The long-standing patterns of illegal immigration into Barbados, and the recent declaration of an amnesty policy, have drawn colourful debate. However, this issue is actually composed of two separate issues. On the one hand there is immigration law (Whom does it affect? How illegal is it? What should legislative response be?), and on the other hand there is ethnic heterogeneity itself – multiculturalism – and the risks that may be involved in opening national doors to people who may import alien and potentially destabilizing beliefs and preconceptions.

The hypothetical argument, “we must stand unflinchingly by our immigration laws, because an influx of immigrants can degrade the social order” is typical, and relies on assumptions about multicultural society. Yet, in the debate surrounding CARICOM migration, the notion of multiculturalism itself is rarely analyzed for what it is, or what it can be. Therefore, this article will offer a brief focus on ethnic diversity itself, and examine the major worries associated with it. It will be up to the reader to determine whether or not this insight is valuable to contemporary CARICOM issues, but given how frequently multiculturalism appears in the discourse, it seems prudent to attempt a discussion.

Those who wish to prevent ethnic heterogeneity (or at least, curb it) are generally concerned with two major points. The first is that distinct racial, ethnic, or cultural minorities can radically alter political landscapes. One such altered landscape is known as consociationalism, wherein ethnic or racial groups are guaranteed by law to have political representation.

Apart from consociational power-sharing arrangements, ethnically diverse societies can also witness the rise of special interest political parties which split votes and form coalitions, or they may also witness the rise of powerful lobby groups that manipulate government decision makers. Across each of these configurations, the common worry is that minority populations are using their collective influence to direct state resources to their own particular preferences. Each of these resonates unpleasantly with long-time residents of a nation, who may feel that state resources spent in the interest of specific groups are not being spent towards the national good.

The second concern harboured by multiculturalism’s critics is that it may degrade social cohesion. Areas which house multiple racial, ethnic, or cultural groups frequently see “ghettoization” – the involuntary or voluntary marginalization of one group as it establishes a community distinct from the rest of the country, creating strong social cleavages. For example, Chinese residents of an especially well established “Chinatown” may find themselves having no need to learn the country’s official language, as Mandarin employment and social network opportunities are just down the street. The concern is that such segregation makes it difficult for different groups to coexist, leading to social instability, even violence.

Ultimately, both the concern that multiculturalism damages a political landscape and the concern that multiculturalism leads to volatile social conditions boil down to the question of integration. Integration is the willingness of one group to adopt the norms, customs, and lifestyle of a majority group or dominant other. If integration is occurring far and wide, ethnic minorities will not seek the political power necessary to preserve their old way of life. Likewise, if integration is occurring, members of an ethnic group will intersperse naturally with the rest of the population, rather than form racial or ethnic “ghettos.”

In order to fear for the well-being of political or social order when faced with multiculturalism, one must assume that integration, for one reason or another, is unlikely. However, it turns out that integration is not as difficult or unpopular as one might expect.

According to research, more often than not host countries and ethnic majorities have supported integration, and newcomers have proven willing. The groups that refuse to integrate are almost exclusively those which have a history of self governance in the region, or have religious imperatives for isolating themselves. For example, Aboriginals and French Canadians each have a history of self governance in Canada and are the only ethnic groups to grapple politically with the national government. All things being equal, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that immigrants are unwilling to integrate into the culture of their new host country.

Still, what about when all things are not equal? One may remain unconvinced that integration and harmonious coexistence come easily, especially given that many countries suffer from deep ethnic divides. However, experience shows that hostilities between ‘ethnic group A’ and ‘racial group B’ rarely solidify unless they become politicized. This means that only when one group feels that, for example, the other is receiving preference from the government, or one’s own group is disproportionately targeted by law enforcement, do tensions truly grow and perpetuate themselves (Mahmood Mamdani recognizes the importance of this dynamic in his in-depth analysis of the Rwandan genocide).

Once ethnicity or race becomes, or is perceived to have become, hierarchical in its relation to the state, tensions strengthen to the point that they can dissolve social cohesion – but rarely before. It is difficult to find ethnic-based hostility in a country today that is not steeped in this politicization of identity, wherein groups complain of legal injustices, preferential treatment, penal imbalances, and so forth. It is not an inherent result of multiculturalism for cultures to breed hate and mistrust. Such tension emerges when political conditions create them.

So, perhaps multiculturalism itself carries little inherent risk of fragmentation and instability. Integration is a real option if the research is to be believed and cross-ethnic hostility is more the result of identity politicization than it is of different cultures mingling. Admittedly, this analysis is quite abstract and theoretical, while reality is more complicated.

Racism in a country can hinder integration, for example, even if immigrants are perfectly willing to assimilate. Nonetheless, those whose political opinions are influenced by conceptions of multicultural societies would do well to recognize that many problems associated with multicultural societies have little to do with ethnic diversity itself, and more to do with avoidable political pitfalls, such as the lack of government-provided integration assistance to immigrants. In this respect, this article’s brief discussion of multiculturalism may prove useful.

Zak Rose · Ottawa, Canada

Zachary Rose is a Canadian citizen with a Bachelor's degree from McGill University in Political Science, specializing in the developing world and international relations. Aside from politics, his passions include fencing, acting and directing for the theatre and cooking with woks.

zak@antillean.org