As people become more relaxed and Irish society becomes more racially and ethnically mixed, a wider debate is needed on multiculturalism versus integration, suggests Rory Byrne
Not for the first time, the Irish public in their wisdom are leading the way, helping to create realities on the ground as our political leaders dither. As politicians seem uncertain about how best Ireland should integrate immigrants, many ordinary people are themselves taking the lead by opening their hearts to the new arrivals.
A survey published this week by the National Action Plan Against Racism says that race-related incidents are down sharply in Ireland over the last three years, while the number of people here who view Ireland as racist has dropped by almost 20 per cent.
While highlighting people's concerns about future levels of immigration, the report also points to a policy paralysis at Government level and found that almost half of those surveyed said that they were unsure of the Government's future plans regarding immigration policy.
This comes at a time when political leadership on the issues surrounding race in Ireland is needed - while we still have an opportunity to shape events as opposed to being shaped by them. Instead of just learning from our own mistakes later, we have the opportunity to learn from the mistakes and successes of our European neighbours now.
For 50 years, multiculturalism has been the dominant social policy across western Europe, with entirely separate ethnic or religious cultures allowed to develop independently alongside those of their hosts.
Today, while it might be too early yet to sound the death march for multiculturalism, there is a growing sense across Europe that it is not working. Events such as the 7/7 bombings by British Muslims in London, racial tensions in The Netherlands and race riots in France have exacerbated that feeling, leading many across Europe to label multiculturalism a disaster.
Putting the issue in context, it's important to note that European multiculturalism initially developed from political inertia rather than from design. Because western European states made little or no effort to properly integrate the first wave of immigrants who arrived in the years after the second World War, most of these people congregated together into ghettos that were later fed by new arrivals.
For their part, minority politicians fearful of diluting their support base have often done little to encourage immigrants to fully integrate. Turks in Germany and Algerians and Moroccans in Paris and Brussels, for example, still live together in ghettos largely isolated from their host societies.
While they may have been able to better preserve their cultures as a result, the endemic social ills that have ravaged these marginalised communities have been a heavy price to pay for all.
The problem with multiculturalism in Europe is that it built barriers between different communities, pitting them against each other rather than helping to create a new shared sense of identity. Minorities have retreated into tribal identities - demanding attention and resources for their particular patch.
But if the multicultural experiment has failed, is the alternative any better?
Conventional thinking says that we must choose between multiculturalism and integration. The integrationist argument supposes that a nation is strongest with just one dominant "national" identity. It implies that other cultures or traditions are a threat in that they risk diluting that identity. Ideological integrationists also assume that people can or will discard their inherited culture given the right circumstances, becoming "Irish", "British" or "French" rather than first being African, Asian or even Muslim.
And experience shows integration does happen, but only over generations. There are, of course, many non-white or mixed race Europeans identifying themselves simply as "French", "Spanish", "Italian" or whatever. Likewise, Europe is home to proud citizens of every religion and none.
But the enforced integration of first- or second-generation immigrants is a different matter, particularly when religious practice becomes an issue.
For example, when France banned the Islamic headscarf - the hijab - from its schools, many Muslim girls opted not to go to school or college, rather than go uncovered: it was an aspect of their identity that they were not willing to leave behind.
Remember enforced "integration" has also been used as a mask to conceal political oppression. In Spain, for example, Madrid has in the past used "integration" as a pretext to enforce its will on the Basques and Catalans, while in Turkey "integrationist" policies have been used as a tool to suppress political opponents and ethnic minorities, most notably the Kurds. The results are usually unhappy if not tragic. History has taught us that when states try to impose integration, it sends all the wrong signals.
And so, after 40 years of failure, maybe it's time to try a third way - somewhere between the coercive assimilationism of the nationalist right (which rejects any element of foreign culture) and multiculturalism (which rejects a common culture).
A new and thoroughly practical "inter-multicultural" approach that strikes a balance between the demands of social cohesiveness and respect for cultural identities might work. Placing more emphasis on what unites rather than on what divides us, it would seek to encourage communities to meet each other half-way. While immigrants should respect the host state's traditions and laws, they should also be encouraged to express themselves freely.
Given that multiethnic societies are here to stay, searching out ways to create communities that are confident and vibrant and that are at ease with, and even delight in, their diversity is really the only practical way forward.
Rory Byrne is a freelance journalist