Deliberative Democracy is the Answer

Multiculturalism, Secularism and Politics of Veiling

by Tamanna Khosla

Multiculturalism has taken a back-seat in Europe, especially after the London bombings as well as the killing of Theo Van Gogh and the Madrid bombings. The two major countries where multicultural policies are part of the government policies, the United Kingdom and Holland, are putting it into question in its many different aspects. In England, the veil issue has become public and many people are pushing for some legislation in order to prohibit the use of the veil in public places or government bodies. In Holland, the most restrictive law in jurisprudence is being discussed and, if approved, the veil will become illegal in the public sphere. In Belgium, Germany and Switzerland, the veil is more and more seen as a sign of rejection of citizenship and in many German Länders and Switzerland, female teachers cannot wear a scarf at school. In France, the veil is practically banned not only at government schools (école publique), but also in the public administration. There is a suspicious attitude on the part of many politicians which is the consequence of the European societies’ increasing stiffness towards the Islamic identity.

This is largely because Europe has been at the forefront of the movement for secularism since the early ages. And the issue of distinction between the church and state is a perspective which is at the centre-stage in Europe in recent times.
However, no problem is seen with the veil in India. On the contrary, it is viewed as a sign of burgeoning multiculturalism. In India secularism means equal respect for all cultures and therefore it is unlike the Western definition of secularism as a distinction between the church and the state. Thus all people following different cultural practices are respected in this country.

For Muslim women, the purdah practice involves less emphasis on veiling from in-laws and more emphasis on protecting women from contact with strangers outside the sphere of kinship. Traditional Muslim women and even unmarried girls, however, often refrain from appearing in public, or if they do go out, they wear an all-covering garment known as a burqa, with a full face cover. A burqa protects a woman—and her family—from undue familiarity with unknown outsiders, thus emphasising the unity of the family vis-à-vis the outside world. Because Muslim women are entitled to a share in the family’s real estate, controlling their relationships with males outside the family can be crucial to the maintenance of family property and prestige. The rules of Hindu and Muslim purdah differ in certain key ways, but female modesty and decorum as well as concepts of family honour are essential to the various forms of purdah. In most areas, purdah restrictions are stronger for women of high-status families.

The Indian model was based on two ideas:

a) To begin with the Constitution established differences in the public sphere. (that is, multi-culturalism).

b) This was to slowly and gradually graduate towards greater uniformity in the public sphere (more effective secularism and Uniform Civil Code).

On the other hand, Western democracies were based on:

a) First a difference-free, neutral,uniform, secular public sphere was sought to be established, where ascriptive identity of the individual citizen did not matter. This was when enligh-tenment principles got shaped (that is, secularism).

b) Slowly, with the realisation that the unifor-mity created out of ‘indifference to the difference model’ led to several exclusions within the society, the need was felt to accommodate these sections. So while some were as a result assi-milated, others were granted special rights. Thus once the enlightenment project was completed, the principles of pluralism, diversity and multiculturalism got accommodated in society.1

So what in effect happened was that first the parameters of a modern state and a society based on the principles of enlightenment were fought for and laid. Once the goal of establishing such a society was achieved, issues of difference and diversity were addressed. One of the prominent principles on which the enlightenment project stood was the need for a scientific approach, belief in human reasoning and, above all, separation of the church from the state. The power of religion and aristocracy diminished gradually in England, and in France the two were violently uprooted. Prominent philosophers of our time, Derrida and Habermas, write that the project of enlightenment that promoted separation between the religious and the political has yet to be completed. The philoso-phical experience of Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries has left in the European political space the original marks with regard to the religious: they both identify Europe as the only secular actor on the world stage.2 Both thinkers place their hopes in the “new figure of Europe” and the inherent possibility of discourse and politics different from the current American rhetoric on Islamic fundamentalism, Europe being a “way out of this double theologico-political pro-gramme”.3 According to Derrida, the responsi-bility is to prevent a “return of the religious” and promote the Enlightenment spirit. Habermas and Derrida call upon Europe to finish the incomplete project of Enlightenment.4

But in India due to a consistant multicultural policy veiling is not an issue. So the West needs to learn from the Indian experience and try to integrate its outside population, while India needs to learn to do away with religious fundamen-talism and extremism of all kinds.

The Solution: The Need for Deliberative Democracy to resolve Tension between Secularism and Multiculturalism

But what the world right now seeks is a new type of public policy that encourages interfaith dialogue in order to fight against radicalisation and the constitution of enclaves.

“The major problem in most European societies is that secularisation is becoming so dominant that ‘interfaith dialogue’ seems to lose much of its significance. Instead, some kind of ‘democratic dialogue with Islam’ should set in.”5 The delibera-tive democracy model assumes a heterogeneous public and the democratic process involves primarily a discussion of problems, conflicts and claims of needs or interests. Thus any conflict between women’s rights and claims of culture can be resolved using this model. According to Monique Deveaux, “the best way to resolve tensions between traditional cultural practices and liberal principles in socially, plural, democratic states is to defend and strengthen deliberation and decision-making practices that reflect a radical principle of democratic legitimacy”.6 Taking the example of women she states that an approach to mediating disputes about the value and status of cultural practices will require that women members of cultural groups have a direct say in these matters, through the expansion of sites of democratic contestation and the inclusion of women in formal decision-making. The theory of deliberative democracy offers for women and disadvantaged sections a robust, egalitarian model of power-sharing in public deliberation and decision-making. It also provides a political framework for democratic and respectful resolution of both inter- and intra-cultural conflicts in socially plural, liberal demo-cratic states. According to Seyla Benhabib, the strength of deliberative democracy consists in its dual-track approach to politics. This dual-track approach on the one hand focuses on established institutions, like the legislature and the judiciary in liberal-democratic societies; on the other hand, the political activities and struggles of social movements, associations, and groups in civil society are brought sharply into focus through the theory of democratic public sphere. In contrast to other models of democracy, the model of deliberative democracy emphasises on the ‘need for inclusive decision-making’ which can contribute towards ‘more just and political judgment’.7

Amy Gutmann’s deliberative universalism advocates that conflicts are best addressed and provisionally resolved by actual deliberation: the give-and-take of arguments, that is respectful of reasonable differences.8 It advocates the need for openness of politics to all reasonable people and perspectives, providing especially to margina-lised groups like women and minorities access to deliberate on forums and admitting all reasonable arguments on to the political agenda for decision-making purposes. Our moral understanding of many-sided issues like legalising abortion, female genital mutilation, polygamy is furthered by discussion with people with whom we respect-fully disagree especially when these people have cultural identities different from our own. In policy matters deliberative processes produce preferences which are more emphatic, better informed as also more considered and more far-reaching in approach.9 In contrast to other models of democracy, a model of deliberative democracy stresses the ‘need for inclusive decision-making’ which can contribute towards a ‘more just and political judgment’.10
Young cites four normative ideals for the deliberating parties:11

a) Inclusion—A deliberative model presupposes the need for those affected to be included in the process of decision-making. However, this also raises the question of how inclusion needs to come about in large democracies.12

b) Equality—People should not only be included in decision-making but also included on equal terms. All ought to have equal effective oppor-tunity to question one another and to question and criticise one another’s proposals. The ideal model of deliberative democracy is that it promotes free and equal opportunity to speak.13

c) Reasonableness—The principle of reasonable-ness requires the willingness to listen to others who want to explain to them why their ideas are incorrect or inappropriate. Reasonable people enter into discussion to solve collective problems with the aim of reaching agreements. Reasonable people understand that dissent often produces insights and that decisions and agreements should in principle be open to new challenges.14

d) Publicity and Accountability—The public consists of a plurality of different individuals and collective experiences, histories, commit-ments, ideals, interests and goals discussing a set of problems under a set of procedures. When members of such a public speak to each other they know that they are accountable to the plurality of others. Thus they must explain their particular background experiences, interests or proposals in ways that others can understand.15
Thus any conflict between cultural diversity and gender equality can be resolved by this model. However, deliberation may work in certain societies at certain times over certain issues. This might however not work for all societies. Deaveux suggests an example in England of how deliberation worked in that country with a committee comprising various racial, ethnic and religious communities being formed.16 The fact, however, remains that a lot depends not only on the relations between the state and minorities but also between minorities and within minorities. These three would determine the outcome of a deliberative procedure. The nature of a problem too determines its outcome. So the success of a certain process of deliberation in a certain context cannot lead to any generalisation about the overall success of the procedure as suggested by some theorists.
Therefore there are certain conditions which are essential to make deliberative procedures in a democracy successful:

a) No deliberation procedure can succeed till a certain level of trust and mutual respect is established between groups, within groups and between the state and groups. A society needs to fulfil the conditions of ‘minimal decency’. No group should be in a more advantageous position. A balance of power should exist between the deliberating parties. Deliberation for groups is not possible from a position of inequality.

b) Deliberation also works depending on the group in question. While with some groups mediation might be a relatively easier task, with others, due to hostilities shared with the society at large, reaching the stage of negotiation might be a tough option. So deliberation is a complex process. The right confidence-building measures need to be initiated by the parties in power that decrease hostilities between the deliberating parties. Otherwise any policy which is not conceived properly might increase hostilities between groups. This is because mediation is being brought about on terms of the majority, rather than the minority. So the right political will to resolving the issue with involvement of the civil society is a must in cases where there are past incidents of hostility. An ill-conceived policy might increase suspicion and hostilities between groups, which might only increase polarisation.

Therefore all these conditions need to be met if multiculturalism and secularism are to coexist in a healthy manner in present polities.The issue of veiling, which has plagued Europe presently, must be seen in this light. A dialogical society which envisages coexistence between multiculturalism and secularism can work out a solution to the problem.

Endnotes

1. Thus while thinkers like Herder criticised the enlighten-ment homogenising project, enlightenment was followd by pluralism, which then together worked in the West. Both the enlightenment project and pluralism project worked together.
2. See Giovanna Borradori, Philosophy in the Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003.
4. Ibid.
5. Farhad Khosrokhavar, ‘Multiculturalism In Europe’, http://www.ces.fas.harvard.edu/conferences/muslims/Khosrokhavar.pdf, accessed on March 1, 2012.
6. MoniqueDeveaux, ‘A Deliberative Approach to Conflicts of Culture’ in Re-examining multicultural Frameworks of Accomodation, in Minorities within Minorities, Equality, Rights and Diversity, (ed.) A. Eisenberg and Jeff Spinner Halev, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 102.
7. Iris Young, Inclusion and Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 31.
8. Amy Gutmann, ‘The Challenge of Multiculturalism in Ethics’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 22-23, Summer 1993.
9. Robert E. Goodin, ‘Democratic Deliberation Within’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 1.29, No. 1, 2000.
10. Young, ‘Inclusion and Democracy’, p. 31.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. See Monique Deaveux, ‘A Deliberative Approach’, p. 103.

Dr Tamanna Khosla did her Ph.D from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi on multiculturalism and feminism. She is now working with Women in Security, Conflict Management and Peace (WISCOMP).