for gaining nationality should be facilitated and obstacles for multiple nationality should be removed.

 

These recommendations and others are being examined through comparative research in seventeen cities within the UNESCO-MOST project ‘Multicultural Policies and Modes of Citizenship in European Cities’ (see http://www.unesco.org/most).

social integration

Policy approaches promoting social integration are as broad and varied as the notion of integration itself. With specific regard to research and policy concerning immigrants, however, one example stands out. This is a recent, large-scale project concerning the relationship between ‘newcomers and established residents in U.S. communities.’ Sponsored by the Ford Foundation and entitled Changing Relations, the project made a series of policy recommendations which bear importantly on the present theme. The general message of these recommendations was that ‘Attention must focus on participation and membership, on opportunities to pursue shared concrete tasks, and on building organisations in local neighbourhoods.’ (Bach et al. 1993: 7-9; also see Bach 1993). Among the project’s conclusions and specific recommendations are the following:

• ‘the uniqueness of local combinations of groups require a renewed focus on community building. Grass-roots organising is a useful approach in promoting opportunities for interaction among groups at the local level. "Bottom-up" processes often work better than "top-down" ones. Leadership training for community members should be encouraged, particularly for teenagers and women, who have already forged interpersonal and intergroup relations in many communities.

• ‘Local activities should encourage participation and mobilisation across group lines. Attention should be focused on producing unified activities that require the energy of diverse people to reach a shared goal. It is not enough to simply try to negotiate group differences. These common projects should address community conditions, such as housing, education, and recreation.

• ‘Existing organisations are not necessarily responsive to the new demographic, social, and economic diversity in today’s communities. They should consciously seek ways to cross group boundaries and identify common projects. Re-examination of and innovation in membership and approach in all organisations are needed to build co-operation and encourage inclusion of diverse participants.

• ‘Established residents need more and better information about newcomers. Such information could be provided through creative use of community newspapers, library resources, and outreach programs.

• ‘Special events and public festivals can create a more tolerant tone in communities and are particularly effective when they involve face-to-face collaboration among groups in planning the events. Such efforts must lead to continued opportunities for inclusion and full participation. One-time efforts often exacerbate rather than resolve tensions.’

 

Within the framework of the Council of Europe, in 1983 the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) and the Council for Cultural Co-operation held a conference on ‘Town and Culture’ from which the Bremen Declaration ensued. This included recommendations that European local authorities should consider:

• providing premises for immigrants’ meetings;

• encouraging (financially and by way of infrastructure) the creation of ethnic associations;

• setting up neighbourhood information offices open to both indigenous and immigrant inhabitants;

• stimulating joint neighbourhood activities;

• including immigrants on consultative committees;

• facilitating the training of managers from immigrant populations for integration into

public office and services.

 

Recommendations of all these kinds have been summarized by Robert Bach (1993: 164) as involving the need to promote ‘active, conscious decisions to organize around common issues -- not just for the sake of integration but when diverse people perceive similar interests.’

cultural integration

In the afore-mentioned Bremen Declaration, the representatives of twenty-one local authorities urged that new, innovative measures must be promoted for developing all kinds of cultural activity, endorsing cultural diversity, and thereby strengthening ‘cultural democracy’ in European cities (CCC 1992a). One key section of the Bremen Declaration concerned ‘The Cultural Contribution of Populations of Foreign Origin’. This advocated:

a major reinforcement of local authorities’ actions to encourage acceptance of the multi-ethnic societies which several European cities have already become and derive therefrom all the enrichment which they can bring to the life of all their citizens.

European immigration countries have to recognise that they have become multi-ethnic societies. They must draw the legislative conclusions from this development in order to ensure and promote equal rights for all the people living in their territory.

Ethnic minority cultures must be supported so that the members of the ethnic minorities can live as equal partners in the host country and yet at the same time maintain contact with their country of origin....

The members of ethnic minorities should have free choice in deciding to what extent they wish to retain their native culture or develop it in the new social context...

In the wake of the Bremen Declaration, the Cultural Policy and Action Division of the Council of Europe outlined issues surrounding a major urban project late in 1992 (CCC 1992b) and launched the ‘Culture and Neighbourhoods’ project in 1993. Among many proposals for the project, its advisor, Franco Bianchini, advocates a highly localised research strategy underscoring direct control of cultural activities by residents and ‘crossover’ cultural forms (CCC 1993).

[Back] [Table of contents] [Forward]